Slashdot Mirror
Science Blogger Sued for Unfavorable Book Review
tigerhawkvok writes "Recently, new author Stuart Privar provided Professor PZ Meyers of Pharyngula a copy of his book, Lifecode, for review. Over the course of the review itself and a few follow-ups, it became evident that the content was nonsense (including, among other things, ten-legged spiders and other phenomena strongly at odds with developmental biology). However, the common threat of lawsuits finally became a reality, and now Privar is suing Myers for $15 million. Can calling someone a 'classic crackpot' in the face of such incorrect data have any chance at making it to court, or even winning the suit?"
Contrary to this "this is the first time this has happened!" tone of this article, religious nutballs (as this Picar guy appears to be), frauds, and crackpots actually have a long history of suing when someone challenges them. The Church of Scientology has sued many people. Uri Gellar sued James Randi and others. Crackpots sue all the time (that part of what makes them crackpots). Some, like this Pivar guy apparently, have the financial resources to use their lawsuits to harass (like the aforementioned Scientologists). It's just a sad reality, here in the U.S. anyway (where we have no "loser pays" lawsuit system).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Of course it could, probably will, and will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
If someone can be sued for their opinions... man I'm going to make a TON of money from my mother-in-law!
And they said zombies weren't real!
It should not be possible for suing a private individual for expression an opinion you solicited (byt sending a review copy of a book). Especially when you claim to be "revolutionizing" some field - even the breakthrough scientists got called crazy sometimes, so it should not be considered in any way slander or libel to discount someone's theory.
The Global Warming adherants to start sueing the people who deny Global Warming.
What was the question again?
Aha, I see the floodgates opening now:
1). Write ridiculously inaccurate book
2). Send it to a well-known, respected scientist for review
3). Wait for the scathing reviews to come in
4). Sue
5). Profit!
But, at the expense of respect. Hey, who needs respect when you have 15 million dollars?
The Pot Cracks YOU!!!!
John
And I'll proudly say it...anonymously.
If you look at the Amazon rating he's a solid 1 star based entirely on a 'scientists don't sue over disagreements'
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
many brilliant men have been called crackpots by their contemporaries but have ended up being exonerated by history.
however, on examination of the links from the article, this man looks like a crackpot with a capital C.
my fave quote from TFA: "To Mr Pivar, I would suggest a simple rule. Theories are supposed to explain observation and experiment. You don't come up with a theory first, and then invent the evidence to support it."
This may not be true in all cases, but people who actually know what they're talking about don't usually need the law to back up what they say.
The other case of this was "Dr" Gillian McKeith a "nutritionist" who sells a lot of books about how you should eat less chips and more salad. This is all very well, but of course it also includes a bunch of quakery about eating leaves so that their photosynthesis can oxegenate your gut. As the article I link points out, that wouldn't work too well unless you had a torch up your arse.
Naturally, McKeith is mighty litigious at people who point out that she bought her doctorate from the web.
Peter
What ever happened to civil debates? It seems like every time people are in a disagreement over something, they want to sue over it... instead, it would probably be a better solution for him to actually address the concerns of people who disagree with him. I highly doubt that this guy's beef is worth 15 million dollars anyways.
can sue everyone that thought the movie stank. Oh, even better, sue the people that didn't come and see the movie, after all because they didn't come and see what others had called a pile of rubbish!
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Seems like word gets around, already the book reviews are flooding in....my word, he has really not done himself any favors here - I sense another internet laughing stock in the making.
S elf-Organization/dp/0976406004
from: http://www.amazon.com/LifeCode-Theory-Biological-
I do not own this book. I do not propose to read it. My "rating" is based solely upon the fact that the author has chosen to sue a reviewer for "Injury - Assault, Libel, and Slander", because he didn't like the review. (Unlike the author, the reviewer is a professional biology professor who actually understands this subject.) No reputable scientist would react in this way - indeed the whole point of science is to prove things wrong! (As Richard Feynman wrote, "We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.") So caveat emptor...
A 164 page book for $60?
And from an author without any doctorate in the sciences he purports to write about? With a non-peer-reviewed 'theory'?
Don't waste your money.
The reviewer above wrote everything I intended to, but I just thought I would add my voice here. By sueing a critic of his theories, the author of this book threw away any claim he might have had to any kind of scientific credibility. A scientist might argue with his critics, but the fact that this author has instigated a lawsuit against someone for criticizing his theories suggests to me that even he is aware that said theories have no merits to argue.
The parent quoth:
Huh?
In the article I read, the author starts out like this:
How is that a "first time this has happened" tone? Or maybe you were reading a different article?
I really don't want to support Stuart Privar, but didn't Professor PZ Meyers made a mistake by accepting to review that book, apparently at the request of Stuart Privar or its publisher, without the security of a contract?
If a reviewer can be sued for an unfavorable review, can the poor suckers that go to the "Movie of the Year - five stars!" file a class action suit against the lame-o reviewer for their $7.50 + $1M in emotional anguish?
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
In true Slashdot fashion, I did not read the review, but I wanted to make the general point that the fact that it's a nutjob filing the lawsuit doesn't mean it's not a valid lawsuit. Libel and other such laws are often valid, and sometimes when discussing a particulary outlandish author's particularly outlandish claims it's easy to slip from lambasting the claims to lambasting the author. If this crosses the line to libel then a lawsuit might, under some circumstances, be warranted.
:)
I doubt that's the case here - but the answer to "Can calling someone a 'classic crackpot' in the face of such incorrect data have any chance at making it to court, or even winning the suit?" is in my opinion, "Yes, and it can sometimes be valid". I mean after all, that's what the court is for, to sort that sort of thing out and determine what's a valid complaint and what's not.
That said, I don't think the reviewer needs to get out his checkbook just yet
For no other reason than getting people to RTFR (RTF-review) because the 2 images alone will probably make whatever liquid substance you're drinking come shooting out your nose. Lets hope it's not scalding hot coffee. This is one link /. readers need to read. =)
Cheers,
Fozzy
"The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
As one article points out, the bar for libel is pretty high in the US, especially for public or semi-public figures. The author of the book has put themselves in the public view multiple times, for many different things. I'd expect it never makes it to court.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
When fiction is being tought in schools as a "valid theory"? No doubt about it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So, extending the idea, we should be seeing lawsuits from the following:
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
PZ Meyers is a tough but fair cookie. If the book is as bad as he claims I really see no judge in the land sending it to trial. The case is going to get laughed out of court if it even gets that far.
They only require a little patience, a couple extra spider legs, and some super glue.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
This is the kind of Kooksuit that gets tossed at the first hearing. The real issue for the court is whether to sanction the kook's lawyer for filing this action.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And now people are afraid to write a bad review of the review!
(1) No judge is going to deny himself the pleasure of hearing this case, even though it means sitting there trying to stop laughing. They're human too- they can do with a laugh
(20 It will be far more preventative to let it come to court and THEN blast it to kingdom come rather than throw it out and let other morons try again. Better suffer the pain (or amusement, see above) once and set a precedent. And it has the benefit of allowing the blogger to ask for costs, heightening that pain belonging to true education by fire.
So I think it'll get to court. No further, but I think it may get there.
Insert
Crackpot sues YOU!
This case obviously has no merit. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that libel in the United States is knowingly making incorrect factual statements. I.e. saying "John raped sue", when you know that not to be the case.
A value judgment like "this guy is a crackpot", or "the food at restaurant X is bad" is not libelous. Read the wikipedia article for a more in depth description.
AccountKiller
This prompted a poster on another blog I read to produce what I think is the best lolcat ever.
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
This is why you should put "in my opinion" in front of opinion based statements. Even if you put a general declaratory statement of "this is opinion not fact" at the bottom of of the page it is, in my experience, it's good practice to preface such statements just to be clear.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
Can calling someone a 'classic crackpot' in the face of such incorrect data have any chance at making it to court, or even winning the suit?"
No.
The standards for libel are very high. The author has to prove the reviewer knowingly and wilfully libelled him. This doesn't sound like the case at all.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
Obviously animals are not formed from deformations of a doughnut shape. Everyone knows that the shape of living things is derived from the behaviour of one-dimensional cellular automata.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Scopes Trial.
I read the complete review, and frankly even if the tone was a bit sarcastic and acid, the content cannot be disputed (if PZ really present the data as they are in the book then the book is pure unadulterated crap). Now depending on the wording of the lawsuit, for example defamation, then the truth is a good defense. In other word this will be dismissed, and hopefully with prejudice.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I vaguely recall the first really popular IDE for DOS machines was Turbo Pascal written by someone named like Philip Khan. Same dude?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
What does this have to do with the price of opium in Tibet aka the book review.
I am totally stealing your description there!
well done.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I just saw a four eared rabbit on CNN :)
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Slashdot readers hits the Amazon tag system; hilarity ensues...
delusional (11)
junk science (11)
crank (8)
fiction (8)
garbage (7)
crap (2)
crazy (2)
absent-minded (1)
art (1)
creative thinking (1)
dog crap (1)
fantast (1)
flim flam (1)
insane (1)
junk science crackpot crank garbage ball... (1)
litigious (1)
non-science (1)
So, perhaps your world-view is wrong? Nah, that couldn't be it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The author requested that another scientist read and review their new book.
The scientist read it, and called it for what it was - balderdash.
The auther then sues the scientist.
Was the author deliberately setting the scientist up for the lawsuit? Was it a scam? Or did the author actually think they had their facts straight? The world may never know...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Spiders have 10 all-purpose appendages. In most, 2 are large fangs and 8 are legs. In some, the front 2 never develop into fangs and are used as legs. This isn't even that uncommon, I'm sure you could see some examples at the zoo or on the discovery channel.
It's similar to how all reptiles have 10 fingers and toes, even snakes. They just wear them on the inside.
I would prefer it if you not refer to Princeton in that manner.
Considering a good majority elected 'Silver Spoon' W Bush, we need to take a serious look at how educated and informed our citizens really are. I'm thinkin' that, yes, such a lawsuit could make it to trial, and have a good chance of winning.
Waaaaay to many flat Earthers around these days.
I trashed an extremely disappointing new book from an MIT computer science professor on Amazon. The guy was a luminary 20 to 40 years ago, but just rambles now. I cant beleive any editor would let such a book be printed. I could be identified from the Amazon crosslinks to my other reviews.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Reduce, reuse, cycle
Now I can sue /. for the unfavorable reviews.
Most of the comments seem to be about his 2004 book whereas the review is about the 2007 version. I wonder how many posters have committed the sin of not checking prime sources.
Of course if someone has pointed this out I could be accused of the same failing...
It can, if you're the RIAA. They're suing on less than this much evidence, and the courts are allowing those cases to continue until the RIAA is forced to drop them themselves.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yeah, I absolutely love it when theories are brave enough to reject all evidence. That's one of the key scientific principles right?
You mean a Beowulf cluster of lawyers, right?
hany
PZ Meyers is correct, the book author is a crank. The suit is frivolous and doesn't deserve to pass an initial sniff test from a judge. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer prick. It's about time PZ Meyers got slapped for his galloping asshole-ness. The man's blog is dripping in scorn and insults. The quality of the posts and the discourse is no better than a bad old episode of CNN's Crossfire. PZ is a very intelligent man it's too bad he feels the need to dress up his intellect in childish invective.
In practically any forum other than a stage or a blog PZ's comments would have met with scorn. The guy is a dick. I hope PZ keeps his day job and learns that insults are no substitute for intelligent discussion.
The "10-legged spider" is probably a reference to the camel spider which is not a true spider. It has elongated pedipalps giving the appearance of 10 legs.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
This Pivar guy is just a businessman who wanted to cash in with an expensive book that has little science in it. The fact that he gave a scientist a book of his to review and then gets upset because of the review says a lot about him. Did he honestly have enough confidence in his writing and "doodles" that he thought he'd obtain a good review from a scientist of all people? He's either a huge narcissist or incredibly stupid. Pivar is a "wealthy businessman" according to Bad Astronomy Blog's post. Coincidence?
i enceblogs_com_s_lead_blogger&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 (see that second point in the lawsuit)
His claim to fame is that he is a close friend of Steven Jay Gould. http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=pz_myers_sc
Wow! Hey, if I got to know Stephen Hawking well enough, do you think I could write a book on how theoretical physicists got it wrong? Too bad Steven Jay Gould isn't around to further comment on the issue. How brilliantly convenient for Pivar.
He's like the Uwe Boll of evolutionary biology. Whether that's as bad or worse than fundamentalist Christian whackjobs is up to the individual. Ultimately, this book's proper place is the science-fiction section.
Hello Slashdot community. So I've decided to support Prof. Myers, I sent him the following e-mail and fully intend to follow up on my promises.
Please do not think that I expect a substantial fraction of slashdotters (or anyone actually) to follow my initiative. I'm semi-retired, have a reasonable amount of resources at my disposal and basically don't have a life. I just mention it as a possible option.
By the way, does anyone know if there is any sort of organization that formally supports scientists under attack like this? Sort of an ACLU for the sciences?
Hi Prof. Myers
I read about your problems with Stuart Privar. To make a long story
short, I understand he is a wealthy businessman and may/is suing you.
I am very tired about seeing science in America getting abused by (as
Al Gore would put it) "attacks on reason". Should you begin to incur
any significant amount of court costs, I would like to offer a modest
amount of assistance (in the 3 to 4 figure range).
As I am not a scientist myself but have a deep abiding interest in
and respect for those who are expanding mankind's knowledge I would
like to help in some way however small. I realize that scientists
are human too and I'm sure have their share of problems but in this
case it seems like you are definitely being prosecuted out of malice
or breath-taking ignorance.
So if you need my modest assistance please send me a return e-mail
with an address to where I can send the check. It may take awhile (a
few weeks?) because I am out of the country. As a matter of trust,
you can find my ramblings on Slashdot, I go by the user name
"wisebabo". Please do not give in if you can and admit guilt (with a
slap on the wrist), someone needs to show these people that the
majority(?) of Americans support scientific progress. But it is your
choice and I/we are in no position to tell you what to do.
Please do not disclose my identity/e-mail address (except as required
by law). Good luck-
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The Kohran very clearly states that other religions are false. As does the Bible and the Torah. These books are fairly easy to find :)
In addition, consider theological debate between to contrary religions, and how it is published frequently.
Blar.
I wouldn't call this libel. I read PZ's blog every day, he harsh on stupidity, while clearly he's still a good guy.
What makes this book crackpot is that it's reasoning based on superficial similarity and analogies rather than a carefully constructed chain of reasoning.
Unfortunately, this is quite commonplace, and you don't have to look to biology to find it: in computer science, people do the same thing. Things like "your data is safe because the database uses transactions", or "the programming language is fast because it compiles into native code", or "the code is fast because it uses pointers", etc.
Most science these days is crackpot; some people just hide it better than others.
IANAL, but shouldn't this be thrown out for the same reason as Dilworth v. Dudley?
By calling him a "crackpot", he's attacking his ideas, not his character.
Truthfulness is always a complete defense to a tort action of defamation, whether the claim is based in libel or slander.
Read all about it. This guy tries to prostitute himself for karma. Terrible.
Personally I wouldn't trust the Amazon ratings. I have read in several places that it is possible to 'push' a rating with the right combination of purchases, timing and reviews.
A person or organization with money could do that. Not that the author and friends of the LifeCode book would do that.
The reason for the suit, it would appear, is that the blogger has attacked the authors credentials and made claims that: ... out of touch with reality and evidence and scientific explanations"
1. "[The author is] a flake"
2. "his approaches are unscientific and nonsensical"
3. "The work is
These sort of accusations can harm the author's reputation as a scientific writer, and, as such, it could be libel. If his accusations are true, and the author's approaches are "unscientific and nonsensical", then the blogger will be exhonorated. However if they are untrue, then the blogger should be held accountable for the damage he has caused.
Internet authors and bloggers have a tendency to think that libel laws don't apply to them, and that they are free to spout any opinion that they want. Lawsuits like this just serve as a reminder that we are held accountable for what we say and whom we accuse - even on the internet.
In order to find a reference to the term 'crackpot' in the review, I had to refer to the original review. As mentioned in an earlier posting, the author of the review used the word 'crackpottery' when describing the book.
I will admit that I find that some of Stuart Privar's ideas to be useful for a couple of projects of mine. They would make great transformation sequences for fantasy and science fiction movies.
I think most people incorrectly associate Creationism with Christianity, without realizing that it exists in significant numbers in Islam and Judaism (and possibly other religions of which I am quite ignorant).
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Second, on another note, criticism that is fair (in this case the fact the many scientists consider creationists crackpots) on a matter of public interest (whcich literature is) is a defense: (2) FAIR COMMENT ON A MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST The defence of fair comment is frequently relied upon by the press, as it is designed to protect statements of opinion on matters of public concern. Lord Esher, in Merivale v Carson (1887) 20 QBD 275, stated that the test was: "Would any fair man, however prejudiced he may be, however exaggerated or obstinate his views, have said that which this criticism has said of the work which is criticised?" However, Lord Porter, in Turner v MGM Pictures [1950] 1 All ER 449 at 461, said that he would adopt this test, but substitute 'honest' for 'fair' in order to avoid the suggestion that the comment must be reasonable. See also Lord Nicholls in Reynolds v Times Newspapers [1999] 4 All ER 609 (below). The defence only applies to comments made on matters of public interest, eg comments on works of literature, music, art, plays, radio and television; and also the activities of public figures.
Huh. Anyways, I'll reiterate Sunburnt's point without profanity. The GP is right that there's censorship in the government regarding global warming, but it's not in the direction that he seems to be implying.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Have gnu, will travel.
I thought that comment was key, too.
So I incorporated it into a (requested by a third party) LOLCat Pivar.
Because, apparently, I don't have enough time on my hands.
The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
I got the impression that he was a Muslim Quran literalist. They have Creationists, too, you know.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
While I agree with most of your comments, I find it interesting that you use Christians in your title, but your references are for 2 Scientologists.
I guess it's more sensational to pick on those "Christians". Your title spews flamebait, and I have the mod points to label it, but won't waste one. Yet your modderated insightful, and I'll probably get modded as flamebait for pointing it out.
If your going to attack a religion that you don't like, at least back it up. But we all need to sensational titles. You should start writing for slashdot.
Self proclaimed wannabe geek. You know how it is. Most of us who read this stuff probably fit in that category.
Truth does not equal provability. (Kurt Godel in his (in)famous incompleteness theorem).
Truth does not equal reality (Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger - various others).
It's that conflation "The final theory is closer to the truth, or reality, than the first one was. Isn't this what science is about?"
The final theory is closer to explaining and systematizing your observations, than the first one was. You're still assuming that your observations ARE the truth or reality, and that's an assumption outside of science. Yes, it may well be true, and real, that truth === reality, but it's not something provable within the scientific method, rather it's a priori. Science can't pull itself up by its own bootstraps.
To put it more simply: You can't prove that science produces truth by applying the scientific method, because if the method is flawed, it might falsely tell you it isn't.
(You also can't just go around saying truth === reality in the context I just gave - "Science produces Truth" is a culturally defensible construct in English, but "Science produces Reality" almost certainly isn't. Neither is defensible under some schools of logic, mathematics, or philosophy.).
Who is John Cabal?
I for one, welcome our new ten legged spider overlords!
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
If you read the reviews, you will find that the reviewer tore apart the contents of the book, not the reputation of the Stuart Pivar.
If you dig a little further, you will find that Stuart Pivar seems to have a good reputation in the chemical engineering world and the art world.
A scan for Stuart Pivar in Google uncovers some patents he seems to be associated with regarding molding hollow plastic articles. (For some reason a Stewart Pivar is also associated with these patents. Are they the same person?) I can see where these patents could have made him a fair amount of cash if handled properly.
The same scan uncovers the fact that he was closely tied to Andy Warhol and was a cofounder of New York Academy of Art. He seems to have a reasonably good reputation in those circles. I especially liked an article where he rescued a Roman bronze from being broken into parts because it had been misclassified as a later sculpture.
You'll note that the reviewer didn't touch on those areas. Instead, the reviewer focused on his area of expertise, biology, and methodically tore apart the arguments that Pivar put forth. Since Pivar lacks a peer-reviewed scientific reputation in biology and related topics, you can't really say Pivar's reputation as a scientist was destroyed.
If Pivar truly wants to protect his 'reputation' as a scientist, then he will do it with hard facts backed up by peer-reviewed science and not a lawsuit.
Note that the comment about 'Destroying the reputation of those with disagree with' also applies to Stuart Pivar. Just because he has the money to take such a thing to court doesn't mean that he should. If anything, Pivar is in the process of destroying his own reputation as an elderly but budding scientist.
Thre is a very interesting and contrary review by another Professor, in the International Journal of Developmental Biology.
He acknowledges that the drawings are fanciful, but also emphasizes that the book does make an important point, that development of an organism is an interplay of the mechanics of an organism with the genes that direct the development and organization of tissues in of an organism.
Topologically, we are all tubes (everyone has to eat), but of course we are also more than just our skin. Can anyone who has read the book say whether he was claiming that his fanciful drawings described embryonic development, or were they presented as thought experiments?
Any kernel that may have hinted at a potentially valuable new way to look at what we know was destroyed when the author sued, though.
The basis of the suit are prior posts where the pseudo scientist calls Pivar a crackpot.
Science gets a bad rap by pseudo scientists who use slander in place of reason. Scientific American should be ashamed. If an area knowlege is true science, then there is no disagreement. No need for consensus and no need for name calling.
Score & Karma: SASA: Slashdot Approval Seekers Anonymous
That would be two millenia, not centuries. And remember that the Protestant Reformation was a result of the protection money^H^H^H^H^H^H^H - err, demands for "graces" that Martin Luther was fed up with...
And celibacy is a direct result of greed, also. The Church was purportedly tired of seeing married priests' widows get all the assets of local churches when the old priests croaked.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
Lawyers should be disbarred on failing an appeals review hearing after 3 frivolous or persecutory lawsuits they bring within any 10 year span.
And judges and juries should have the option of recommending that any extreme abuse of the system evident in any extremely frivolous or persecutory lawsuit send the offending lawyer straight to disbarment. And face criminal and criminal charges for damaging the defendant who has to deal with their unwarranted attack.
Their profit motive in bringing any suit, where their costs are paid by one side or the other, should be balanced by their interest in self-preservation.
--
make install -not war
this is either brilliant sarcasm or you are the single most egregiously stupid mouth-breathing fucktard i have ever had the displeasure to encounter in a full fucking decade of lurking this place. in my opinion, of course.
fucktard.
But they were just doing their job not piss off advertisers. Later editors were fired for praising Linux and not Vista.
Now we have another extreme where the ad vendors can quote this lawsuit as proof that editors of all publications work for them and a lawsuit for a bad review is in order if you piss them off. Better just run PR press releases as real stories.
This suit can have serious repurcussions for free press more than anyone realizes.
http://saveie6.com/
Stuart Pivar's noted areas of expertice seem to be chemical engineering, art collecting and business. (The business side may be associated with art collecting and possibly chemical engineering. It appears he has money. Some references call him an eccentric inventor and collector.)
Some patents with his name on them date to the mid 1970s.
Another article, written in 2006, claimed that he was 76. While I dislike dealing with age based stereotypes, he is at an age where some people believe that experience is knowledge. These people are often impossible to convince that they are wrong, even when faced with mountains of evidence to the contrary. (I'm hoping that this isn't the case. It is a sad thing to see a creative mind fossilize.)
There are some references that Pivar has been associated with well known evolutionary biologist Steven Jay Gould. While that does provide a contact with biology, it does not make Pivar a biologist. It may, however, be a potential source for the material in the books.
I will say that the illustrations provided in the review make me think of transformation art, especially that found in cartoons, anime, fantasy art and science fiction. LifeCode and related books might be a good source for ideas for people in those fields.
"If an area knowlege is true science, then there is no disagreement." That comment simply shows that you know absolutely nothing about science. Of course, since you're a moron, that doesn't stop you from spouting off.
And Pivar's relationship to Steven Gould.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
You failed to attack the Hindu religion!!! One would think having A BILLION followers would make it classify as a "major religion"!
Note that PZ Myer is a scientist who is part of the faculty at a state university.
Also note that Stuart Pivar doesn't have any such credentials. He is, at first glance, a pseudo scientist.
Could you provide a link to the prior posts where the 'pseudo' scientist Myer calls Pivar a crackpot? I haven't found those sources yet.
I'm hoping it IS sarcasm or a troll. (Perhaps the name 'B Sharp C' is a clue.)
Unfortunately, I have encountered too many people who think this way and are willing to fight to protect their constitutional right to speak up and prove that they have problems with logical thought and scientific reasoning.
It's very appropriate that Stuart Pivar made his millions making something else that was full of shit.
Trolling hard today and am SICK of it.
Since this is obviously a law suite that the prosecutor cannot win, can the defendant just not show up to court? I mean think about it, if you don't show up, you don't spend any money on defense. You don't lose any time at work, you don't have to pay a lawyer. It is on them to prove you did something wrong. If you didn't do anything wrong, they cannot prove it. This fully defeats the purpose of the frivolous law suite, and wastes their money at the same time.
Sorry for not knowing the exact legal terms. But I think you get the general idea of my question.
023AD01("Child", "Evil");
"He covers his fanny quite well by adding "my opinion" when he goes for character assassination."
The original review used no character assassinations. It says the book is "crackpottery". Why don't you read the actual review first. Or perhaps reading is not as fundamental as we'd like?
At least RTFA before you go insulting people, and then insult the *right* people. This crackpot appears to be saying that it's "Donuts all the way down".
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"where the pseudo scientist calls Pivar a crackpot"
o ff&defl=en&q=define:crackpot&sa=X&oi=glossary_defi nition&ct=title
That would be slightly interesting if true. However, he does not make any comment about his being a crackpot. Although, technically, you could argue is a crackpot according to the dictionary. However, even if he did make this statement, this definition would seem to fit:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c2coff=1&safe=
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
> I realize we're getting off-topic here, but this is something I've always wondered about. I think it's fair to say that Hubbard was not "into" Scientology - but what about the modern leaders? They weren't founders; they rose to their positions by buying into the whole deal (and buying is exactly the correct word!) and staying prominent within the organization for a long time.
Well, according to some of the higher level ex-Scientologists, you have to either develop psychic powers or pretend to once you reach a level where you'd be in command of anything significant. Given a rational estimation of how unlikely you are to develop psychic powers from following LRH's "technology" I think you can draw some conclusions about the upper levels of Scientology. Now, I suppose that doesn't rule out crazy, but from the testimony, those people are left totally cut off from non-Scientologists, deeply in debt to the organization, and may end up scared and confused. Also, the organization isn't shy about cutting off people who are "downstat" (i.e. not performing). Note that this also explains how celebrities join up: they help folks seeking fame and celebrities who are big tend to be isolated from the public already.
So I guess the answer to that depends on the kind of person. Crazy, manipulative, or just maneuvered into a corner and left with nowhere else to go; these are the only types who seem to reach the top. And did I mention that they don't believe in 'crazy'? Psychologists everywhere are supposedly out to get them. I guess LRH didn't like the psych evaluations he got.
People scared of gays and trumped up claims of terrorism elected him.
But you're probably right.
Blar.
I did find a reference where PZ Myer states that Pivar is a 'flake'. Of course, that reference points to a prior posting where someone asks if Pivar is a 'flake'.
Still no direct 'crackpot' references. Just one about 'crackpottery' that does NOT refer to Pivar directly.
There have been other major origin theories competing with Darwin's theories besides Creationism and its relatives, UFO cults, Scientology scames, and pre-Darwin attempts at science. Lysenkoism is one of the best-known - it's important because of the damage it did to Russian science.
But the worst of them tend to come from people who *say* they believe in Evolution but Just Don't Get It. Most of them are either a view of "Evolution" as "Progress", or a view of "Survival of the Fittest" as a moral imperative and an excuse for anything from self-congratulation to racism and sterilizing the UnFit. The "Progress" types are at least friendlier - they're mostly wooly-headed liberals who believe that we're all getting Better and Better, though one technology columnist I like did refer to us evolving into something even cooler. The Social Darwinist types are generally nasty.
And both of these types are teaching in our schools, confusing kids about how evolution works and providing handy strawmen for the Intelligent Design movement. Unlike Creationists, who school boards can generally recognize for what they are, these guys get in without getting caught.
There are milder forms of these errors as well - the "slow, steady gradual evolution" model tends to be popular because it fits our worldviews the way Donuts fit Pivar's, and Gould's punctuated-equilibrium arguments are important counterweights to them. And people tend to mix up Darwinism with things we've learned later, like Mendel's genetics, details embedded in DNA, etc. Darwin's _actual_ work had a lot of big holes in it and occasional wrong assumptions. There's a lot of room for criticizing the Original Darwinism, and because it's a scientific theory, that's just fine. Knee-jerk defenses of Darwinism don't do it any favors - if anything they make it easier for the Creationists.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
How else do you think you get the orginal Man-Sized Giant Oat into a million little itty bitty oats?
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
D'Arcy_Thompson's bio.
Excepts from his book "On Growth and Form"
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
For some reason I took the ambiguity in that post the wrong way. In reading it again, I can tell that he was referring to the suppression of information from the Bush administration.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
That price per page puts it in the 'art book' range, especially if it uses high quality paper and binding. And from what I remember of the review, at least one of the books mentioned fell into that category.
The door to the courthouse is open. The clerk will take lawsuit papers from anyone who pays the fee, even if the case is garbage.
Unfortunately, when a nutcase sues you, you've got to hire a lawyer, which costs a bundle and scares your publisher, even if the case is thrown out at the first step. That's the price we pay for having a free society.
And could demand him as building a organization to commit crime just for been critic
ghostbar page.
Shouldn't that be a note to the American readers, where 'torch' would refer to a device for carrying fire, as in the Olympic torch? If it weren't for a familiarity with old detective novels and a British/American dictionary, I would have assumed the fire carrying type.
While having either type of 'torch' shoved up where the sun doesn't shine would be an internally illuminating experience, the one that uses an open flame would be much more painful.
n., pl. -tries.
1. The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones.
Anyone can sue (that is, as it means in the article, file suit) for anything. In doing so frequently and for weakly supported reasons they risk being charged with the above. Unfortunately, hardly anyone files counter-charges of barratry against habitual suit filers when the present action is clearly intimidation through judicial (not "legal", as that implies it's allowed by law) means. Individuals found guilty of this face only a misdemeanor. Attorneys found guilty of it face being disbarred, and so filing such charges usually result in the attorney withdrawing themselves and/or the filing. That makes this charge a very effective tactic. Soliciting an opinion (here, sending a book for review) and not liking the opinion, and so filing suit most definitely makes this charge a possibility.
As to calling someone names (as opposed to making what's intended or can be taken to be factual statement about them) I've seen no better or more entertaining treatment of the subject than the first episode of Penn and Teller's BULLSHIT! I highly recommend it.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
For a statement to be libel, that statement has to be claimed to be a fact - it has to provable, or disprovable. For example, if I said that I knew for a verifiable fact that you were certifiably mentally ill - then you might have a case for liable against me (assuming you are not mentally ill).
But, if I say that you are a "crackpot" or a "doo-doo head" then that would not be actionable because such statements can not proven to be true, or untrue.
Furthermore, if something is stated as an opinion, or in jest, then that is not actionable either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
The criminal justice system rewards Bush? How?
This is going to make it hard to get his next book reviewed.
B5 71 ED FB 55 D6 4E 68 07 25 E2 FA CA 93 F0 2F, is mine! All mine!
"Is saying something negative about the Pope really being anti-Catholic?"
He's replying to "Anti-catholicism: the last acceptable prejudice" : while not addressing that issue.
you mean he wasn't talking about Yale?
Who were the patents assigned to? All rights might have been assigned to a company he might have worked for, in which case he probably didn't collect a dime. But if he owns them, and he could work a licensing arrangement with a big enough company (though they'd probably try to invent around rather than license), then maybe he made some $.
It is one thing when someone writes a crackpot book with bogus science. What really bothers me is when an executive at a large scientific research company spews nonsense in order to impress investors. Such is the case with Advanced Cell Technology. In this case, Robert Lanza aggressively sends press releases to everyone he knows in the media. The reporters don't bother to fact check properly. He told the press, "We've also tested these cells in animals for the first time, and it turns out that they have incredible reparative potential." The nature methods paper that he is referring to is much less optimistic, "they localized to the site of injury in the damaged vasculature and appeared to participate in repair... Our data suggest that hES-derived blast cells could be important in vascular repair."
To get that law enacted, you need politicians. And many politicians start as lawyers. (That's why they're rotten.) In case they lose an election and have to go back into law, they're not going to litigate away another chance at making $$$.
And how do we define what a frivolous lawsuit is? While it may seem obvious to us, it can't be vague in the law itself, or else lawyers will appeal the judge's ruling that the lawsuit is frivolous, fearing one of the three strikes to disbarment on their record.
My dad was a lawyer and my mom had a very difficult time divorcing him. I know from personal experience that lawyers will try to make things as difficult as possible.
Bullshit. Most science these days is pedestrian filling in of the details. Very important, albeit boring (at times), but as far from crackpottery as you can get. I've been doing science for over a decade now, but I can only think of one individual I'd consider a crank who I've met or at least heard them give a talk. I've read in excess of 1000 papers (no bragging, that's pretty common) and except for those papers I've specifically read because they were from HIV denialists or Intelligent Design/Creationists or other associated cranks (and since they rarely publish in peer-reviewed journals, that would make ~5 papers), I haven't come across any that were crackpot nonsense.
I haven't come across any that were crackpot nonsense.
Traditional crack-pottery like "K-rays" and "HIV is caused by semen" is pretty rare. What is commonplace, however, is papers whose experiments don't adequately support the conclusions. What is also commonplace is people speculating in papers. Both of those should be unacceptable in science, both have become increasingly commonplace, and both are far more harmful to science than easy-to-spot crackpots.
I've been doing science for over a decade now,
And I've been doing science for over two decades now, and let me tell you: it's gotten steadily worse.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
Yeah, it's a great description, but I like this (earlier) one better... http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=235365&cid =19194117
Movie studios, directors, and writers sue reviewers for saying a movie sucks?
I don't think Myers should be commenting on this book. Pivar is clearly not playing with a full deck and is clearly only getting this stuff published because he is loaded. It is clearly just the doodlings and ravings of a man who may have heard a few things about embryology but basically knows nothing about it. If he was poor he would be just another nutjob with a scrapbook.
... if he was a called an anomalous crackpot and all of his data was impeccably correct. A reviewer's opinion is protected unless it can shown that he acted maliciously and with reckless disregard for the truth. One can get all the answers right and still be a crackpot in someone's opinion.
It appears that Pivar's collecting and scientific work is supported by a group of plastic mold companies he founded in 1959 under the name 'Chemtainer Industries'. (Thank you Choad Namath for the link to the September 9, 2004 article in the New York Times! The article is 'Two Scientists Caught in Amber'. It is about the art work in the apartment.)
Oddly enough, the second person mentioned in the article is a biophysicist named Helen Matsos who shared the apartment at the time.
To correct/clarify my previous statement:
The religious persuasion of the litigant being discussed here is not stated, to the best of my knowledge. In a different case, however, the litigant is a Muslim creationist. In short, I doubt your "99.99% of the time" claim. There are all sorts of reality-challenged individuals out there.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I think Myers has every right to comment on his book, and I'm pretty confident that the whole thing will be tossed out. It's meritless. I also happen to think that a certain number of abusive lawsuits should trigger a mechanism where an individual has to put down some substantial percentage of their assets before they can ever file suit again.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You bring the relish.
Infuriate left and right
if there going to argue freedom of religion..why not freedom of speech..which means when your personally reviewing a piece fo work...you can say what you like.....like i ask people to review my writing and don't expect all good......whats the point of asking for a review if not for varied opinions and constructive critisism?...you can't submit for a review and then sue people who don't agree with you for not praising and promoting your work :S......thats not the point of reviews.
I was going to get in to this, then I get to thinking nut and more nut.You people need to grow up or grow out.