Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Science Blogger Sued for Unfavorable Book Review

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the hope-he-countersues-and-buys-a-nice-summer-home dept.

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?"

13 of 588 comments (clear)

  1. When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by Goaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Scientologists aren't crackpots, though. They're a very deliberate scam. The things they teach are a mixture of self-help material and crackpottery, but don't think for a second that the leaders actually believe in any of it.

    2. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by faloi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just a quick question... On what basis do you claim Pivar is a religious nutball? I've read most of the connected articles and it sounds like he's just a regular nutball, religion isn't mentioned anywhere that I've seen. Unless you're just inferring that because he's putting up something contrary to real evolutionary theory (which I would maintain makes him a regular nutball).

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    3. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm confused why you point out Christians in your subject. There is no indication that the author of the book is a Christian, or that its content is motivated by Christian principles. Nor do you mention Christians in your text, let alone wealthy Christians. I'm not denying that there aren't Christian nutballs, because there definitely are, but it is simply an off topic jab.

      Either way, I agree with everything else you said.

      --
      Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
    4. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by ajs · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was wondering the same thing. I'm actually getting rather tired of this particular knee-jerk. Yes, there are Christian crackpots in the world. No, not all crackpots are Christian nor are all Christians crackpots. Faith in a deity is tangential to the search for truth through the scientific method. Only where one allows the two to become entangled does crackpottery arise.

    5. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by plague3106 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think its fair that if its ok to bash and debunk Scientology that Christanity is fair game too.

      I don't see you complaining about Scientology being bashed. I can only assume you think THAT is ok because you are a Christian, otherwise you'd have mentioned that as well.

      If I makes you feel better:

      Jewish religion is bunk.
      Christian is bunk.
      Islam is bunk.
      Scientology is bunk.
      Buddism is bunk.

      There... did I miss any major religion? Does it make you feel better that I'm not just picking on Christians?

    6. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by pimpimpim · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Just click the link I put in the original post, they also have the text in Dutch. Somewhere half way they mention the lawsuit, they won for the lower court in 2005, and lost for the higher court in 2007. The whole lawsuit took about 7 years and 90.000 euro, since this all started when they made a list of 'biggest quacks of the century' in 2000. They lost because the higher court used the definition of a quack as someone who intentionally fools people with non-working remedies, and didn't thought the woman promoted her non-working remedies with the intent of doing so. Put otherwise, they probably assumed she was too stupid to know what she was doing. Personally, I don't think "intent" should be part of quakery, instead the guilt of quakery lies in the fact that you, knowingly or unknowingly, are a potential harm to people who are in real need for a remedy, and are not working within the rules that are laid out for medical treatment. Hospitals and medicine are institionalized for a reason!

      This court order defeats the centuries of learning by suffering that lead to the strict way medical treatment is organized.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    7. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by samkass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Anti-Catholicism: The last acceptable prejudice."

      Is saying something negative about the Pope really being anti-Catholic? Is saying that Jewish laws are probably based more in practical guides to avoiding ancient diseases rather than commandments from God anti-Semitic? If criticizing any belief system of someone's religion is being "anti" that religion, we start going down a path of extremist dogma where all rational thought is lost.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    8. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by pimpimpim · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think you are allowed to publish such statements, as you need to warn the general public about the scientific wrongdoing by this person. The person is publishing a book that is ment as a scientific-looking publication (that is why he searched a review from a university professor in the first place), and therefore has the responsibility to follow the scientific method. He did not do that, but used crackpot methods to write the book. Should the author have used crackpot methods for a book that was not _claiming_ to be a scientific book, it should also not been crackpottery but just nonsense. Noone will call a cartoon artist a crackpot just because in the cartoon the principles of physics are ignored. This case is different, though, as it was claiming itself to be scientific.

      Maybe the libel could have been avoided by not addressing the author as a crackpot, but instead calling the book a manifestation of crackpottery. Then it is not a personal attack, and should be safe from libel charges. This is just a form of newspeak, but if the laywers and courts agree with it, then so be it our new way to talk about crackpots.

      --
      molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
    9. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The 100% effective defense against a libel or slander suit is (1) The statements are true (2) it is clear you are stating your personal opinion.

      If the blogger made a firm accusation, i.e. the writer kills baby seals, and that turns out to be knowingly false, then if written, that's libel, if it is said publicly, it is slander.

      However, It is clear that the blogger is expressing his "opinion" about the man and his works. He is 100% protected in his capacity as someone reviewing a work to form an opinion and state it publicly either verbally or in written form.

    10. Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack! by immcintosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In philosophy, a subject in which I have specialized, we use a greek word qua frequently. Put simply, this word means, generally, "in the capacity of." I think it is fairly obvious that the author of this book qua biologist is demonstrably a crackpot. He writes on a very intensively studied branch of science, and proposes a number of theories which are blantantly contrary to well established and observed fact, on no better grounds than an active imagination. This, I would argue, is the very definition of crackpottery. Most sensible people in the modern world would call a doctor who proposed leeching as a panacea to be a crackpot for much the same reason--it is contrary to well established medical fact and commonly available evidence.

      In any case, it seems quite clear to me that PZ is describing this man as being a crackpot qua developmental biologist, and not qua businessman or any other number of things he might be talented at. As such, I believe this accusation is absolutely true and utterly defensible by anybody with a rational understanding of modern science.

      P.S. I would have liked to moderate this rather than reply, but none of the options seemed to adequately represent my feelings about it...

  2. Re:hmm. by Larus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As Niels Bohr said, "Your idea is crazy, but not crazy enough to be true."

  3. Re:Professor's mistake? by Qzukk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the security of a contract?

    Since when does one need the security of a contract to read a book and tell people what you thought of it?

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.