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.
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!
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?
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
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.
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
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.
And now people are afraid to write a bad review of the review!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
This happened in 2007! A sad 0:1 in the competition of reason versus idiocracy, the defeats keep on coming :(
molmod.com - computing tips from a molecular modeling
I would prefer it if you not refer to Princeton in that manner.
Reduce, reuse, cycle
That's not to say that any educated reader wouldn't draw his own conclusions and consider Pivar a crackpot after having read the tripe.
Anyway, you should read the review. It's hilarious.
John
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.
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.
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