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
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.
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.
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.
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