Slashdot Mirror
In Britain, Better Not Call It Bogus Science
Geoffrey.landis writes 'In Britain, libel laws are censoring the ability of journalists to write stories about bogus science. Simon Singh, a Ph.D. physicist and author of several best-selling popular-science books, is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for saying that there is no evidence for claims that visiting a chiropractor has health benefits. A year earlier, writer Ben Goldacre faced a libel suit for an article critical of Matthias Rath, who claimed that vitamin supplements can treat HIV and AIDS in place of conventional drugs like anti-retrovirals. In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence — any statement made is assumed to be false unless you prove it's true. Journalists are running scared.'
In Britain, libel laws don't have any presumption of innocence
Isn't Britain otherwise pretty anal about the presumption of innocence, to the point that accusations sometimes can't be even talked about in the press? Why the huge difference for libel?
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
McDonalds used to sue people who claimed that their food wasn't very healthy, until the McLibel two took them one, and won on most of the points. McDonalds won on a few minor points but decided not to enforce the judgement as that would just give them even worse publicity.
While it may be good science, it is probably a very bad for the journalism business, and really would make things terribly inconvenient. A large enough section of the population is not at all interested in reading articles that take the time to painstakingly prove each assertion made in an article, and for the most part this is for good reason. Good journalism is about taking complex ideas from many disciplines and distilling them into consumable, simpler ideas for the masses. There are many who would describe this as "dumbing things down" and hate the impurity of it. The fact of the matter is that we can't all be purists about everything. The point of journalism is not to make everyone experts about everything that gets reported on, but rather just to offer primers and spark interest. Holding journalists to such high expectations is idealistic, and ultimately unfeasible. Sometimes they have to deal in broad strokes. As for the situation with libel law in Great Britain, as long as it's true in my book it's not libel. If your business or reputation can't stand up to the facts, then you need to change business or remake your repuation.
I got a catholic block.
That's not what the BCA is arguing. What they're saying is that "bogus" is defined as "intentionally deceitful", and are arguing that the author can't prove intent.
Basically everyone is calling everyone else a liar, and somehow a judge is going to make some very interesting decisions.
"[...] is currently being sued by the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) for saying that there is no evidence for claims that visiting a chiropractor has health benefits."
That alone is not why Mr. Singh is being sued. The issue is specifically driven by his use of the word "bogus." The judge has taken it to mean "consciously dishonest." Not just peddling an ineffective treatment, but knowing that it's ineffective and still claiming otherwise. If Singh just claimed it was an ineffective treatment, he would not be criticizing the BCA directly, so it wouldn't be actionable... However, the judge and the BCA took him to be saying that the BCA are knowingly and intentionally dishonest in their promotion of the treatment.
I wouldn't think to interpret "bogus" in this way, but that seems to be the original meaning. I hope the judge realizes Singh was using it in a more modern sense, but if it's interpreted as the BCA claims, then it certainly explains how far this lawsuit has gone, and invalidates many of the comments here so far including the inflammatory summary. Singh can criticize the effectiveness of the treatments to his heart's content, as long as he doesn't accuse the BCA of fraud! You can read some more linguistic analysis of this lawsuit and the evolving meaning of "bogus" over at the Language Log.
People think it because it often does. Survival of this species has partially depended upon the ability to reocgnize patterns and make decisions with limited information.
Note that Goldacre won against Rust. To me, and to most of /., I am sure that the case is obvious. But anybody is entitled to their day in court: you sould not be able to say that someone's claim is "obviously" false, no matter how much you respect the person being claimed against, as I respect Goldacre.
And the Singh/Chiropractors case is still in the courts: the chiropractors have not won.
I am afraid this is an example of the cost of Free Speech: the Black hats have as much freedom as the White Hats - and so it must be.
The case here is for a common defence fund for the White Hats. Private Eye, when it was fighting Sir James Goldsmith, had such a fund, known as the Goldenballs fund. Lots of people chucked in a tenner or so to support the defence costs of the good guys. And if anybody is running such a fund for Singh, or for any future complants against Goldacre, I will chip in. It would be good if their attackers knew that the defence was well funded.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I've checked further since posting that. In England, the truth is considered an allowable defense, and it is, in fact, an affirmative defense because the statements are presumed false until proven true. Even then, you can still lose your case because in England, libel and slander are about defamation, and if you've defamed somebody be telling the truth, it's still defamation.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
My own anecdote:
I was helping a friend move, and wrenched my lower back carrying an old, heavy washing machine. I went through hell for about 3 months afterward. I'm not talking about "my back got stiff", or "I had to take 3 Advil instead of 2!" I'm talking about going to sleep at 10PM on a cocktail of naproxen, Flexeril, and codeine, then waking up at 2AM sobbing in agony as someone shoved a rusty icepick into my spine and pried it open.
I saw my family doctor, an osteopath, and two orthopedic surgeons. They were all very nice and sympathetic, but their treatments never got me more than 4 hours of sleep. By the end of the 3 months, I understood why people kill themselves to escape the pain.
My dad suggested that I go to his chiropractor. Dad was a healthy skeptic, but he'd had good luck with the guy and argued that in the worst case I'd be out $20. At that point, I'd have tried just about anything. I went to Dr. Palmer (coincidental; no relation to the quack) and he ran one of those debunked spinal alignment meter things up my back. I rolled my eyes when he told me he found the problem, then told me to relax so he could pop my back.
I don't remember if I screamed or not, but I might've.
Within 20 minutes, the rusty icepick had turned into a toothpick. That night, I got 12 hours of uninterrupted, drug-free sleep, and by the next morning I was completely pain free.
Go ahead and write that off with a smug "correlation isn't causation!" I know that. I also know that one nearly-retired chiropractor probably saved me from killing myself with one single $20 adjustment. Again, if I wasn't clear, this wasn't some subjective case of "it kind of hurts when I do this", but a grown man waking up crying tears of pain after a few hours of tortured sleep. Say what you will about chiropractors in general, but that one specific practitioner knew exactly how to fix what was wrong with me when a lot of other doctors had failed.
I love traditional medicine. I'm an ex-Navy surgery tech, and my wife's a surgeon. My college degrees are in science and I'm about as skeptical of pseudoscience as you can get. The scientist in me tells the naysayers to kiss my butt, because my empirical data from the outcome of that experiment holds more weight with me than the sophistic claims that it couldn't possibly have worked.
No, chiropractors can't cure deafness or appendicitis or pneumonia, and the practitioners who claim otherwise are unmitigated quacks. Still, I'd be the first to testify that at least some of them are very skilled in treating certain very specific musculoskeletal conditions.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Personally I use Chiropractics, and because of a birth defect, I get pretty extreme pain when I'm out of alignment. You do get some bad eggs (like any industry, bad doctors, bad mechanics etc etc) but the one I see completed a full examination, including X-rays. He was able to point out and it was very obvious why I was in pain. Prior to an adjustment (especially if I have left it too long), I'm looking at the world on an angle, one shoulder is lower than the other, I'm favouring my left leg, I feel depressed for no apparent reason (that's when I've left it far too long), I have interrupted sleep, I'm irritable.. I could go on, but at the end of the day, when I'm back in alignment, my mood changes, I'm not in pain and generally go back to being my happy go lucky usual self.
I couldn't give a rats arse about the science, it works for me. But I have been priviledged enough to have benefited from the knowledge divulged from my father's Chrio back home and you know what, a lot of it makes sense. At the end of the day, the human body is a very complex machine. If your back is out of alignment and you go through life with undue pressure on certain nerves because of the misalignment, one would imagine that the signals could be interrupted and cause problems. Now I'm not going to say that it's the answer for anyone, I'm just going to say it works for me and it's a whole lot more then a bit of "bone crunching".
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!