Simon Singh Talks With Wired About His Libel Battle

smellsofbikes writes "Wired has a short but pithy interview with Simon Singh about his defense against a libel suit brought by the British Chiropractic Association, in which he spent more than $200,000 and emerged victorious."

Comments

Any chance he can collect lawyer fees?

[Dragon Bait]

It would seem that if he emerged victorious, the other side should have to cover the $200K -- plus something for his time.

Re:Any chance he can collect lawyer fees?

[rtfa-troll]

Unfortunately, that's not exactly the way it works. He lost a year of work, for which he'll get nothing. He had 200,000 pounds costs of which it seems that he'll only get 70% back. He's definitely a hero and if someone has a few thousand of pounds spare, there would be worse ways to spend it than donating it to him.

Re:Any chance he can collect lawyer fees?

[Hognoxious]

They say there's no such thing as bad publicity.

I'm not suggesting that it was his motivation, but if he sells a few more books and tickets for lectures and the like he may even come out ahead. good luck if he does, I say.

Re:Any chance he can collect lawyer fees?

[bythescruff]

I asked Simon about this at the Brighton Skeptics in the Pub meeting a few weeks ago, and he said that he prefers people to donate to The Libel Reform Campaign, who are trying to fix the UK law which allows this kind of lawsuit to happen.

200,000 dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry... I hate seeing numbers thrown around as if it somehow makes this case more important than others. I'm glad to see that Simon Singh stood up for his comments and also that he is now extremely famous and has furthered his career by this episode.

Also, can someone enlighten me if British law allows him to sue for his defense cost?

Re:200,000 dollars

[wiredlogic]

The cost isn't a signifier of importance. It is a repudiation of a self-serving system of law that punishes innocent people by forcing them to outlay large sums of money to protect themselves from rapacious litigants. When faced by a wealthy opposition, those of lesser means very often have to cave in and accept defeat simply because they have no means of defending themselves. Hopefully the loser-pays rules will be put to effect here but that doesn't justify the need to pay so much upfront for protection from the law.

FWIW. I knew who Singh was before this case came up.

Re:200,000 dollars

[cgenman]

If nothing else, the story is that it costs $200,000 to defend against false libel claims in British courts. Remember, this isn't the criminal justice system where you have the choice of a state-appointed lawyer or spending the money on your own. If he hadn't spent the $200,000, he would have needed to bow down to every ridiculous demand of the the British Chiropractic Association, despite being obviously correct in what he says. Freedom of Speech doesn't mean freedom to lie arbitrarily about people. But it does need to include the freedom to critique. In England, that right does not exist.

We actually have laws on the books now in America specifically to protect Americans from being sued under the UK's ridiculous libel laws. It's a terrible system, and it has to change. That is the story.

Re:200,000 dollars

[jimicus]

British law is "loser pays", there's usually no need to sue for defence cost.

(IANAL. There may be some nuances here of which I am unaware).

Re:200,000 dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Singh won his appeal (on the meaning of the words he used) and the BCA withdrew their claim. The issue of the libel itself was never settled by the court. Singh has said previously that he's not getting his money back so I would guess the BCA did a deal with him: we'll withdraw if you don't pursue us for costs.

The fundamental problem is that English libel actions are (literally) orders of magnitude more expensive than in other European countries.

Re:200,000 dollars

[soliptic]

Sorry... I hate seeing numbers thrown around as if it somehow makes this case more important than others. I'm glad to see that Simon Singh stood up for his comments and also that he is now extremely famous and has furthered his career by this episode.

You have that spectacularly backwards.

The number isn't thrown around to suggest this figure / this case is unusual, it's thrown around to suggest this is usual. Want to defend yourself? That'll cost you ~5 years of a typical wage, then. Suddenly caving in and "apologising" looks quite attractive after all, regardless of how strong you thought your principles were.

The whole reason he could afford to stick the course defending this is that he was already "rich and famous". By the time this kicked off he already had several best-selling books, a BAFTA award, Emmy nomination, an MBE and a fairly high profile career in print, radio and TV. I understand he may not be a familiar name across the pond, but within this country I struggle to think of many people in his field (science journalism / popular science) with a higher profile over the last couple of decades. Maybe Brian Cox, Patrick Moore, Ben Goldacre... it's really not a long list at any rate.

That's the whole point. If some fresh-out-of-grad-school science-interested junior journalist on £18k p.a. had written this, been sued, and faced a £100k bill, they would almost certainly have had to fold: science 0, legal bullies 1.

This man could have just retracted it and bought a Porsche but instead he used his "fame" and wealth to fight the case as a matter of moral principle, legal precedent, and a platform to explicitly draw attention to the general campaign for libel law reform. Snide insinuations he used the lawsuit for personal promotion are hardly fair.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Singh didn't actually win, the BCA dropped their case when they could see mounting pressure from the public, high profile intellectual celebrities and politicians. A huge difference in law. The last thing the fraudsters within the BCA want is a valid examination of their cure-all claims. The only good from this case is its high profile nature and possible UK libel law reform.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Simon Singh is an idiot if he thinks he can make libellous comments about the BCA

Except that he didn't. You must have missed the part where they had a trial and found him not guilty.

There is the concrete defence against libel cases in the UK - be able to prove what you say. Simple.

It was simple, except for the part where it put him out of work for over a year, cost him over $200,000, and had a chilling effect on press reporting of Chiropractic.

His "libelous" statement?

"The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments."

The BCA claimed that "happily promotes" implied that they were being consciously dishonest, and explicitly malicious in promoting chiropractic.

BTW. "Simon Singh is an idiot" is a very libelous statement, at least as libelous of what Singh was put in for ... but I assume that you can produce proof that he meets the current psychiatric definition "idiot". Simple.

Re:200,000 dollars

[vectorious]

He did have the proof to back up what he said - that the treatments were bogus. I.e. there is plenty of evidence that they did not work (more accurately no evidence that they do better than a placebo). The original judge decided that "bogus" meant that the supplier was dishonestly lying about it too, and that was the libellous claim, and that is the appeal he won. In any case he probably could have won the argument as he could have shown that the Chiropracters ought to have known about the studies that showed the lack of effect, and if they did not they were negligent, and if they did they were dishonest. This however was a much tougher argument, with room for scope of argument on "dishonest". Notably the BCA had to issue warnings to members to remove claims from websites and literature as there were many making claims that could not be backed up.This suggests that he probably had a point anyway. The effect is now that many people will not speak out against treatments without any medical value and dodgy medical claims for fear of being sued - even if they win they lose a few years of their life and earnings.

Re:200,000 dollars

[BitterOak]

British law is "loser pays", there's usually no need to sue for defence cost.

(IANAL. There may be some nuances here of which I am unaware).

Yes, but from what I understand, the British Chiropractic Association did not actually lose the case, but rather they withdrew their suit after losing a judgment on a point in the case regarding interpretation of Singh's statements. Do they still have to pay the legal costs he had accumulated up to that point, including his appeal costs on that particular ruling? I couldn't find in any documentation any information regarding who has to foot the $200K bill, so I am assuming Dr Singh had to pay.

Re:200,000 dollars

[quintessencesluglord]

Indeed, the court system does seem to favor the wealthy (unless you are the deep pockets being sued), but even loser pay rules struck me as unfair.

It would seem that at the beginning of the trial, if both the plaintiff and defendant would throw the sum total of funds to be spent into a common pot (to be split equally among them for their court cost), then the amount paid would be the cost at arriving at a _judgement_ instead of paying more to win the case.

Re:200,000 dollars

[timbo234]

Simon Singh is an idiot if he thinks he can make libellous comments about the BCA *without having the proof to back up what he says*. There is the concrete defence against libel cases in the UK - be able to prove what you say. Simple.

1) The judges ruled that Sing's comments fell under 'fair comment', an expression of his opinion that was allowed under freedom of expression, whether or not what he said was actually true. See http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/350.html

2) The BCA was asked to show the evidence it had that Sing was wrong - ie. that chiropractors could treat common childhood illnesses. The evidence was examined in the British Medical Journal and found to be a load of crap - half the studies they cited had nothing to do with chiropractic, they misrepresented the conclusions of others and the remaining had basic methodological errors making them invalid: http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2766.full?view=long&pmid=19589818

So far from being an idiot Sing was proven completely right - not only he can make 'libellous' comments against chiropractic because of free speech laws but those comments were actually proven to be correct.

Re:200,000 dollars

[vectorious]

I understand from other sources that he will get most of the money back (although by no means all me might still be out £20-£50k, no small sum for an individual). However he did have to front £200k himself upfront, with no guarantee of recovery and lost two years of his life, which for a self employed writer is 2 years income gone.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW. I knew who Singh was before this case came up.

Indeed, he wrote The Code Book (which has a place of honor on my bookshelf). It's a great (and easy to digest) book on the history of cryptography. He also wrote Fermat's Enigma which I believe is/was quite popular (I haven't read it). That's where I personally know Singh from. I had no idea he was involved in a libel suit.

Re:200,000 dollars

[whoever57]

Indeed, the court system does seem to favor the wealthy (unless you are the deep pockets being sued), but even loser pay rules struck me as unfair.

Loser pays in the UK is not quite as simple as many people think. The definition of "loser" is usually based on whether any award was more or less than what was previously offered (and paid into the court) by the defendant. For example if the defendant offered to settle for 100k pounds and the judge awards damages of 99k pounds (less than was offered), then the plaintiff is considered the loser and has to pay the defendant's legal costs even though he was awarded 99k.

Furthermore, legal costs include the cost of the lawyers' time, unlike the USA.

Re:200,000 dollars

[growse]

There is the concrete defence against libel cases in the UK - be able to prove what you say. Simple.

This isn't correct. Truth is not an absolute defence against libel under UK law (unlike, I believe, the US). You can be successfully sued for libel even if both parties agree that what you said was true.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Phat_Tony]

Exactly. In fact, the summary has the story exactly wrong:

he spent more than $200,000 and emerged victorious

When someone publishes a book with their objective findings on a subject, and their findings run counter to someone else's interests, giving the author an option between paying $200,000 or paying a fine and issuing a retraction means that they've already lost. Which of those two options they choose is much less important than the fact that either option is an intolerable affront to justice, more in line with The Spanish Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials than the relatively high degree of freedom of most modern democracies. Referring to either outcome as a "victory" misses the point that the righteous are put into lose-lose scenarios by British libel law.

The sort of society engendered by allowing the wealthy to cause immense harm to their critics regardless of the merits of their claims is not the kind of society reasonable people want to live in.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Want to defend yourself? That'll cost you ~5 years of a typical wage, then. Suddenly caving in and "apologising" looks quite attractive after all, regardless of how strong you thought your principles were. The whole reason he could afford to stick the course defending this is that he was already "rich and famous" [...] . If some fresh-out-of-grad-school science-interested junior journalist on £18k p.a. had written this, been sued, and faced a £100k bill, they would almost certainly have had to fold

And that right there is evidence of a horrible corruption of the legal system. Ideally anybody with a strong case ought to be able to defend themselves in court and win without the help of a lawyer. Whatever it is that makes this not the case, be it badly written law or overreliance on procedure, reduces the not-rich to second-class citizens.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Qzukk]

legal costs include the cost of the lawyers' time, unlike the USA.

Here in the USA, you can be awarded lawyers' fees above the actual award for the suit.

Re:200,000 dollars

[phantomfive]

It's kind of a historical thing. Historically, Britons favor respect and propriety over the truth. Even if everyone knows the king is cheating on his wife, you don't say it in public, for example. As long as no one is getting hurt, there's no reason to make waves by pointing it out. Thus their historical custom is codified into law.

Here in America we're a bunch of redneck hicks who know nothing about respect and propriety. If we know some dirt about someone, we're going to say it, and we're going to say it loud. And our laws protect us.

Whether one way or the other is better is debatable, of course I prefer the American way, but there is an argument to be made for the British way as well.

Re:200,000 dollars

[ScrewMaster]

Whatever it is that makes this not the case, be it badly written law or overreliance on procedure, reduces the not-rich to second-class citizens.

The not-rich are already second-class ... this makes them something less than that.

Re:200,000 dollars

[donscarletti]

Truth is not an absolute defence against libel under UK law (unlike, I believe, the US).

Truth is an ultimate defence for civil libel in England and always has been. Exceptions have been made in some states in the US for when the truth is told with malicious intent. However, there has been no such case in England/Wales under civil libel law where the ruling has dismissed truth as a defence.

The final issue of this case was not Mr Singh's scientific claims, but his claims that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments", which was taken by the BCA to mean that they knowingly advertised treatments that they knew to be ineffective. Mr Singh claimed this was not his meaning. The issue with this comment, in that interpretation is that it is difficult to show that you have reasonable basis to believe that the BCA has no faith in its own treatment. In the end, the court took it to mean that simply that the BCA promoted ineffective treatments, something that Mr Singh had reasonable basis for saying.

The law in this case has done its job, it has found Mr Singh not liable for defamation. Defamation laws are there to make people responsible for what they say and they mostly work. The issue here is that the whole system of civil law is so slow and expensive that it becomes prohibitively inconvenient to actually get to the truth. But this goes far beyond libel and to every claim imaginable.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Hognoxious]

This isn't correct. Truth is not an absolute defence against libel under UK law (unlike, I believe, the US).

Stop spreading this myth. A quick google search will show this is completely wrong.

Truth is a 100% defence against any defamation charge - but only if the defendant can prove it's true...

You can be successfully sued for libel even if both parties agree that what you said was true.

.. if the plaintiff admits it, I'd say that'd be proof enough for most juries.

If you have an example to back up your assertions. Such cases are public record, so it'll be on an interweb somewhere.

And shame on the imbeciles who modded this up.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Pax681]

as was most sagely stated above.......

there is NO SUCH THING AS "BRITISH LAW"!!!

England and Wales have the same legal framework....... Northern Ireland has it's own legal framework

Scotland has had it's own legal framework.. separate from the english one.. ooooh.. lemme think.. since forever....

Re:200,000 dollars

[u38cg]

That's something of a misrepresentation. British libel law evolved through precedent, and the underlying principle was that one should not say things which one could not show to be true. This leads to some grotesque abuses (as the Singh case shows), but it also means we have (in general) a much more careful media system than in many other countries.

Re:200,000 dollars

[kyz]

Truth is a 100% defence against any defamation charge - but only if the defendant can prove it's true...

Sorry, you're talking bullshit.

• "Absolute privilege" has the effect that a statement cannot be sued on as defamatory, even if it were made maliciously; a typical example is evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).
• "Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments. Qualified privilege has the same effect as absolute privilege, but does not protect statements that can be proven to have been made with malicious intent.

Simon Singh is a journalist and his comments weren't a report of Parliamentary or court proceedings. Therefore they are merely qualified, not absolutely privileged, therefore he can be found guilty of libel if it can be shown he made his comments with malicious intent.

TL;DR: Grandparents are entirely right, parent is talking out of his ass.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Hognoxious]

When faced by a wealthy opposition, those of lesser means very often have to cave in and accept defeat simply because they have no means of defending themselves.

Actually there's an easy, simple and cheap way to defend yourself in a libel case: prove that what you said or wrote about the plaintiff is true.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Hognoxious]

evidence given in court (although this may give rise to different claims, such as an action for malicious prosecution or perjury) or statements made in a session of the legislature (known as 'Parliamentary privilege' in Commonwealth countries).

He isn't an MP, so this is irrelevant.

Qualified privilege" may be available to the journalist as a defense in circumstances where it is considered important that the facts be known in the public interest; an example would be public meetings, local government documents, and information relating to public bodies such as the police and fire departments.

Facts are by definition true.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Peach Rings]

The law in this case has done its job, it has found Mr Singh not liable for defamation. Defamation laws are there to make people responsible for what they say and they mostly work.

Bullshit. Libel laws have no place in scientific discourse.

Re:200,000 dollars

[Kell Bengal]

That's not an air-tight defense everywhere, though. In Australia (for instance) true but otherwise libelous statements must be proven to be 'in the public interest'. Here, truth alone does not make it ok to say certain things about people.

Re:200,000 dollars

[pmc]

This for some reason is at 5 interesting despite being completely wrong.

What happened was that at the original pretrial hearings the Judge struck out the defence of honest opinion, which would have been a defence against the BCA's claim of libel (not an absolute defence - if the BCA could establish that the opinion was based on malice then it could prevail).

What Simon Singh did win was the appeal against this judgement. Faced with the extemely strong likelyhood that Singh had a suitable defence the BCA withdrew.

He had an earlier win as well by winning the rigth to appeal after having it rejected twice.

Re:200,000 dollars

[koona]

SORRY, there is NGDW this post is funny.....! Read the last line. This is an asertation that deserves scholarly erudition rather than usa undergraduate "peer review"

Re:200,000 dollars

[dcam]

Truth is an ultimate defence for civil libel in England and always has been.

No it is not. There is a two factor test, one is whether it is true, the other is whether it is in the public interest. To successfully defend against libel both must be fulfilled.

Next target ...

[sourcerror]

astrology,
homeopathy,
feng-shui,
graphology,
psycho-analysis?

Re:Next target ...

[ColdWetDog]

You forgot economics.

Re:Next target ...

[pieisgood]

Fish in a barrel.

Re:Next target ...

[schwit1]

Faith based medicine
Lie detectors
Cell phones cause cancer
zero point energy

Re:Next target ...

[cgenman]

Weather Forecasting.

Re:Next target ...

[the eric conspiracy]

There is a great need to root it all out and the only way that will happen is to finally eschew all faith based beliefs.

Re:Next target ...

[DMiax]

You have it completely backwards. This is not about deciding science through lawsuit, but exactly the opposite.

You listed things that are controversial and/or lacking data. Those fields need serious debate and need to be free from baseless libel suits. And for the uncontroversial ones scientists need to be free to say "X is a bogus idea" without overpowerful organizations try to get their asses in court.

Re:Next target ...

[thrawn_aj]

Weather forecasting seems to work most of the time (at least well enough that I know what to wear and whether to carry an umbrella that day). Back when I lived in Cleveland, the snow predictions were eerily (and unfortunately) accurate to a reasonable enough degree. Since the arrival of doppler radar, it's become even more useful.

Considering that it's based on probabilistic models and no one is stupid enough to insist that it's based on magical crystal balls that always work :p, I'd say people are far too harsh on the poor ol' weatherman :p. And no, I'm about as far removed from the profession as anyone could possibly be - just stating facts.

Oh, and here's the obligatory "ha ha, that's funny" to forestall the inevitable "whoosh" from some drive-by moron (gawd those cretins are annoying :p).

Re:Next target ...

[thrawn_aj]

zero point energy

Max Planck is pissed and wants a word with you :p.

Or were you perchance referring to this huckster? (in which case I agree). I'd like to tell these idiots where to stick their zero-point wands :p. Though, I guess, to be fair, they are quite smart. The idiots are the gullible sheep who continue to make them money by the truckload :(

Re:Next target ...

[thrawn_aj]

Unfortunately, the people who swear by faith-based medicine are also the world's biggest hypocrites. They will surreptitiously resort to conventional medicine to cure their hemorrhoids and publicly laud the success of their "crystal-enriched dildo" or whatever new piece of garbage is making the rounds these days :p.

As a side-effect, this helps keep Darwin's hand at bay and these cancerous beliefs alive and thriving as a festering sore in the face of civilization.

Yeah, I know. The last line sounded too Flash Gordonesque. Just makes me so MAD >:(

Re:Next target ...

[HungryHobo]

It's probably a reference to how poor forecasts any more can a few days ahead can be.

1 and 2 day forecasts tend to be pretty good.

Re:Next target ...

[the eric conspiracy]

That's ok. I feel the same way.

Re:Next target ...

[hedwards]

Forecasting the weather is really hard to do. Especially around here in the Pacific Northwest. Where on most days you can find the weather you want, there's some limitations in that finding snow falling in the summer is tough and finding hot during winter isn't going to happen, but apart from that you can find the weather you want pretty much all year round. You make is sound like they do a poor job of it. But around here at least the science has come a really long way since when I was a kid. Back then we all pretty much knew how to judge the weather coming up in the immediate future, but it was pretty much just reports coming in from ships at sea. Predictions by meteorologists were primitive because the climate systems around here are very complicated. These days they get it right most of the time.

Re:Next target ...

[shawb]

And weather forecasting does tend to get the big things pretty well. Exactly what day and how much the temperature is going to swing... that's got some wiggle room. When the giant storm is going to come through that you actually have to plan around and change your life for: the forecasters are pretty dang good about getting that warning out.

Actually, I have noticed a pretty common trend in the errors on the small stuff where I live. If a weather change is slated for around 2 days to a week out, the event will come through one day later than predicted. It could have something to do with living on the great lakes, or more likely be sampling error and confirmation bias on my part. Then again, it seems to me that between mid june and the middle of July major thunderstorms tend to arrive at the lakefront around 9-10:00pm. I think most of the thunderstorms I have experienced were shortly after sunset at Summerfest.

Re:Next target ...

[ChromeAeonium]

That's why you can never trust those claims. The proponents will claim 'I got better while taking homeopathic caffeine' or whatever, meanwhile they were also taking real medicine (or the problem just goes away naturally), but guess which one they think worked? The alt-med bullshit. Like in that Hauser case, where that kid's mom took off with hum when the court ordered her to seek real treatment. The tumor got bigger without chemo, smaller when chemo was started again, yet his mom claims it was the herbs and ionized water that did it, not the medical treatments. And the thing is, these are the testimonies that the horseshit peddlers will slap on there products' labels too. Incredible.

Your last line is almost right, but still, kinda wrong, considering that children can be the victim of their parents' irrationality, they can sucker the desperate and hopeless (even against their better judgment), that some of these people can hurt other unrelated people by buying into the anti-vax strain of bullshit, and that these people can and do form interest groups to foist their anti-scientific beliefs upon everyone else, and this expands to cover other areas of science, like radio towers & wi-fi, genetic engineering, ect. If it was just them, whatever, but it is more than just a single festering sore, it is a spreading cancer. How to stop it, how to get irrational people to listen to you, how to effectively communicate to people who are convinced they have it all figured out really haven't got a clue, I don't know, but it must be done. I want to see humanity have continuous perpetual improvement & advancement, and that's not going to happen when we have people who think the fifteen minutes they spent listening to Alex Jones means as much as the lifetime a scientist's spends on that subject.

But of course, I'm clearly being paid hundreds of millions of dollars by the Big Pharma/Shadow Government to cast doubt the amazing powers of pseudoscience based medicine, so I guess you can't trust what I say.

Re:Next target ...

[DavidTC]

'Zero-point energy' is a confusing term.

What the GP probably meant is, yes, that idiot and others claiming they are generating power from zero-point energy, or what I guess could be called 'zero-point energy energy'.

For people here who don't want to spend any time reading up on stupidity, 'zero-point energy' has become the modern way to say 'perpetual motion machine'. "No, this system can't produce power forever with no outside energy, that's a violation of thermodynamics. It's using zero-point energy!"

Actually, what they're talking about is called 'vacuum energy', which is the energy difference between the energy level of 'nothing' in this universe, which is full of virtual particles and whatnot, compared actual nothing nothing. The Casimir effect demonstrates that if you remove (some) of the virtual particles, you can get to a lower density than vacuum. The universe itself, without anything in it, has a density, or at least a pressure.

To actually harness that could be incredibly dangerous, akin to living in a balloon and poking a hole in the wall to use the air rushing out as a power source. Luckily, to do such a thing would require...well, let's just say it starts with the ability to create wormholes, and put one end outside of space/time(1), so it seems unlikely that someone's magical car battery is doing it.

Zero-point energy is just the lowest possible energy state of a system, because even absolute zero system have some energy. But there's not any way, even hypothetical, to produce power from that fact. Because if you removed that energy, you would, ipso facto, demonstrate that wasn't the zero-point. (And there's no way you can make any net gain in usable energy by moving around minute amounts of heat at absolute zero anyway!)

'Vacuum energy' is the 'zero-point energy' of the universe, but as the universe isn't at the lowest energy state, it's sorta stupid to talk about it in that context. In the real world, we use the energy that actually exists in this universe compared to other places in this universe, not microscopic amounts of energy compared to some ideal 'no energy' state which we have no way to access and thus can't use for 'work', which is just moving energy around.

But it's not surprising that pseudoscientists use the wrong term for something, or pick something that actually can't be used to do work and claim it's powering their stuff.

1) Hilariously, it's so dangerous they can't even do it on Stargate...where they actually can create interdimensional transtemporal wormholes. They have 'zero-point modules' that create an artificial universe and use that for energy...the few times anyone tried to do it to the actual vacuum energy here, they've blown up solar systems. It's so dangerous you can't even do it in science fiction! ;)

Re:Next target ...

[Cederic]

I sense the need for a new product on the market. I have a friend that sells crystals; wonder if she wants to branch out into a new industry..

Re:Next target ...

[martyros]

Weather forecasting seems to work most of the time

I think in the continental US this is true. When I lived in Michigan, you could pretty much rely on the 4-day weather report; the rain might get here Tuesday morning or Tuesday afternoon, but you knew it was going to rain Tuesday. And Tuesday morning, they could tell you within a 2-hour time window exactly when it was going to start raining.

I now live in Cambridge, England, and it's pretty much completely random. Several years ago a fellow American used to check four weather sites every morning to see if it was going to rain. (Since he had to cycle to the office either way, I'm not sure why he cared.) One would say rain in the morning, sunny in the afternoon; another would say sunny in the morning, rain in the afternoon; another would say rain all day; the last would say sunny all day. Remember, this is the morning of, not four days out.

What do you want the weather to be? You can find a website which will tell you that's what's going to happen. :-)

Re:Next target ...

[thrawn_aj]

I agree (about my last line). I completely forgot about the unwilling victims in this tragedy - the poor kids of these idiot parents. As if I wasn't mad enough already :( *retch*

Re:Next target ...

[thrawn_aj]

It's so dangerous you can't even do it in science fiction!

LOL. I'd buy that on a bumper sticker ;)

Re:Next target ...

[thrawn_aj]

That's fascinating. I wonder why that is though. Perhaps on some basic level, weather patterns are like the classic Feigenbaum diagram - well-defined cycles in some regions and utter, battshiat chaos in others. I wonder you happen to live smack in the middle of a chaotic window :). *sigh* I wouldn't mind that at all.

Levity aside, I'm definitely gonna look into whether this sort of glaring difference in predictability has been studied (it surely must have been!).

Since I would intuitively expect such regions of order/chaos to be functions of phase space variables (rather than merely geographic location), I suspect (a wild speculation I agree) these regions might actually be moving around so that if you looked at historical records for Cambridge, the degree of regularity of the weather changes over time.

Great Quote

[rotide]

I happen to know a few people who are really.. well, they love Jesus more than most. They seem to attack science, not to learn anything, but to merely shoot down their "adversary".

I really wish those people could understand this quote (last 2 lines of the article): "People start off with a belief and a prejudice—we all do. And the job of science is to set that aside to get to the truth."

Re:Great Quote

[genner]

I happen to know a few people who are really.. well, they love Jesus more than most. They seem to attack science, not to learn anything, but to merely shoot down their "adversary".

I really wish those people could understand this quote (last 2 lines of the article): "People start off with a belief and a prejudice—we all do. And the job of science is to set that aside to get to the truth."

The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth. Sir Karl Popper

Re:Great Quote

[loxosceles]

At some point scientific consensus on issues of public concern has to be used to shape public policy, and that's where being "right" becomes important.

The interface between science and public policy is very shifty and dangerous. It is very likely that even when good scientific consensus exists on a subject, that public policy designed to address that issue will end up being corrupted by a) special interests, b) politicians pandering to constituents and ignoring the science, and c) politicians who don't understand the issue and inadvertently render corrective legislation ineffective.

Re:Great Quote

[rotide]

Interesting.. The dictionary seems to disagree with you..

truth
–noun, plural truths /truðz, trus/ Show Spelled[troothz, trooths] Show IPA.
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. ( often initial capital letter ) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic . fidelity or constancy.
—Idiom
12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.

Re:Great Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called bigotry and you're right it happens a lot all over. As per your example go to any android article and it's full of iPhone user's comments, quick to jump in and defend their favourite product even though it's not at all relevant to the story at hand.

Same thing with Ubuntu news here. Check out the latest news still on the front page, there's always someone that has to come and start talking about OSX or Windows, etc..

Re:Great Quote

[Kilrah_il]

Although most of what you wrote is correct and I agree with you, I have a small pedantic comment: The job of science is to take a specific belief/prejudice and attempt to disprove it. Science works by making prediction and then organizing experiments that follow these predictions. If the experiments do not agree with what the theory predicted, then the theory is flawed. If the experiment and the theory/prediction are in agreement, then the theory is strengthened, but it can never be proven.

Re:Great Quote

[nido]

I really wish those people could understand this quote (last 2 lines of the article): "People start off with a belief and a prejudice—we all do. And the job of science is to set that aside to get to the truth."

The few lines before your quote are much more revealing:

The commonsense view is what we’re fighting against. So somehow you’ve got to move people away from that with these quite complicated scientific arguments based on even more complicated research. That’s why it’s such an uphill battle. People start off with a belief and a prejudice—we all do. And the job of science is to set that aside to get to the truth.

Mr. Singh is fighting commonsense. Fascinating. Sometimes the common's sense of an issue is distorted, while sometimes it's right on. For example, commonsense dictates that nutrition is important part of health, but people who fight commonsense think that it doesn't matter, and they sell us drugs to treat what clearly is influenced by nutritional deficiency (for example).

One of the things that makes this case so murky is that the chiropractors do have a point. Commonsense would hold that if one of the body's parts is dislocated from it's optimal position, it or surrounding structures will function suboptimally. Sometimes chiropractors do help their patients. Massage, craniosacral, etc - all help to improve the body's structure. There are better modalities than chiropractic, but sometimes they do help with conditions that, at first glance, aren't related directly to the area being treated.

Re:Great Quote

[AnonymousClown]

Well, so that elective you took as an undergrad "PH 376: Philosophy of Science" finally has paid off!

Re:Great Quote

[Hognoxious]

sometimes they do help with conditions that, at first glance, aren't related directly to the area being treated.

And sometimes a sugar pill works. Sometimes prayer works. Sometimes waving a dead chicken works.

I suspect the percentages are about the same, or he wouldn't have won.

Re:Great Quote

[ScrewMaster]

The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth. Sir Karl Popper

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right. -- Isaac Asimov

One could also say this: "The wrong view of religion betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of faith, but his persistent and recklessly uncritical quest to promote a worldview in diametric opposition of what is."

Re:Great Quote

[pete-classic]

The two claims that the article says Dr. Singh refuted were treatment of childhood asthma and colic. So the limited credit you seem to be giving Chiropractors doesn't really apply.

Like I tell my friends, if there's something wrong with your skeleton see an orthopedist!

-Peter

Re:Great Quote

[the eric conspiracy]

Going to a chiropractor for physical problems is a bat shit crazy thing to do. These people are not trained to diagnose or correctly recognize medical conditions that need real intervention and can do a lot of damage trying to treat muscle pains that arise from serious biological disease using 'manipulation'.

Go see an orthopedist and work with a physical therapist.

You will get far better results and won't put yourself in danger.

It's also a good idea to read the Wikipedia article on the history of chiropractic to understand what you are getting into when you go to one of these quacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_history

From the article:

"Chiropractors historically were strongly opposed to vaccination based on their belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; D.D. Palmer wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison."

Re:Great Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

For example, commonsense dictates that nutrition is important part of health,

99+% of people agree with that statement. Even scientists. Even *very skeptical* scientists. Don't eat enough fresh vegetables? You'll probably get scurvy. Don't get enough iodine in your food? Goiter. Subsist solely on (non-lye treated) maize? Pellagra.

but people who fight commonsense think that it doesn't matter, and they sell us drugs to treat what clearly is influenced by nutritional deficiency (for example).

For providing an example, you are wonderfully vague. What "common sense" nutritional deficiency are you referring to? Chronic fatigue syndrome caused by gluten? Allergies caused by cooked food? Obesity caused by too much animal protein? (Or was that too much carbohydrates - I keep mixing up whether it's "obvious" from our dental patterns we're meat eaters, or it's "obvious" from our intestines that we're not.)

I've never heard of *any* medical condition where it was "obvious" or "commonsense" that it was due to a nutritional deficiency. What does a swollen throat have to do with iodine? What part of having your nails and hair fall out make it "obvious" that you haven't eaten enough vegetables? How is it "common sense" that abdominal pain and cramping is caused by wheat*? We have to discover these things through trial and error (e.g. the scientific method) - you only think it's "commonsense" because it matches whatever particular set of (mis)information you've already been taught. Are eggs good or bad for you? They have a balanced set of amino acids, so it's commonsense they're a good protein source. No wait, they're high in cholesterol, which is bad for you, so commonsense dictates that they're bad. No, wait, dietary cholesterol doesn't affect serum cholesterol in the majority of healthy patients, so "commonsense" says ...

All to often "commonsense" tends to be another way of saying "confirmation bias".

*(I'm referring to actual celiac disease here.)

Re:Great Quote

[gtall]

The real issue is not so much what science does, it is the outlook of politicians. They see everything as a political game. Science, in their minds, is simply something to be used for political ends. Being a suspicious lot, they assume a scientific view at odds with their political view must have been promulgated by the opposition to their political view.

Writ large, people in general are reluctant to give up their beliefs in response to contravening evidence. What makes things worse is that science, in typical fashion, is rarely 100% unequivocal about any one issue. It is in the core of what it means to be a scientist to always question and include the known assumptions. When those assumptions get violated, few recall the original assumptions. All they have heard is that science got something wrong.

In addition, politicians work on a time scale much shorter than science. This has a tendency to whipsaw science; politician make nonsense claim, science shows years later precisely why that is a stupid claim, public policy has already been made in the intervening time.

This is why an uneducated populace and an uneducated, or an educated but corrupt political class, will doom a society to always being in the position of reacting to forces they don't understand or willfully ignore until it is too late.

Re:Great Quote

[Troggie87]

The new era of "common sense thinking" is at the heart of much of the political and social turmoil we see around us. Mr. Singh is absolutely correct in stating that "common sense" is the enemy, and always has been the enemy, of science. Common sense was at the heart of the Ptolemaic system of heavenly motion. Common sense refuted Einstein. Common sense has no place in real science, ever.

Our modern world has advanced to the point that science, economics, philosophy, and literature are beyond 90% of the population. The sheer amount of information required to fully understand any one of those subjects makes it impossible for a "normal" person working 40-50 hours a week with a family and a simple hobby (working on cars, poker, whatever) to grasp them. I cant pretend to be an expert in all aspects of all of them, and I spend vast amounts of time trying to understand them.

In an ideal world, we would have clear experts we could trust to tell us the reality in any of those fields. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the public has recoiled against that, preferring instead to use "common sense" to try and solve problems that inherently cant be solved with common sense. The backlash against science is part of this. Movements like the Tea Party also reflect this idea that "the everyman should take back society" (not to say that allegations of government corruption are unfounded, I don't much care to have that debate).

I truthfully think its a fear reaction. And its understandable. But we as scientists cannot yield to it. The problems we face are too great, and the discoveries too grand, to allow "common sense" (and often superstition in its guise) to hold us back.

Re:Great Quote

[Scrameustache]

I happen to know a few people who are really.. well, they love Jesus more than most. They seem to attack science, not to learn anything, but to merely shoot down their "adversary".

I really wish those people could understand this quote (last 2 lines of the article): "People start off with a belief and a prejudice—we all do. And the job of science is to set that aside to get to the truth."

Hi, let me do some armchair neurolinguistics for you: "belief" is warm and fuzzy; Science want to cast the warm-fuzzy thing away: SCIENCE BAD!

Because it is very important to them to believe every word their faith holds true, otherwise they won't get their big payoff: Eternal life with all those you love and everything you desire. Science can't offer that, so they stick to the better offer.

Re:Great Quote

[AK Marc]

But hey, why let a reasonably explainable treatment get in the way of bashing complementary medicine.

Because it's unproven, and when subjected to testing required of all "medical" treatment, it consistently fails. Just because something changes after someone does something doesn't mean they are causally linked. Proof of that takes real tests which chiropracty consistently fails.

Re:Great Quote

[caluml]

Great. Good for you. However, you're still relating things that you don't know are related. It might just be that it would have all gone away at the same time even if you hadn't gone to a chiropractor. Your story is good news. But you need to ask a lot of people who had the same symptoms, and went to a chiropractor, and find a significantly larger number to start suggesting one is the cause of the other.

Re:Great Quote

[pete-classic]

I object to your characterization of my comments as "bashing".

I'm pleased you found relief, but post hoc ergo propter hoc does not Science make.

I hope you'll consider reading Dr. Singh's (co-written by Dr. Ernst, former Professor of Complementary Medicine) book, Trick or Treatment.

Just to make one key point that you seem to be unclear on, the thesis isn't that symptoms such as yours can't resolve after Chiropractic treatment. The book is a survey of clinical trials and, more convincingly, meta-analysis of clinical trials.

The fact is that any number of variables changed in your life between onset and resolution. You can't draw a reliable conclusion for or against any treatment based on an anecdote.

It is also notable that Dr. Singh is not an M.D. He's a Particle Physicist. His involvement with the book isn't as a defender of the Medical establishment, but as a Scientist applying the Scientific method to try to reveal the truth about the physical world. They extensively discuss the sort of human flaws that lead us to the wrong conclusions when the Scientific Method isn't applied with adequate rigor.

Their conclusion was that properly designed, properly executed, properly controlled studies show that Chiropractic treatments aren't effective at treating this sort of problem. I am interested, as I'm sure they would be, in Scientifically valid data in your possession to the contrary.

-Peter

Re:Great Quote

[sarhjinian]

Going to a chiropractor for physical problems is a bat shit crazy thing to do

This depends highly on the country you're in. In Canada and, I think, Australia is a valid medical profession and it's practitioners are generally reasonable people who operate under sound principles. There are a few "batshit" old-schoolers still in the system, but the more recent grads (say, the last 10-15 years) are no more or less trustworthy than a physiotherapist and no "wackier" than a schooled naturopath. They cannot and will not, for example, say they're able to treat cancer or colds; they will, however, be able to help with neck, back and hip pain.

In the US, it's a mixed bag. In the UK, it's full-bore quackery: you can tell because, in the UK, they do make some fairly outrageous claims.

Re:Great Quote

[ScrewMaster]

"The wrong view of religion betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of faith, but his persistent and recklessly uncritical quest to promote a worldview in diametric opposition of what is."

I like this-- did you write that or could you supply an attribution?

Nope, just paraphrased it from the previous poster's quote from a Sir Karl Popper. Granted, I completely inverted his meaning, but that was the intent.

Re:Great Quote

[twidarkling]

I think the AC was basing his knowledge of "Truth" vs. "Fact" from Indiana Jones, where Indy says "Archaeology is the study of fact, not truth. If you want truth, go down the hall to Philosophy 101."

Re:Great Quote

[Culture20]

AC had his definitions reversed. As your dictionary quote shows, truth is the true or actual state of a matter, actuality or actual existence. Facts are perceptions or expressions of truth. They are not actual truth in and of themselves.

Re:Great Quote

[twidarkling]

Actually, I think it's slightly more general than just religious people looking for their big payoff. People in general dislike having their views challenged. Why? It's a bit more than just disliking being wrong. For little things, it's just resistance to change, and having to remember something different than you're used to. Larger things, however, tend to carry heavy implications when proven incorrect. A firmly held belief is something a person's based actions on. They've done things that they can't change because of that view. If all of a sudden that belief is wrong, then they have to think that maybe, just maybe, those things they've done are also wrong, and they should have done something else. Depending on a person's mentality, they simply can't cope with that level of "what if" and potential regrets. Those are the people who turn in to hardliners and fanatics, no matter what their belief system, since Christians (for example) go "Fuck, no God? I wasted every Sunday of my life in a stupid building, and what the fuck's going to happen to me when I die?", while atheists would go "Fuck, there's a God? Am I going to burn just because I didn't figure this out sooner?"

Quite often it's not the information that people resist, but the implications and duties that changing to reflect the new knowledge would come with.

Re:Great Quote

[the eric conspiracy]

Not so. I found this statement on the Canadian Chiropractic Association Web Site:

        * Can chiropractic treatment cure colds, earaches and other ailments? [Top]

            Chiropractic care cannot "cure" these conditions, but there is some evidence to indicate that adjustment may have a beneficial effect on a variety of conditions. Adjustment may alleviate some of the secondary, or referred pain, arising from the response of the musculoskeletal structures to the primary cause. For example, research conducted in Denmark resulted in chiropractic treatment being recommended for the relief of infantile colic. Similarly, a recent U.S. study concluded that the application of manipulative techniques in children with recurring ear infections can prevent or decrease surgical intervention or antibiotic overuse.

This is pure quackery. Batshit crazy.

Also naturopaths are quacks. 100%. Amoung other things they are another group that opposes vaccinations, an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS position to advocate.

Re:Great Quote

[wrook]

I really wish those people could understand this quote (last 2 lines of the article): "People start off with a belief and a prejudice—we all do. And the job of science is to set that aside to get to the truth."

And I wish people, even scientists, could understand that the purpose of science is not to get to the truth. If you believe that what you find with science is the truth then you have done nothing other than create a new religion.

Science is a model of reality. We make observations. We make a model. We make predictions based on that model. We observe whether those predictions come to pass. If they do, then it a good and useful model. Is it the truth? Who knows??? Reality might be exactly like the model. It might be a little like the model but with other details we haven't noticed. Or it might be totally unlike the model except that it acts like the model. What is the truth? We can't know -- that is the realm of religion. If it is a good model and it is useful then it is science. It doesn't matter what the truth is.

This feud of science vs. religion pisses me off. "God did it" is not useful when I am trying to make a radio. Likewise I don't care if the world is actually 6000 years old and the FSM is making it appear to be billions of years old. I have to interact with the world the way it appears (which is luckily quite consistent with scientific models we have made). What you or I actually believe to be the case is neither here nor there. They are completely unrelated.

Don't just get religion out of science class, get it out of science altogether. It doesn't belong there. If you want to philosophize about what you think things are likely to be, then call it for what it is -- religion. We can not directly observe anything other than ourselves and so can make no statements about their existence (unless you just want to make yourself feel comfortable). But we can make statements about what things seem to be -- that is science.

Re:Great Quote

[Scrameustache]

Actually, I think it's slightly more general than just religious people looking for their big payoff. People in general dislike having their views challenged. Why?

It's because the process of acquiring knowledge means that future contradicting info will be judged wrong accordingly. Same goes for, say, self-esteem: If a kid grows up being told they are bad, they'll usually believe it for the rest of their lives.

Re:Great Quote

[Guy Harris]

Mr. Singh is fighting commonsense. Fascinating. Sometimes the common's sense of an issue is distorted, while sometimes it's right on.

And maybe sometimes it takes "quite complicated scientific arguments based on even more complicated research" to figure out which of those two it is.

Re:Great Quote

[John Hasler]

In an ideal world, we would have clear experts we could trust to tell us the reality in any of those fields.

How would you know who the "clear experts" are?

A Pyrrhic Victory

[Rich0]

Yeah - a victory that cost him $200k of his own money - so that he doesn't have to issue a retraction or pay even more of his own money.

Or, maybe if he is lucky he might get reimbursed some or all of it - quite some time after having spent it. Of course, he won't get any interest on the money or anything like that. Most ordinary people would lose their homes in the process of trying to pay these kinds of fees, and I'm sure courts would not reimburse those costs either.

That will teach them!

Europe at least is far better than the US in this regard, but I'd go a step further. I'd envision a system where when a suit is brought a court would require an escrow of funds from the plaintiff if they had greater than a certain amount in assets. Regardless, the attorneys would be paid by the court (for both parties) - it would be illegal for attorneys to receive money from their clients. The fee rate would be set by the court, and the budget for both parties would be the same, and the budget would be based on the nature of the case and the amount at issue. Both parties would then battle it out in court or settle. Individual participants (whether defendents, plaintiffs, witnesses, or jurors) below a certain income level (moderately high) would also be paid by the court a per-diem based on their annual income. In the end the court would assess the loser of the case for the amount of court costs (which now includes all client legal costs and the cost of the time of all parties as well), plus interest sufficient to ensure the government comes out at least even. This would be a public debt that the government would have the power to collect on.

This would ensure that merely being sued would have no negative financial impact on somebody, and that people will think twice before filing frivolous lawsuits. People who are out time and money also don't have to try to badger the other party to pay - the government would pay them as they incur costs, and now the government can use all its usual methods to recoup its loss just as if the losing party didn't pay their taxes/etc.

The bottom line is that the court system needs to stop punishing people (effectively) merely for being sued.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[blind biker]

Pyrric victory? I don't think so. If money was his only concern, only then it would be Pyrric. But by winning this court battle, Singh made a huge statement, a huge "Fuck you" to the ignorance of Chiropractice, and the chiropractors that leech on that ignorance.

Maybe it's because I'm over 40, but for me, money seems less important now, compared to some greater things in life. I feel my end is coming, and I want my life to have meant something. Money is important, but less important than one's life have a meaning.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[jimicus]

Congratulations, you've just invented a system which no half-decent solicitor will touch with a bargepole if they can possibly help it. It'll be left to the newly-qualified still wet behind the ears people who are likely to do more harm than good.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Skapare]

Requiring money from plaintiffs does not solve the real problem, which is that court systems like those in UK, US, and AU, are fundamentally biased toward people with money, and hence to the positions more of those people hold.

A truly just system would not require anyone to expend any money whatsoever, to carry out a complete and thorough adjudication of the issues. Since people have to do work to carry that out, someone has to pay for it, and that leaves the state. Of course those anti-big-government people, who generally benefit from the unjust and biased legal systems we do have now, would never go for such a change. I can also understand the concerns, because a state paid system really gets opened up for so much abuse in the economic sense (excessive numbers of cases, too).

One thing that would help for lots of little cases is for thing otherwise treated as civil now should be treated as criminal (especially if there is a pattern). The state needs to bring cases against banks and big businesses for things that would otherwise require their customers to sue. If the violations are excessive, there needs to be jail time for the perpetrators, and even "death" for the "corporate person" if it keeps on happening. These cases also need to "pierce the veil of incorporation" in the extreme cases and go after those who voted in the bad guys to the board.

My big point is, that a judicial system where people must pay up front for justice just isn't a just system for those that don't have that financial means, and at best is unfair to those that do, but have to incur that to get justice. Justice should be about setting things straight (including money to those who are were losers by result of the violation, and taking from those who unfairly gained by result of the violation ... after the adjudication properly determine who and what).

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the system he describes is pretty similar to the German system (which has standard lawyer fees; you are allowed to pay your lawyer more than that, but why would you?). That works fine:
- on a €5,000 lawsuit, both side's lawyers are not inclined to spend more than a few hours for the low 4 digit standard fee on that lawsuit.
- if you sue somebody for 10 million, and the court later awards you €5,000, you get to pay the lawyer fees for 10 million, whereas the loser will have to reimburse the lawyer fees for €5,000. That discourages suing for frivolous amounts of damages rather than for actual damages.
- you cannot drown the other side in costs to force them to drop the case

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[pete-classic]

I assume, since the article says he is a British citizen, sued under the British libel law, by the British Chiropractic Association, for an article published in The Guardian, that he was sued in an English court. And, presumably, under the English Rule.

What am I missing here?

-Peter

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Dare nMc]

The problem that comes up every time this is proposed, is that it closes the courts to the poor. For example, if mega corp poisons a poor families water through careless activity, and they only learn after their entire family is seriously ill. They can't sue for millions, because they cant come up with thousands to start the case. If they find a lawyler/legal service to foot the bill, those lawyers are then the one taking the largest financial risk, so those lawyers will then require most of the reward, or not take the case.
That is why in the US, it is left up to the court (in most jurisdictions) so if the court (judge) decides the case should never have occurred then they can pass the fees onto whoever deserves it. If however it was a very tough/close decision their is no extra punishment set on those who started the process, especially if it were just some legal loop hole that caused them to lose.
The US system works great in the cases where a good Judge takes charge. However in the US the problem is most Judges are ex-lawyer/prosecutors who are more interested in maintaing the system that they grew up in.

In short their is nothing wrong with how the rules are setup in the US court system, except it falls onto the judges to make sure they are followed; and they don't do that, all too often.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[ScrewMaster]

Money is important, but less important than one's life have a meaning.

In other words, it's nice to know that when you're gone you'll be remembered for something other than "I shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but my God he was a selfish prick."

Yeah. Priorities change. Well, they do in most of us, I think ... the need to acquire wealth and/or power never dies in some people. Here in the U.S. we call such individuals "CEOs" or "politicians".

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Mikkeles]

Any system that depends on the goodwill of an authority is not a good system.

(Now, if only I could come up with a foolproof solution!)

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[blind biker]

I don't really care about being remembered. I want to, in a way, be "successful", but "success" for me is not what you might expect: if I can make my son's childhood a happier one than mine was, and if I can make our family a happy, warm, welcoming place for that little kid, make him self-confident, feel good about himself... that stuff would mean, to me, that I was "successful". My son may or may not remember me, after I'm gone (though he very likely would remember me), but that's beside the point: I would be satisfied to have been instrumental in him having a good life and being a good person.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The trouble with "Money seems less important now, compared to some greater things in life" is that it goes from being plain good sense to (depending on your position) either being Just Plain Wrong or Epic Stoicism pretty sharply at a certain level, defined by your local costs of living and social safety net, if any. Also, if whatever you have in mind requires purchasing inputs(such as legal time), there exists a point where the project goes from being possible to being impossible.

Worrying about money, in itself, is a hobby at best and a psychological condition at worst. However, a substantial majority of people don't have the luxury of worrying about money, in itself(particularly if you are talking a $200k bill and enough time in court that you'd probably lose your day job). They are worrying about "money" as a proxy for worrying about homelessness, or lack of medical care, or hunger, or their children, or fighting with their spouse all the time, or whatever.

Estimates vary; but the PPP adjusted GDP per capita of the UK is only ~$35k. If a libel defense costs ~5.5 years of that, it is essentially a certainty that most of the population simply doesn't have a choice about whether they want to mount one or not, regardless of whether they care about money or not.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Hal The Computer]

People don't have to hire a lawyer, it just is generally a good idea the same way it's a good idea to hire a contractor rather than renovate your home yourself.

The state does already pay someone "to carry out a complete and thorough adjudication of the issues". She is called the judge.

Your rant about crimes and corporations is extremely ill-considered, but I shall leave that for someone else to discuss. I'll just point out that fraud already is illegal pretty much everywhere.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[AK Marc]

Pyrric victory? I don't think so.

At it's simplest, a pyrric victory is a victory "at great cost." I think $200,000 is "great cost." You must be a lot richer than me if you don't think so.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Skapare]

For cases like the one that is the subject of this article, and for anything going to appeals, the chance of success by someone going pro se is less than nil. The UK and US legal systems are "adversarial" (as opposed to "inquisitional"). The judge only works with what is presented. The average person won't know if something the other side presents is valid. They won't know how to cross examine. It is only in small claims court where pro se is often seen and can readily work. The judge does not seek out evidence.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[blind biker]

Isn't it obvious? It is not me who has to pay that money, but Simon Singh, so I don't have to "think" one way or the other, it's Singh's business to decide. But I think he's wealthy enough that the cost was not too great, considering that now the UK chiropractors have to cover their asses like there's no tomorrow. It's been the mother of all Straisand effects.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[aekafan]

That's funny. I believe that the only meaning life has is whatever you make of it. The universe is inherently devoid of meaning. I took me till 40 to realize this. The only meaning your life will ever have is whatever it means to you. It will soon be completely forgotten after you die.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[u38cg]

It sounds like you are advocating an inquisitorial as opposed to the UK/US adversarial system. Both have their merits, but the inquisitorial system is much more vulnerable to state capture. That is not a good thing.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Rich0]

I don't have a problem with that. Why do we need to have our best and brightest devoting their time to the pursuit of law?

The goals of law are JUSTICE and FAIRNESS. You don't get that when one side can drown the other in a sea of motion practice, simply by virtue of having more money.

So, what is important is that both sides have access to the same resources. Why not keep the cost of those resources low?

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Rich0]

My proposal only required any cash up-front from entities that had lots of it, and then only from plaintiffs (since they are the only ones with a voluntary role in the system).

The poor could sue megacorporations without spending a dime out of their pocket. They'd be paid their per-diem wage for their time in court. They would receive the exact same legal budget as their opponent. In short, they would be on fairly equal footing. Of course, there are a ton of loopholes to close for something like this (no having in-house counsel or researchers or whatever help out with the defense - since that amounts to increasing the budget of the megacorp, etc).

I also want there to be some care about frivolous suits. If justice doesn't cost anybody a dime, then your neighbor is going to drag you to court every time your grass gets taller than they like to see it. Then you're going to drag them to court for dragging you to court, and so on. Petty disputes now end up in the public forum.

Also, we need to avoid exchanging a system that rewards those with money to spare for a system that rewards those with time to spare. Some types of systems that try to promote equality often result in people who actually have jobs not being able to participate in the same way as somebody who has nothing better to do with their life than stand in lines or whatever.

However, I think in general we're after the same thing...

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Rich0]

I indicated as much.

However, the various articles did indicate that whether he will receive his costs is uncertain, and that said costs might not make him whole.

Plus, if you have to pay attorneys $200k today, and you might get $200k back two years from now, I'd argue that you are taking a risk of a huge loss, and a guarantee of a moderate loss. $200k today is worth a lot more than $200k two years from now - just ask any lender.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Rich0]

My proposal would cost a poor (say income less than $200k/yr) plaintiff nothing up-front, and nothing at all if they win. It would also pay the poor person to show up to court, and it would pay for them to have an attorney. That attorney would be paid a reasonable rate regardless of outcome, and wouldn't get 30% of some huge settlement or some nonsense like that.

I specifically thought of the concerns your raise, which is why I suggested that only plaintiffs with means would have to pay to sue. It would mainly be targeted at corporate entities or the rich so that they can't play mass-lawsuit games.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Rich0]

Yes, I realized that. This is why I mentioned Europe at all.

If you actually read the article, you'll notice that he has not been awarded costs. He has only been grated the opportunity to pursue costs. There is no guarantee that he'll get them, or all of them.

The fact that he faces this risk means that contesting a lawsuit still is a risky proposition, even in Europe.

Again, as I stated the European system is better than the US one in this regard. I just am stating that it is not perfect. Perhaps you disagree.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Rich0]

Uh, that was exactly my suggestion. Except that the loser would reimburse the cost to reduce the public expense part. I didn't require court-appointment - only that the budgets be identical for both sides and the rates regulated.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Muros]

Maybe some fines for bringing cases that are deemed to be obviously about bleeding dry the defendant? If the defendant has to stump up, say, 5 years salary to defend against a malicious case, then a corporation bringing the case is fined proprtionately, ie. 5 years profit.

Re:A Pyrrhic Victory

[Skapare]

I'm advocating for something closer to the inquisitional system, but not exactly that. I'm thinking something somewhat like the forum system used by the Romans. That system was abused (no surprise). But a fully open one could be more protected. That, and give the judge(s) power to inquire, too. Also, these days, we can adjudicate by means of electronic exchange.

Condemnation of the UK legal system

[Skapare]

Actually, it is the UK legal system that doesn't work. Neither does the US legal system, or the AU legal system. But for this we can focus on the broken UK legal system.

Basically, what is broken is that the truth is effectively restricted to people with money and wealth. It's good that we have people like Simon Singh who have enough money to make it work, and make it work the right way. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those with money and wealth also tend to be those who perverse and corrupt the system with lies and untruths. So it is a very biased system, even if it might well be balanced and just when those facing off are well moneyed. In other words, it's not a system for ordinary people. So unless we can find a new system to replace it, or at least supplement it, there is no justice, and no truth, for ordinary people most of the time.

Re:Condemnation of the UK legal system

[cgenman]

Amusingly enough, the US actually has laws protecting US Citizens from UK libel laws. IANAL, but in the US you need to show that the defendant was malicious or reckless, and the claimant has to prove that the claim is false. In the UK, it is on the defendant to prove that the claim is true.

So while the problem of buying justice in civil actions is true across the board, the UK is particularly egregious in this respect. Supposedly the UK government will propose a libel reform in March of next year, though details have not been forthcoming.

Re:Condemnation of the UK legal system

[Skapare]

Yes, that is a great US law. But it does not change the fact that the US legal system has most of the same issues the UK legal system has, with respect to fairness for those who don't have the means to even spend $5000 on a case, much less $200000. The fact is, these systems are biased towards those with money. And being able to countersue to recover that money (where it can be done) doesn't help very much. It's a good thing that rightful people like Simon Singh do have some money. It's unfair even to him that he has to spend all that (I hope he has a means to recover it). But at least he was in a position to get some of the fairness at some point that most other people would never be able to get.

Re:Condemnation of the UK legal system

[Skapare]

But you still had to have the money to pay the attorney's fees up front to begin with. Tell me how a person with $5000 handy can defense themselves in a case like Simon Singh had without getting lucky and finding an attorney who will do it without money? Anti-SLAPP is good. But it doesn't go far enough and doesn't cover all the kinds of cases that ordinary people lose in court all the time because they can't afford premium legal representation.

Re:Condemnation of the UK legal system

[Skapare]

I'm not sure what cases you are referring to. Maybe the medical/accident injury cases that you see lawyer ads on TV for so much (classical "ambulance chaser")? In many of these cases, the other party might well be a victim of an overly aggressive lawyer that cheats the system ... them having to pay up front for a defense attorney who won't be able to win excessive awards. Lawyers on the plaintiff side of these kinds of cases can take the risk of some cases not winning or not being collectible (defendant declares bankruptcy after losing) because they take so much from the cases that do win and collect from.

BTW, these lawyers rarely touch a case where the defendant is not either wealthy or has big insurance coverage (because they can't collect a $4M award from someone making $40k a year).

"experts"

[Anonymous Coward]

Simon Singh: Don’t come up with a view, find everybody who agrees with it, and then say, “Look at this, I must be right.” Start off by saying, “Who do I trust?” On global warming, for example, I happen to trust climate experts, world academies of science, Nobel laureates, and certain science journalists. You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.

The guy makes a great point although at the same time if applied everywhere is totally wrong. I'm sure some of those chiropractors are "experts" in their "field". Why wouldn't we trust them over some journalist. After all, the journalist isn't an expert!

The point being everyone seems to be labeling themselves as an expert these days, even when they're not (social media experts, haha). There was an artist on a TV program I watched the other day labelling himself a "climate expert" demanding that everyone should stop flying, right now! Regardless of how people feel about global warming I start not giving I shit when it turns into the big circle jerk that it has become and everyone starts the "look at me!" game.

Re:"experts"

[oldhack]

The point being everyone seems to be labeling themselves as an expert these days, even when they're not (social media experts, haha).

That's why you have to say it with a German accent if you want to be taken seriously: "Yessss, I am ze expeeeert."

Re:"experts"

[AK Marc]

The guy makes a great point although at the same time if applied everywhere is totally wrong. I'm sure some of those chiropractors are "experts" in their "field". Why wouldn't we trust them over some journalist. After all, the journalist isn't an expert!

Chiropractors are, without real medical training, claiming to be experts in the medical field. A journalist, with professional training, is claiming to be an expert in bullshit. Who sounds like they are more likely experts in their particular field?

Re:"experts"

[hkmwbz]

Climate experts are actual experts in an actual field. Comparing that to quacks who just claim to be experts is pretty insane.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[Skapare]

The problem is that not everyone understands language, and the diversity of meaning. This is particularly problematic with people heavily involved in law, where the language needs to be precise, even to the extreme of being excessively verbose. So it is no surprise that some judges would misunderstand what is meant, or even dare make an assumption that a certain thing would be meant.

To be clear enough in writing to be sure all judges would understand it would be to write in a style no one else can.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[jimicus]

Which is precisely what the first judge interpreted Singh to mean, and precisely what he appealed against. The Court of Appeal held that his comment was an opinion piece rather than an assertion of fact, and therefore not something the court should interfere in.

Why he got into so much trouble

[warrax_666]

The reason he got into so much trouble is simple: The libel laws in the UK are batshit insane.

Re:Why he got into so much trouble

[the eric conspiracy]

Perhaps the fact that they are in direct conflict with the EU Human Rights Convention will eventually trigger reform.

Re:Why he got into so much trouble

[Hognoxious]

Does the EU Human Rights Convention act only protect liars, and not the people lied about?

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[Hognoxious]

I remember the 1970's plenty well enough to recall that the great fear then was, are you ready for this, Global Cooling!

Hate to snow on your parade, but that's a myth.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[Grapplebeam]

So the global pollution that shut down Moscow isn't an issue at all? Even if global warming is nothing more than a scheme to get us to pollute less, isn't it time we started doing so anyways? Think of a law that received widespread support BEFORE anyone died from it when we didn't have any regulation. Especially here in America, we need a catalyst to get anything done. So while you may be right about global climate change being fake (which I still believe it's real especially since you didn't quote anything empirical), I still think the obnoxious hippies have a point for once. One other thing, I notice you didn't mention how we're due for an ice age and how that might affect the way our climate change is. Global warming is misleading as a term.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You're an excellent example of exactly what Mr. Singh speaks about at the end of his interview. Science isn't about finding support for your belief or absolute proof some other belief has no possibility of being correct. It's about using a formal, methodological process for deciding what to believe. I don't think anyone who has objectively decided who are credible experts in the field then looked into what the most supported scientific theories are, has not concluded that the scientific answer so far is that global climate change is happening at rapid and unexpected rates, most likely due to the influence of humans including gas emissions.

Sure you can go out and pick studies and people to attack or quote to support any opinion you've already formed, but that isn't science nor is it reasoned. And that's where you and the majority of our society seems to be failing.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for bringing up Global Cooling so quickly, so I know that you are either ignorant or choose not to pay attention to facts.

Re:Usual blame scenario

[oldhack]

You went off my point slightly - the researchers themselves, being the principals, must own up to fair share of the blame. They are aware of the incentives and environments in which they work, and "wittingly or not" is no excuse.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge

[tomhath]

That seems redundant. But I'll probably get sued for saying it.

Re:Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge

[u38cg]

His actual name is Judge, bizarrely enough. The fact he's also a lord in his own right is just the icing on the cake.

Re:Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge

[Kijori]

"Lord Chief Justice" is his position in the legal system, "Lord" is his title, and "Judge" is, fittingly, his surname.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[ScrewMaster]

Singh may need to learn a bit more on just how inaccurate most of our historical readings truly are -- but that's not his field.

Well, as someone who's spent most of his career developing data acquisition systems, I tend to agree with you, and even the most well-designed instrumentation can (as you say) suffer from deployment and installation issues. Want another example? Human body temperature. 19th century research was dependent upon 19th measuring technology: making crucial public policy decisions on old data that is likely flawed is very dangerous. Yet, that's exactly what we're doing in the case of global warming.

trust authority?

[bcrowell]

Wired: What about nonscientists? How are we supposed to know what's true?

Simon Singh: Don't come up with a view, find everybody who agrees with it, and then say, "Look at this, I must be right." Start off by saying, "Who do I trust?" On global warming, for example, I happen to trust climate experts, world academies of science, Nobel laureates, and certain science journalists. You have to decide who you trust before you decide what to believe.

This makes me very uncomfortable. I believe that global warming is real and anthropogenic, but the reason I believe it isn't just that somebody with a Nobel prize said, "global warming is real and anthropogenic." Authoritative scientists told us that margarine was better for us than butter; in that miscegenation laws were necessary for public health; and that electromagnetic waves were not quantized (Bohr's school said this) and that they were vibrations of a luminiferous aether (most textbooks said this, decades after Einstein published relativity). All of those claims turned out to be false. Some of them were extremely harmful to large numbers of people.

I teach physics at a community college for a living. The hardest thing to get my students to do is to think for themselves. Some come in already doing it, some will do it with encouragement, and others are incapable of doing it. Some will do it and come up with conclusions that I consider incorrect. But despite all these difficulties, we're far better off as a society if 10% of the population can think for themselves than we are if 100% accept authoritative opinions on faith.

Re:trust authority?

[the eric conspiracy]

I agree that faith and belief in authority are crappy things to base belief on. So now the question is how to decide? Methodological naturalism works great, but most people don't have the capacity to go through that process every time they have to make a decision.

So then you have to look at sources that have applied methodological naturalism and go with the answer they got. I don't think that's faith, but rather it's a rational basis for making a decision based on the process that was used having a great track record over the past couple of millennia.

Re:trust authority?

[Cabriel]

what you've just said is that everyone should test every assertion ever made. Let's start with you: Did you personally test Anthropogenic Global Warming? 'Cause I'm willing to bet you trusted someone else's assertion. While your point that we should be critical thinkers is valid, your assertion that we shouldn't trust authoratative sources is misdirected. We should test the source, but if they prove to be authoritative, we don't need to distrust everything out-of-hand. If they make mistakes, other authoratative sources will correct them.

Singh is quite right: We should be critical thinkers in deciding who to trust before we decide what we should believe.

Re:trust authority?

[WarlockD]

I have given up on any newspapers telling me the truth on anything. The reporter doesn't understand most of the context and even scientific journals sometimes use "flair" to get more attention. At best you can email some of the authors of the reports and see if they can tell you in their words what alot of the research means.

Its why hearsay is not court admissible evidence. Most scientists are either blatantly misquoted or the reporter fills in blanks with bad science. Once the story is out, he goes on to the next project to let that bad information float.

I really wish there was a better system out there for the common man. At best I can just say "something" is going on, but with all this conflicting global warming information I just don't know. Hell, are eggs and bacon good for you now?

Re:trust authority?

[oldhack]

Don't be such an egghead.

Everyone develops a BS detector, and one should feed it with continuing education (I don't necessarily mean formal education) and information to maintain/improve its efficacy - life requires it whether you are a bricklayer or a brain surgeon.

Re:trust authority?

[bcrowell]

what you've just said is that everyone should test every assertion ever made.

No, I didn't say anything that extreme.

Did you personally test Anthropogenic Global Warming? 'Cause I'm willing to bet you trusted someone else's assertion.

I never said anything about personally testing it. I just said that I didn't automatically accept it because it was stated by an authority figure.

We should test the source, but if they prove to be authoritative, we don't need to distrust everything out-of-hand. If they make mistakes, other authoratative sources will correct them.

Authoritative sources said that Jews and gypsies were genetically inferior to Aryans. By the time Germans heard those authoritative sources contradicted by other authoritative sources, the Jews and gypsies had already been massacred.

You seem to be ignoring the possibility that there is some middle ground: that we can think critically even about scientific claims made by authoritative sources, and base our critical thinking on something less than repeating every experiment personally.

Re:trust authority?

[dbIII]

and that electromagnetic waves were not quantized (Bohr's school said this)

And then not very many years later Neils Bohr spent about half an hour berating a young Feynman to pay attention to quantum theory when Feynman said something about particles. It's all about the most correct model of the time and less about the ego. Nobody made fun of Bohr as some sort of flat earther in his lifetime just as he didn't try to push his model onto anyone once a better one was developed.
The acceptance of climate change is as universal among everyone in related feilds as the formerly contraversial idea of plate techtonics is among geophysicists - and it's almost the same vintage. We are only hearing noise from economists, fringe journalists, one former TV weather presenter, PR companies and people with a political agenda (eg. oppose Al Gore or oppose anything high profile in science) because the model was developed so long ago and has stood up to a lot of testing.

Re:trust authority?

[khallow]

The acceptance of climate change is as universal among everyone in related feilds

I've been hearing from people in scientific computation and applied math (that is, related fields) is that partly anthropogenic global warming is probably true, but the models and computations used in climatology are weak and need improvement. When you include also the resistance from economists (who are also a related field), it sounds to me like AGW (what you term "climate change") requires more evidence and much more solid models than it currently has.

Re:trust authority?

[dbIII]

Please note that nobody really considered it required "more evidence and much more solid models than it currently has" for it to be accepted as a trend until POLITICS paid attention to it.
Not having a perfect model hasn't got everyone disbeleiving gravity has it? Or fluid flow? We know enough in those areas to get trends even if we can't get absolute precision. More precision would be nice but your argument has been fed to you by undermining weasels that want to pretend that a bit more precison matters against a major trend. It's an argument that can always be used but is rarely relevent - it's like insisting a it isn't around 30C unless a high precison thermometer says 30.1278C.
Economists can pretend that their field is related to absolutely anything via weak links from mathematics but direct links between economics and climatology don't exist. It's exactly like asking a welder to be an art critic - somewhere you'll find one that knows a bit about the subject but it's not their day job

Re:trust authority?

[rovolo]

Authoritative scientists told us that margarine was better for us than butter; in that miscegenation laws were necessary for public health; and that electromagnetic waves were not quantized (Bohr's school said this) and that they were vibrations of a luminiferous aether (most textbooks said this, decades after Einstein published relativity). All of those claims turned out to be false.

Granted, scientists have been wrong. However, most often we arrive closer to the truth than we were before. The luminiferous aether was not correct, but it was more correct than the idea that light was only a particle because it explains interference and the double slit experiment. In comparison to other contemporary sources, I would think that scientists have been less wrong than any other group. Who would have disputed the luminiferous aether besides other scientists?

Unless you are going to become an expert in a field, when you don't know enough to interpret the raw data you must trust those who can rather than those who cannot. We do need experts who can question the status quo, but no-one can be an expert in every field. That said, you can check for scientific misconduct which will help you know which scientists to trust.

When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Issac Asimov

Re:trust authority?

[khallow]

Please note that nobody really considered it required "more evidence and much more solid models than it currently has" for it to be accepted as a trend until POLITICS paid attention to it.

And you should agree that it needs more evidence precisely because POLITICS paid attention to it. It's not magic. When you have trillions of dollars at stake globally and a vast incentive to distort the science in a bunch of ways, you have a higher burden of proof than if you're doing something that no one cares about.

Economists can pretend that their field is related to absolutely anything via weak links from mathematics but direct links between economics and climatology don't exist. It's exactly like asking a welder to be an art critic - somewhere you'll find one that knows a bit about the subject but it's not their day job

Climate change that hurts someone and which we have a choice as to how to handle, directly involves economists and numerous other parties in discussing what actions to take. Remember the problem here isn't that there's climate change (there's always climate change), but that there's some degree of anthropogenic global warming and that we have a number of possible ways to handle or not handle the issue.

Re:trust authority?

[dbIII]

And you should agree that it needs more evidence precisely because POLITICS paid attention to it.

No, it's merely turned it into a childish pissing match along tribal lines about two decades after the adults worked out roughly what was going on. Gore put up conjecture as if it was fact on one side and PR companies brought in all kinds of truly bizzare bullshit on the other. Add in a freakshow talking about Greens being a front for a Nazi World Government and an economist who saw he could become a millionaire by arguing for a middle ground by a lot of creative misquotes and you have the current situation.

Re:trust authority?

[the eric conspiracy]

Read the article. It talks specifically about why common sense can't be relied on.

Re:trust authority?

[iangoldby]

So you choose your authorities very carefully, but it is still appeal to authority.

I actually agree with you and think you make a very important point. There is no way we could possibly apply methodological naturalism every time we had to make a decision. We all have to appeal to authority over and over again in order to hold all sorts of beliefs that are essential to us being able to function in everyday life.

We write off 'appeal to authority' far too readily as a valid means of determining what to believe. But yes, I entirely agree, we have to be very careful about which authorities to believe.

In the end it comes down to the question of who we put our faith in. I'm using the word 'faith' in its normal sense, not the opposite sense it has acquired when some people are talking about religion, that is, blind faith. Normal faith is a level of trust based on track record and is entirely rational. It is the reason someone might wait on a street corner for a lift even though they don't yet see the approaching car: past experience tells them that the person coming to collect them is reliable and will turn up as usual.

If we continue to put our faith in people who are faithful then we will generally not be disappointed. Similarly, we won't generally be dissapponted appealing to the authority of people who have a good track record of that authority.

Re:trust authority?

[bcrowell]

Read the article. It talks specifically about why common sense can't be relied on.

The GP didn't talk about common sense. He talked about educating yourself, informing yourself, and developing a highly refined BS detector based on that education and information. Someone who reaches the level of critical thinking he's describing has developed a very uncommon level of sense. Everyone has a BS detector (common sense). Very few people have a well trained BS detector (uncommon sense).

Re:trust authority?

[bcrowell]

That said, you can check for scientific misconduct which will help you know which scientists to trust.

I never suggested that every layperson should interpret raw data correctly. It is not correct that if you aren't able to interpret the raw data correctly then you must trust people who can. For example, I have never seen the raw data on whether fiber consumption correlates negatively with colon cancer. What I do know is that when this link was first hypothesized, it was based purely on theoretical guesswork; there were no data at all. I also know that decades later, the data showed that the link was nonexistent. I have also never seen the raw data from the studies in the 20th century that showed that African-Americans were intellectually inferior to white people. Even though I've never seen the raw data, I knew enough to be very skeptical about those claims, because, for example, it would be very difficult to correct for confounding factors such as differing levels of formal education, differing levels of familiarity with paper-and-pencil tests, and cultural biases.

That said, you can check for scientific misconduct which will help you know which scientists to trust.

Outright scientific misconduct is not the issue. For example, I'm sure the people who "proved" African-Americans to be intellectually inferior were very conscientious in their work, and fully believed their results were correct.

The luminiferous aether was not correct, but it was more correct than the idea that light was only a particle because it explains interference and the double slit experiment. [...] When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

I never claimed that science didn't advance over time. I pointed out that decades after science made a particular advance (the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein's theory of relativity), many authoritative sources were writing as if those advances had never taken place.

In comparison to other contemporary sources, I would think that scientists have been less wrong than any other group.

Are you saying (1) that scientists are less wrong about science than other groups, or (2) scientists are less wrong about their field than other professions are about their own fields? 1 is trivial and irrelevant. 2 is false. As a physicist, my experience has been that physicists are wrong quite often. On the other hand, I suspect that plumbers are almost always right about the questions that come up in their work. This is because the work of a plumber is almost all based on applying certain well established rules.

Re:trust authority?

[khallow]

No, it's merely turned it into a childish pissing match along tribal lines about two decades after the adults worked out roughly what was going on. Gore put up conjecture as if it was fact on one side and PR companies brought in all kinds of truly bizzare bullshit on the other. Add in a freakshow talking about Greens being a front for a Nazi World Government and an economist who saw he could become a millionaire by arguing for a middle ground by a lot of creative misquotes and you have the current situation.

Sure politics introduces noise, deception, and other anti-scientific behaviors and flaws. That just proves my point. You need a better class of evidence precisely for this reason. The signal needs to be heard above the noise. We don't need to convince the people that made up their minds twenty years ago. We need to convince the people who are still sitting on the fence today.

Re:trust authority?

[hkmwbz]

Authoritative sources said that Jews and gypsies were genetically inferior to Aryans.

They did? What authoritative sources might that have been?

This is a useful article

[erroneus]

I like the last answer given by Singh:

Science has nothing to do with common sense. I believe it was Einstein who said that common sense is a set of prejudices we form by the age of 18. Inject somebody with some viruses and that's going to keep you from getting sick? That's not common sense. We evolved from single-cell organisms? That's not common sense. By driving my car I'm going to cook Earth? None of this is common sense. The commonsense view is what we're fighting against. So somehow you've got to move people away from that with these quite complicated scientific arguments based on even more complicated research. That's why it's such an uphill battle. People start off with a belief and a prejudice--we all do. And the job of science is to set that aside to get to the truth.

When people use things like "common sense" as a weapon to call you an idiot, I will have to keep the view described by Singh in mind. After all, it's perfectly correct to question common sense and even fly in its face if evidence to the contrary is available. It common sense needs to be tested to strike out the impurities and leave us with the truth. So every time "the official story" seems a bit wrong or even unnatural, it needs to be tested. Unfortunately, it will not stop people from thinking you're some form of nut for going against the generally accepted truth. The world isn't flat but I wonder how many people were attacked or even killed for asserting otherwise.

Re:This is a useful article

[Arimus]

These days common sense is more correctly called uncommon sense; given the average level of stupidity witnessed every day...

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[medlefsen]

Well, the consensus among climate scientists seems to be yes, yes, and we really hope so. I'm merely a lay person and I don't know what "your field" is, but I do know that current research that is published in climate journals is way past the point of arguing about whether it's happening or not. There are a lot of very intelligent climate scientists who believe in global warming so if the entirety of argument is that they are missing something obvious (like the inaccuracy of thermometers, or global warming on mars) it makes me wonder if you have actually ever asked a climate scientist about it or if you're just looking for some reason to reject their results.

Based on your paragraph on "radicals" and "wealth transfer" I'm assuming you're a libertarian or something along those lines. Perhaps some of your resistance to accepting the current consensus is that the consequences don't fit into your political ideology. Maybe you have better/different ideas on how we should go about dealing with the problem, but please don't pretend it doesn't exist just because it's considered a "liberal" issue.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[hedwards]

Um it's not parenthetical. The amendment was written in a bizarre fashion even for that time period and strictly speaking, even by your interpretation it's grammatically screwy resulting in additional oddly placed commas. They wouldn't have included the language about the militia at all, if they didn't mean to require membership for gun rights. You also apparently missed the part of history class where they discussed why it is that we have a guaranteed right to form up militias. And that reason is that early on there was no military, there was basically no law enforcement in wide portions of the country, on top of which there were still Indians running about very pissed about having had their land stolen from them.

It does take a suspension of disbelief to come to the conclusion that most of the amendment is essentially just there, to be ignored, rather than a portion of the amendment. Notice that they didn't do such things with either the first,third or fourth amendments.

So to sum it up, you can't parse out precisely in that fashion language which wasn't precisely fashioned in the first place. It would be nice if they had written it correctly with normal grammatical conventions being adhered to, and with the copies being identical, but they didn't.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[Arker]

Even if global warming is nothing more than a scheme to get us to pollute less, isn't it time we started doing so anyways?

Unfortunately the issue isnt so clear-cut as this. You see, CO2 is a naturally component of the atmosphere - not a pollutant. Unless, of course, the currently fashionable AGW dogma is taken to be true and correct. In that case, and in that case only, it makes some sense to consider carbon emissions as something like pollution.

So what does decreasing pollution mean? To the skeptic it means decreasing things like particulate pollution and noxious gasses (including carbon monoxide but not carbon dioxide, which is a normal and necessary part of the biosystem) in the air, along with all the nasty poisonous stuff that can get in our water, and so on. But to the true-believer, all those traditionally recognised pollutants take a back seat to the new boogey-man, CO2 emissions. So the skeptic and the true-believer can both agree that we should pollute less, without actually agreeing on what that means.

GMO

[the eric conspiracy]

I'm glad Singh brings up the issue of GMOs in his interview. It's my opinion as well that the vast bulk of the evidence sited by GMO opponents is pseudoscience at best.

It is high time start recognizing what is going on with the anti-GMO campaign.

Re:GMO

[ChromeAeonium]

Yes. This times a hundred. Times a million. Pseudoscience at best, dishonest at worst. I too am really glad he gives genetic engineering it's props, because anti-GMO really is the new anti-vax. Just because you can't be bothered to listen to a valid source doesn't mean that the people who know what the hell they're talking about are in some grand Monsanto/Shadow Government conspiracy to be evil. The scientific evidence is in. It's been it. The idea that they are inherently dangerous to human health is laughable (and growing even less plausible every day), they are a benefit for farmers, and they are a net positive to the environment. Deputing these facts without adequate information to go against them, which is what pretty much every anti-GMO group on the planet does, is not insightful or thought provoking, it's denialism, plain and simple. The modern controversy surrounding GMOs is is no longer a scientific debate, it's a popular one, largely with biologist, horticulturists, botanists, microbiologists, zoologists, toxicologists, geneticists, biochemists, and farmers on one hand, and people who think that an appeal to nature is a valid argument on the other, and even that doesn't make sense considering that we selectively breed crops for various mutations for thousands of years (as anyone who has even a passing understanding of corn genetics will tell you) and that the odds are pretty darn good that every plant we eat has picked viral, bacterial, and fungal DNA at some point, probably insect DNA too. Human DNA is at least 3% virus. We are, in a sense, genetically modified organisms ourselves.

Here's a good example: A few weeks ago, some anti-science arsonist assholes burned down a GMO grape test field in France. They were government developed, so the claim that they're against corporations doesn't apply. They were virus resistant, so the claim that they're against chemicals was out. They were rootstocks, and since roots don't produce flowers, their claim that they're afraid of cross pollination and wild GMOs is out. The health concerns, even if they had any merit to begin with, are also out, because again, the GMO part was only the root, not the grape. Why are they against them? Because they're GMO. They're against genetic engineering because it's genetic engineering. They've decided that genetic engineering is bad, and base everything else on that decision. They start with the conclusion, and make everything else fit that. Hundreds of studies showing they're wrong is part of the conspiracy, scientific consensus is part of the conspiracy, and every relevant expert who knows what they're talking about is in on it too, and therefore, anything that disagrees with their premise is easily dismissed, knowledge because a vice, ignorance a virtue.

This topic deserves more publicity than it gets, it really does. I think that this is a truly fascinating area (as a look at my comment history will reveal). I love plants and horticultural science, and I think it is just amazing what we can do with them now, what we might be able to do in the future. We are living in interesting and exciting times. We can increase output, decrease need for inputs, help preserve the soil and the environment. We can help the people who need it most grow more nutritious food. We can lessen or eliminate the problems caused by pests and diseases. Someday I might have a mango or cashew or cacao or coffee or lychee tree here in the northeast US. This is what people are really working on. This isn't sci-fi, it's real, and it is just a shame that we have people with all the intellectual integrity of your average homeopath attacking it and generally trying to influence the general population with cheap scare tactics. And it's almost funny, these people think they're being insightful when all they're going is displaying their own ignorance. It would be like someone claiming that the moon must be hollo

Re:GMO

[Geminii]

In cases where a commercial litigant or defender had been proven to attempt to use false, misleading, or inherently unverifiable data in their case, it'd be interesting if there was a requirement for the government to then go back and recheck the data validity in every other case that commercial entity had been involved in for the previous decade or so, overturning previous judgments if necessary.

It might make a business or industry think twice before deliberately lying in court, if being caught could result in them having to pay out for not only that one case, but for every other prior case they'd done the same thing for.

Re:GMO

[MartinSchou]

because anti-GMO really is the new anti-vax

Well ... some people are against GMO food sources, because "it's unnatural".

Me, I'm against it for other reason. Just look at Monsanto.

Do you REALLY want to live in a world, where you risk getting sued into oblivion for growing food in your backyard? What if you only plant stuff you know to be "all natural", and your neighbour is a bit liberal with his seeds? Suddenly you are growing patented plants without a license. Bam - you're screwed.

Just because Monsanto hasn't gone after people with a small garden, doesn't mean they aren't allowed to do so - if something is patented (and the patent is still valid), you are not allowed reproduce it without a license.

GMO is in a really strange legal space, because it's a life form. There is an intrinsic risk that it will escape into nature. This has some risks to the ecosystem, certainly, but it also means that you can be 100% "innocent" and still responsible for damages, simply because a seed ended up in your backyard.

Has nothing to do with pseudo-science or tilting at windmills.

Re:GMO

[the eric conspiracy]

Just because Monsanto hasn't gone after people with a small garden, doesn't mean they aren't allowed to do so - if something is patented (and the patent is still valid), you are not allowed reproduce it without a license.

So you are saying that we should abandon an extremely technology that may end up feeding billions of people and preventing total deforestation of the planet among other ecological disasters based on the idea that some legal fantasy might happen in the future? This is a TOTALLY ASININE idea.

Re:GMO

[MartinSchou]

That was quite a jump you just made.

I never said "we should never do it". I said "the patent system doesn't work for living organisms". Quite a different thing.

Re:GMO

[ChromeAeonium]

Ok, maybe that's how you are, but understand, if that truly is how you feel, you are a minority. Most people who claim to be anti-Monsanto just make that claim in an attempt to give themselves an air of legitimacy. Monsanto is not the only GMO producer out there. There's other big companies like BASF & Bayer in Germany, Syngenta in Switzerland, Dow & Dupont also in the US. There's some smaller companies like Aqua Bounty, the guys releasing the GMO salmon (which is naturally being opposed, although there is no logical argument against it), and others like Florigene in Australia, Metahelix in India, Evogene in Israel, Pannar in South Africa. There are GMOs produced by nonprofits and universities and governments, like the HoneySweet plum by the USDA, Rainbow papaya by the University of Hawaii and Cornell, Bt eggplant by Cornell, Bt rice in Iran (don't know who did it there but it should be telling that even the scientist in a country such as Iran know the value here), Biocassava & Golden Rice by other organizations, and plenty of others done by various universities all over the globe.

If you're against Monsanto, ok, fine, but understand, the vast majority of the people who claim to be anti-Monsanto are only anti-Monsanto because they are truly anti-GMO, and also oppose all those I listed too. That is anti-science. Heck, those irrational self righteous willfully ignorant brain dead technophobic science hating luddite assholes at Greenpeace still want you to think that GloFish are dangerous. So, what I'm saying is, it's fine if you just don't like Monsanto, it really is, but that is truly rare. What the vast majority of that movement is about anti-science, of that you can be certain. When they're opposing all GMOs, every last one of them (like the guys who destroyed the GMO grapes in my last post), and have to resort to lying to make a point (even Monsanto's GMOs are safe and effective, contrary to all the fearmongering), there's a big problem.

Minor correction: England and Britain different

[fantomas]

Minor correction for you - be careful not to mix up "England" and "Britain", they are different things. There are "English" courts and English law but there are no such things as "British courts" or "British law". In Scotland, which is part of Britain, Scottish courts and Scots law prevails, a different legal structure exists. So we're talking about the situation in England here, not Britain.

cheers!

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[Arker]

Actually that language was subject of much debate and very carefully written. As you've just demonstrated, it's impossible to do the job to the point that someone who really wants to read it differently cant make it work in their own head.

This is why it wasn't a "Pyrrhic Victory":

[blind biker]

Quote from Wikipedia:

The publicity produced by the libel action has led to a "furious backlash",[2] with formal complaints of false advertising being made against more than 500 individual chiropractors within one 24 hour period,[3][30] with the number later climbing to one quarter of all British chiropractors.[2] It also prompted the McTimoney Chiropractic Association to write in a leaked message to its members advising them to remove leaflets that make claims about whiplash and colic from their practice, to be wary of new patients and telephone inquiries, and telling their members: "If you have a website, take it down NOW." and "Finally, we strongly suggest you do NOT discuss this with others, especially patients."[2][3] One chiropractor is quoted as saying that "Suing Simon was worse than any Streisand effect and chiropractors know it and can do nothing about it."[2]

Linky.

Experiment, do not trust

[mangu]

Let's start with you: Did you personally test Anthropogenic Global Warming? 'Cause I'm willing to bet you trusted someone else's assertion.

As a matter of fact, demonstrating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is very simple and can be done at home. I've seen a video from some BBC educational program demonstrating this, with a couple of clear plastic bottles, some vinegar and baking soda to generate CO2, and two digital thermometers.

I repeated the experiment and, yes, it worked. Therefore, I can assert from my own experience that Anthropogenic Global Warming is, at least, a plausible hypothesis. It's up to the denialists to come with a better experiment proving the contrary if they want me to believe them.

Re:Experiment, do not trust

[Cabriel]

So, no, you did not, in fact, test Anthropogenic Global Warming. All you did was take what someone said, probably someone you consider authoritative, tested one of their assertions, that CO2 can contribute to Global Warming, and then trusted their assertions that both, CO2 does contribute and that Humans are the major cause of Global Warming.

Thanks for the experimental support of my assertion. :)

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[mangu]

And one last point. Despite claims to the contrary, we do not have wonderfully accurate temperature records over the last 100 years. This is my field and I know how even the most modern temperature sensors in common use are often biased and surprisingly inaccurate.

That's what statistics are for. Every single measurement needs not be wonderfully accurate. In the same way that we define a certain height as "sea level" when the surface of the sea isn't level, we can talk about average temperatures when we lack precise measurements at each point.

Unless you can demonstrate that this bias in thermometers has a trend towards showing higher temperatures as time goes by, you cannot say global warming is an artifact of measurement error.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[RightSaidFred99]

English fail.

It's clearly parenthetical and you're portraying ambiguity where there is none as a sophist mechanism. There's no rational way one can argue it's not parenthetical both because of obvious sentence structure and because there are no action words pertaining to the militia, no definition of a militia, etc...

Suppose I'm the principal of a school and I find out people are bringing in guns in their backpacks. I decide to disallow all non-clear backpacks and I send this out:

In order to prevent students from bringing guns and other weapons into school, the use of non-clear backpacks is prohibited.

Now, since I'm not smuggling weapons into school I suppose I can take your bizarro interpretation of English sentence structure and wear a black backpack, right?

Of course not. The opening phrase is parenthetical - I can omit it completely and the sentence still has the same meaning: The use of non-clea backpacks [by anyone] is prohibited.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[AK Marc]

People have the same problems interpreting the English language when it comes to the second amendment in the US Constitution. The "well regulated militia" clause is parenthetical but through willful idiocy or intentional sophistry some try to claim it's some kind of limiter or restriction.

Name another meaningless parenthetical statement in the Constitution. It's not just the nature of the statement itself, but also its inconsistency with the rest of the document. When something is so inconsistent, one must wonder why. Though, from what nutjobs tell me, just pointing out that it seems inconsistent means I want to take everyone's guns away and kill Jews. So I've never gotten an answer to that question, just people who insist that we should follow the Constitution to the letter, except for that one and only one statement, whatever it may mean.

So ruling that he was claiming they were intentionally promoting bogus treatments and knew and believed they were bogus infers something from the statement that does not necessarily exist.

Bogus implies, but does not require, deceit. Language requires inference. You can't communicate if people refuse to understand. You are asserting that your one definition is the only one that should be used, but that's certainly not the case with language. There are multiple definitions for just about every word. To assert that just one meaning, the one you like best, is the only one that anyone could ever mean is absurd.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[AK Marc]

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed." Done. How's that ambiguous? "Militias, being necessary for defense of the country, shall be able to enlist any person over 18 years of age, and all such members shall not have their right to bear arms infringed." How would you misinterpret that one? Are you really so myopic to assert that it couldn't be more clear? Or are you asserting that it's horribly worded, but better wording wouldn't have mattered because both sides would have just made up whatever they wanted anyway?

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[RightSaidFred99]

Why do I need to name another meaningless parenthetical statement in the Constitution? What rules exactly are you applying here? You seem to be applying a "it fits my agenda, so I'm going to assume that since there's one instance of a parenthetical phrase in the bill of rights I will pretend it's not parenthetical" rule of some sort.

It doesn't matter if there are 50 instances or 1 instance - English is English. That parenthetical phrase does not accomplish anything, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does. See, that's why we call it parenthetical.

You are asserting that your one definition is the only one that should be used, but that's certainly not the case with language.

I'm beginning to think maybe your reading comprehension isn't so hot. Please see my sentence and the words "does not necessarily exist". Also please note I am asserting absolutely nothing about "one definition", I'm pointing out his words do not necessarily (there's that word again) say what the original judge claims they did.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[vadim_t]

1) yes, the data indicates so
2) yes, the data indicates so
3) yes, if we're doing it, we certainly can stop doing it. There's the question of whether we started a runwaway effect or not, but in that case we still could slow things down. And in this case, the speed at which it happens is most important.

Until you can explain the equally obvious global warming on Mars at present as somehow caused by human activity don't ask me to destroy my lifestyle over something I can't actually affect anyway.

Two things:

First, the current consensus seems to be against the idea of global warming on Mars, and on the Sun causing it.

Second, your lifestyle doesn't have a damn thing to do with global warming. It either exist or it doesn't, no matter how convenient or inconvenient would that be for you, me, or anybody else.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[AK Marc]

Why do I need to name another meaningless parenthetical statement in the Constitution?

I'll take that to mean "I don't think there are any others, so I recognize your claim that the statement in question is unique, and thus, as you say, needs more attention as to why it's so unique."

What rules exactly are you applying here?

The rules of logic. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's where things exist because of reasons. If something is meaningless and has no reason to exist, why did so many people waste time creating it? You answer is consistently "I don't know, I don't care, and please please don't make me thing, it gives me a headache."

You seem to be applying a "it fits my agenda, so I'm going to assume that since there's one instance of a parenthetical phrase in the bill of rights I will pretend it's not parenthetical" rule of some sort.

Ah yes, wanting the truth is an anti-conservative agenda. We all know it. It's well known the truth has an anti-conservative bias.

Please see my sentence and the words "does not necessarily exist".

Then what's the problem? You are saying that it does exist, but not in all cases. And there was a lawsuit where there was some confusion over whether it was one of those cases. Making is sound like it's "obvious" when you yourself are stating it isn't seems absurd. But then, I'm sure this is just a liberal conspiracy against the word "bogus."

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[Arker]

No, it's not horribly worded, it's quite clear, even without looking at the extrinsic evidence it's plain and clear on its face, and yet those who dont like what it says are incredibly persistent in misinterpreting it.

Take the same structure and apply it to a different subject and no one would misinterpret it. Like this for example:

"A well-read electorate being necessary to the function of an elective democracy, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

I know we are on the internet so you are on the honour system here, but can you seriously even keep a straight face while arguing that this language would mean that only registered voters have a right to keep and read books?

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[RightSaidFred99]

Ahh. You think I'm some conservative dummy, and you're arguing against one in your head.

I vacillate between hating left wing douches and right wing dipshits more on any given day. I am pro gun rights, which is about all I have in common with "conservatives". I'm also for fiscal conservativeness but more neo-cons aren't and just claim to be and ballooned the size of the government massively. I mock the conservative's cowardly fear of terrorism to the extent they'd sell out our core American values due to this fear. I despise religion. Patriotism beyond practical patriotism is something you use to keep dumb people in line, and I mock flag-wrapped, teary eyed conservative jingoism.

The truth is English is English. Words and sentences have meaning. You don't get to suddenly pretend maybe something that's parenthetical isn't because it happens to go counter to your agenda.

I do recognize your claim that the statement in question is unique. I dismiss that this is meaningful or needs special attention, unless one has an obvious agenda against gun rights - in which case I'm sure it does. The phrase "bear arms" only shows up once too, Oh Teh Noes! It must mean something, amirite?!

Your fake interpretation doesn't even make sense, why would the second amendment even exist based on this interpretation? The others give we, the people, rights the government must recognize. Oh, except the second one.. It actually gives, what, the fucking government the right to regulate and arm militias? Seriously? You want to play "one of these things doesn't belong", that's a serious one.

You know you won't get our gun rights legitimately by having the Constitution amended so you're applying some transparently sophistic argument and pretending maybe we can take the "living document" approach and reinterpret the English language.

I'm only 90% convinced you know what a parenthetical phrase is. 10% says you don't understand, but 90% says you do and are just playing dumb because of your agenda. Note also that commas do not define it.

Fundamentally the constitution defines the rights of the people and the limits to power of the government. You can, of course, remove the "militia" clause and the sentence, in that scope, means exactly the same thing.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[phantomfive]

It actually isn't, as you can see from this Newsweek article. Check out this quote:

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree - a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states. To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.

Note the kinds of evidence they use: they cite scientific consensus (even though there really wasn't any), anecdotal evidence that is probably not related, and the fear factor of starving people.

Now, this was in 1976, and the scientific community was already starting to the global warming idea, but it obviously the popular literature hadn't caught up yet. If you go back farther, scientists were talking a little more about global cooling (although as a somewhat distant thing, ice ages and all that). I had a textbook from the late 50s that mentioned global warming, and suggested some methods to mitigate the problems (cover glaciers with black fabric, etc).

Regardless, anyone who lived through the 1970s and remembers people worrying about global cooling is justified in their belief, because there were people trying to spread global cooling hysteria.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[Beeftopia]

I remember the 1970's plenty well enough to recall that the great fear then was, are you ready for this, Global Cooling!

Hate to snow on your parade, but that's a myth.

Actually, he's right. Here's a Time magazine article from 1974 which was one of the earlier ones talking about the coming Ice Age. In the 70s, a new Ice Age was the fear (I never heard it called "global cooling"). However, I personally do think the concept of anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emission is correct FYI. Pretty simple really - higher atmospheric amounts of CO2, plus it's a heat trapping gas = voila! Anthropogenic global warming.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[AK Marc]

I know we are on the internet so you are on the honour system here, but can you seriously even keep a straight face while arguing that this language would mean that only registered voters have a right to keep and read books?

In an otherwise very explicit and very clear document, having one and only one meaningless clause seems to indicate that they did, indeed, intend some meaning in that. I would say that one reasonable reading of it would indicate that someone who was not and could never be a a member of the electorate could be considered to be excluded. I'm not saying that's the correct reading, but it is reasonable.

What I'm arguing is unreasonable are the people who refuse to even attempt to discuss the points. And I assert it isn't explicitly clear because it allows people, purposefully or otherwise, to misinterpret it. If it weren't at least arguable, then there wouldn't be an argument about it, right?

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[twidarkling]

Your very unclear assertions aside ("How's that ambiguous?" and "How would you misinterpret that one?" imply that you think the statement is straightforward and clear, but "Are you really so myopic to assert that it couldn't be more clear?" clearly states that you think it could be phrased in a less ambiguous manner, so I will proceed on the assumption you think it is a clear and straightforward statement):

The text of the second amendment is (from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ ):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Thus, it can be easily interpreted that the people have the right to weapons, but the State is duty-bound to regulate those who do so, as those people are granted the right to carry arms in furtherance of maintaining a Militia. With this interpretation you have a clear mandate for government gun control (at the least by way of registration) and guidelines that anyone who owns a weapon can be called for military duty in defence of the nation. It also does not specify what arms except via way of linking it to said militia, so anything from a derringer to an ICBM would be acceptable for personal ownership, except that at the time of writing, a gun capable of launching hundreds of rounds a minute was not possible, so that's when we start getting in to social context and scientific advances.

So no, your example, while not horribly worded, is still an example of something open to interpretation. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[AK Marc]

I vacillate between hating left wing douches and right wing dipshits more on any given day.

Ah, so you are just an argumentative prick. Got it, thanks for the clarification.

Oh, except the second one.. It actually gives, what, the fucking government the right to regulate and arm militias?

I never said that. I guess the reason you are always arguing with everyone is that you don't actually listen to anything they say, and instead make up whatever you like in order to get some attention. Does it give you a little high when you see someone responded to you?

Fundamentally the constitution defines the rights of the people and the limits to power of the government.

Fundamentally, the Constitution (note capitalization - for someone lecturing someone else with English lessons, you might want to pay more attention to what you are doing and less the other person) defines the powers of the government and reserves everything not listed to the states and the people. The unfortunate side effect of listing a subset of our rights in amendments is the nutjobs that think that listing some and explicitly saying "this isn't the full list" means it is the full list. The Constitution does not define the rights of the people. It lists a few in the first 8 amendments and then says that's not all, which is a far cry from being a document designed to "define the rights of the people." You should take a lot more classes on the Constitution before you start lecturing others about it. I've taken a few in law school, have you?

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[Arker]

Your fallacy is in assuming that the initial clause of the sentence is either meant to limit the second or is meaningless noise entirely. Neither is correct. The initial clause does not limit the operative clause, it justifies it.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[Arker]

In an otherwise very explicit and very clear document, having one and only one meaningless clause seems to indicate that they did, indeed, intend some meaning in that.

I never said it was meaningless, I agree that would be very odd if it were, but that is just a straw-man.

I would say that one reasonable reading of it would indicate that someone who was not and could never be a a member of the electorate could be considered to be excluded. I'm not saying that's the correct reading, but it is reasonable.

I dont think that would be a reasonable reading at all, as it contradicts the plain meaning of the sentence. It would be simple enough to say "the right of potential voters to keep and read books" if your reading was intended. No, I think the meaning of that sentence is quite clear and unambiguous, to wit: 1. A well-read electorate is necessary to a free society and therefore 2. the state shall in no way interfere with the right of the People to keep and read books. The first clause tells us *why* this right is considered so important as to merit an explicit amendment, while the second clause is the actual operative language of the amendment.

And I assert it isn't explicitly clear because it allows people, purposefully or otherwise, to misinterpret it. If it weren't at least arguable, then there wouldn't be an argument about it, right?

Well, no, actually. Lawyers can argue absolutely anything, that is their stock in trade, and I have found plenty of other people that fit the same mould as well.

So far as I can see, the only thing in the language that is less than clear is the meaning of 'militia' and that is only because we have deviated so far from the founders vision that the word is no longer understood. Delve into the history a bit to figure out what they meant by the word militia and the whole thing makes perfect sense. But even without understanding that word, the operative language and the semantic relation between the clauses could hardly be made more explicit. If it said "The doogliness of the gwantahi being of utmost importance, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I could still easily determine the effect of the amendment, the only thing I wouldnt understand would be why this was considered so important.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[AK Marc]

The initial clause does not limit the operative clause, it justifies it.

Then there are other justificatory statements in the Constitution, but all others are limiting, like the ones regarding copyright. So why include one that isn't, since there is no other such statement, and it carries no power at all? And the fact you have to change my words in order to dismiss them indicates that you recognize your logic alone is insufficient.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[Hognoxious]

One article in a non-scientific rag equals major concern? Don't think so.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[Hognoxious]

Unless you can demonstrate that this bias in thermometers has a trend towards showing higher temperatures as time goes by, you cannot say global warming is an artifact of measurement error.

Look up the mercuric memory effect. I'm sure it's well documented on the British Chiropractic Association's website.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[AK Marc]

"A well-read electorate being necessary to the function of an elective democracy, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Given that the official version is taken to be different in punctuation than your example of changing words, I can only assume that you either are purposefully changing little things to make your point more clear in direct opposition of the truth (I call that lying to win an argument) or you are too ignorant to understand how punctuation may apply (and thus not worth the effort of a reply. I didn't notice the first time you posted it because such substitutions are just rhetorical games anyway and not related to increasing understanding or using logic to address the problem, so I didn't read it with the level of detail I should have (note, I didn't even bother to directly address it, and wouldn't have read it again if you didn't bring it up again).

There are four commas, and the meaning as is, with the commas in place, the sentence is improper English. As such, asserting that it is unambiguous and means exactly what you want it to say and nothing else is disingenuous. You prefer to correct it by deleting commas, thus making it correct (based on your incorrect deletion of commas in your example) but someone could just as easily adjust a relatively meaningless preposition or article. After all, you've announced that you don't mind editing it to fit your preconception.

If it said "The doogliness of the gwantahi being of utmost importance, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I could still easily determine the effect of the amendment, the only thing I wouldnt understand would be why this was considered so important.

So you'd attribute no meaning to the first part, even when the meaning isn't clear. And have no wonder why it's the only such statement in the Constitution, where all other similar clauses have meaning. Not to mention the fact that with the extra commas, it's actually incorrect English and needs to have assumptions made to have it make sense. Or, to put it in your fabricated translations, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed." When you assert the third phrase is the extraneous one and remove it completely, the sentence then indicates the militia shall not be infringed, and has the correct number of commas so that it is no longer incorrect English.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[Hognoxious]

Nom du Keyboard (633989) was clearly making the tired old "scientists changed their mind - that means they can be wrong - which means they are wrong" argument:

"Global Cooling! The Earth was going to freeze in 30 years and we were all going to die through mass starvation because crops wouldn't grow. And yes, the Climate Scientists of that time were all behind that farce as well."

He wasn't referring to what the unwashed masses who read the printed equivalent of Faux News thought.

they cite scientific consensus (even though there really wasn't any)

As you admit, it was never close to a majority opinion among scientists. That somewhat contradicts what he said above, doesn't it? You know, about them ALL being behind the scare stories?

I wonder what the origins of the myth are. It was the height of the cold war, maybe it got mixed up with concerns about a soot & fallout from nuclear attacks blocking the sun?

Regardless, anyone who lived through the 1970s and remembers people worrying about global cooling is justified in their belief, because there were people trying to spread global cooling hysteria.

Selective memory effect. There's always somebody spreading hysteria about something. I'm sure you can find a cover story about Atlantis or UFOs from that time if you look hard enough.

And let me repeat, not among the people who actually know what they're talking about, i.e. scientists. To claim that the vast majority of them believed a new ice-age was imminent is simply a lie and has been debunked to death.

Re:So Singh Believes in Global Warming

[phantomfive]

I wonder what the origins of the myth are. It was the height of the cold war, maybe it got mixed up with concerns about a soot & fallout from nuclear attacks blocking the sun?

It was the ice ages. Presumably at some point in the future we will still drop into another ice age, although it is likely a thousand years or more out. I don't think many scientists will argue with this proposition, even today, but the theory is CO2 will make the earth warmer much sooner. I don't think most people were panicking in those days, certainly it didn't have the publicity push that global warming has today, people (including scientists) were just aware that at some time in the future it was something we might need to deal with. Of course Newsweek was going for sales, and sensationalized it (although the anti-pollution propaganda was probably at its height around that time, and the Newsweek article merely dipped into that trend. I call it propaganda but of course pollution was a serious problem in those days).

Add to that the fact that in the early 70s the weather had been trending downish for two decades or so, there are always people who will try to discern signal from data, which is what the Newsweek article was doing.

Science Is Not Democratic

[Pooua]

The article and some replies imply that widespread agreement means that we should make an appeal to authority our definition of scientific truth. The reality is, the facts speak for themselves, regardless of what anyone says about those facts. Unfortunately, most people are ill-equipped to evaluate the facts. At some point, everyone is ill-equipped, because the breadth of human knowledge is too great. Even so, it is a dangerous thing to place one's thinking in the hands of other people, no matter who they are.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[Arker]

WTF? I didnt delete anything. There are two versions - one was passed by congress, with two commas, a slightly different version was actually copied to the states, with only one comma. Because I happened to quote the latter while you apparently have arbitrarily blessed the former as the one and only true text you call me a liar? Get over it. They attributed no change of meaning to the two variants at the time, they werent so rigidly monotheistic in their spelling and punctuation in those days.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[AK Marc]

Ah yes. You pick nits with the best of them, but someone responds in kind, and you take your ball an go home. You aren't a middle of the road person, you are a contentions prat who enjoys fights and enjoys fighting with all sides.

Oh, and I'm a conservative libertarian (note, all words lower-case and with the meanings they had 20 years ago, not what Fox News asserts they have now). I too am condemned as a right-wing nutjob by the left and a left-wing nutjob by the right. But all it takes for that is to want a small but responsible government. The "liberals" don't want small, and the "conservatives" don't want responsible.

And anyone that claims they follow the Constitution is a douchebag that twists it to fit their meanings. If not, they wouldn't be a myopic prick that worshiped a piece of paper, and instead would worship the ideals of it, realize it could be flawed, and work to correct those flaws, where they occur. Anyone that implies that the Constitution is Right (as in some universal truth) is a worthless nutjob that isn't worth the electricity to display his inane arguments. It says what it says, which is irrelevant to what is Right and even what's Right may be impractical enough as to be counterproductive. But the absolutists just say "ooh, the Constitution says this, so that's the way it is and should always be." If only the ignorant twit thinking that understood that everyone writing it had first-hand knowledge that governments are, at least to this point, always wrong on at least some points.

Don't trust the ad agencies - they lie

[dbIII]

It's a bit too hard for much signal to come out with all the professional noisemakers involved. Ignore all of those and it looks just as simple as it did twenty years ago.
Do the incredibly obvious and ignore anyone who has their main strength in advertising, political journalism, tent show miracles, metals futures or oil drilling. Just listen to the people that have something to do with climate in their day job.

Minor correction: Britain != England and Wales

[Rhodri Mawr]

You mean England *and Wales* not just England.

Re:Aren't the English better at, well...English?

[AK Marc]

There are two versions - one was passed by congress, with two commas, a slightly different version was actually copied to the states, with only one comma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Two commas? Or three? Yes, they played loose with the language then, and that leads to some ambiguity now, as you could delete a phrase in the middle and leave the structure as correct as deleting the start, and the one you delete can greatly change the meaning. If you are already playing fast and loose, there's nothing that prevents the dependent clause from being placed in the middle of the sentence with segments of the independent clause on both sides. Personally, I'd like to see the damn thing replaced. Use modern language, use more rigid punctuation and use of conjunctions so that it can't be misinterpreted by either side. But I've seen that suggested before, and the gun lobby saw it as an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and fought against any clarification of it.

Re:Corroborated, not trusted

[hkmwbz]

He's right, though. You did an experiment, but so what? They may have lied to you about the outcome of the experiment. You trusted them when they said that "if this happens, it's confirmed."