Science Blogger Sued for Unfavorable Book Review

tigerhawkvok writes "Recently, new author Stuart Privar provided Professor PZ Meyers of Pharyngula a copy of his book, Lifecode, for review. Over the course of the review itself and a few follow-ups, it became evident that the content was nonsense (including, among other things, ten-legged spiders and other phenomena strongly at odds with developmental biology). However, the common threat of lawsuits finally became a reality, and now Privar is suing Myers for $15 million. Can calling someone a 'classic crackpot' in the face of such incorrect data have any chance at making it to court, or even winning the suit?"

I'm waiting for

[Mycroft_514]

The Global Warming adherants to start sueing the people who deny Global Warming.

What was the question again?

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[pimpimpim]

Not just in the US, in Netherlands [skepsis.nl] the society against quacks had to pay a considerable amount to a quack, by court order! And because of the 'loser pays' system, even had to pay for this quacks lawyer costs :( Face it: stupidity has settled itself in all social layers and is international, no way to run or hide from it anymore.

He's done himself no favours

[Silver Sloth]

If you look at the Amazon rating he's a solid 1 star based entirely on a 'scientists don't sue over disagreements'

hmm.

[apodyopsis]

many brilliant men have been called crackpots by their contemporaries but have ended up being exonerated by history.

however, on examination of the links from the article, this man looks like a crackpot with a capital C.

my fave quote from TFA: "To Mr Pivar, I would suggest a simple rule. Theories are supposed to explain observation and experiment. You don't come up with a theory first, and then invent the evidence to support it."

the power of the web...

[apodyopsis]

Seems like word gets around, already the book reviews are flooding in....my word, he has really not done himself any favors here - I sense another internet laughing stock in the making.

from: http://www.amazon.com/LifeCode-Theory-Biological-S elf-Organization/dp/0976406004 [amazon.com]

I do not own this book. I do not propose to read it. My "rating" is based solely upon the fact that the author has chosen to sue a reviewer for "Injury - Assault, Libel, and Slander", because he didn't like the review. (Unlike the author, the reviewer is a professional biology professor who actually understands this subject.) No reputable scientist would react in this way - indeed the whole point of science is to prove things wrong! (As Richard Feynman wrote, "We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.") So caveat emptor...

A 164 page book for $60?
And from an author without any doctorate in the sciences he purports to write about? With a non-peer-reviewed 'theory'?
Don't waste your money.

The reviewer above wrote everything I intended to, but I just thought I would add my voice here. By sueing a critic of his theories, the author of this book threw away any claim he might have had to any kind of scientific credibility. A scientist might argue with his critics, but the fact that this author has instigated a lawsuit against someone for criticizing his theories suggests to me that even he is aware that said theories have no merits to argue.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[gregoryb]

Scientologists aren't crackpots, though. They're a very deliberate scam.

And they're not Christians either.

"First time" tone?

[Selanit]

The parent quoth:

Contrary to this "this is the first time this has happened!" tone of this article,

Huh?

In the article I read, the author starts out like this:

There comes a time in every debunker's life when they are threatened with a lawsuit. It's the bar mitzvah of skepticism.

How is that a "first time this has happened" tone? Or maybe you were reading a different article?

Mod parent up

[Fozzyuw]

Bestest. Review. EVAR.

For no other reason than getting people to RTFR (RTF-review) because the 2 images alone will probably make whatever liquid substance you're drinking come shooting out your nose. Lets hope it's not scalding hot coffee. This is one link /. readers need to read. =)

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot. You are simply a moron. The article says nothing about religion. The cheese ball in question says nothing about religion. Where is religion a part of this? Guess what? It's NOT!

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Llywelyn]

So someone who belives in god (aka invisible friend) isn't a crackpot, as long as they accept science is the best way to the truth about the universe?

To quote Stephen Jay Gould [stephenjaygould.org]:

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. If some of our crowd have made untoward statements claiming that Darwinism disproves God, then I will find Mrs. McInerney and have their knuckles rapped for it (as long as she can equally treat those members of our crowd who have argued that Darwinism must be God's method of action). Science can work only with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (the moral realm, for example). Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his religious beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G. G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic. Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs--and equally compatible with atheism, thus proving that the two great realms of nature's factuality and the source of human morality do not strongly overlap.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[ColdWetDog]

Not really fair, as Scientology is really the corporate pinnacle of religions, where profit at the top is the sole motivation. So yeah, the leaders sharing the belief rather than just a flagrant exploitation of naive and vulnerable element of society does make a difference.

No contest. The Roman Catholic Church wins, consider 15 billion in assets [aaa.net.au] vs about $400 million [xenu.net]. Those numbers are drawn almost entirely out of thin air but are likely to be order-of-magnitude correct.

Nothing like being around for two centuries and plundering various continents for getting the old bank account stuffed. In this game, the Scientologists are just posers.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[ColdWetDog]

Two centuries? Not quite enough coffee to proof read. Let's try two millennia.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[spun]

Thankfully, he has to prove that this review is knowingly false, written with intent to harm, and actually caused harm to prove libel. It will never happen. I read the review and NOWHERE does PZ Myers make ANY malicious claims about the author of Lifecode. He writes factual statements about the book only. He never called the author a crackpot. Even if he had, crackpot has an accepted definition that actually applies to this author.

He is, in fact, a crackpot. Saying so is not false. From wikipedia:

Pejoratively, the term Crackpot is used against a person, subjectively also called a crank, who writes or speaks in an authoritative fashion about a particular subject, often in science or mathematics, but is alleged to have false or even ludicrous beliefs

If it can be shown that his beliefs are false, which is completely trivial to do, then the label of 'crackpot' applies and is not libel.

10-legged spiders

[wiredlogic]

The "10-legged spider" is probably a reference to the camel spider [wikipedia.org] which is not a true spider. It has elongated pedipalps giving the appearance of 10 legs.

Re:hmm.

[Eponymous Bastard]

Or if you want the short version see here [xkcd.com]

Re:Suing for fun and profit

[plover]

Unfortunately, in truer Slashdot form, the author of the article summary got it completely wrong. The actual review never referred to the author as a 'crackpot', classical or otherwise. He did not attack the author personally, but he shredded the contents of the book from cover to cover.

That's not to say that any educated reader wouldn't draw his own conclusions and consider Pivar a crackpot after having read the tripe.

Anyway, you should read the review. It's hilarious.

Please support Prof. Myers (if you can)

[wisebabo]

Hello Slashdot community. So I've decided to support Prof. Myers, I sent him the following e-mail and fully intend to follow up on my promises.

Please do not think that I expect a substantial fraction of slashdotters (or anyone actually) to follow my initiative. I'm semi-retired, have a reasonable amount of resources at my disposal and basically don't have a life. I just mention it as a possible option.

By the way, does anyone know if there is any sort of organization that formally supports scientists under attack like this? Sort of an ACLU for the sciences?

Hi Prof. Myers

I read about your problems with Stuart Privar. To make a long story
short, I understand he is a wealthy businessman and may/is suing you.

I am very tired about seeing science in America getting abused by (as
Al Gore would put it) "attacks on reason". Should you begin to incur
any significant amount of court costs, I would like to offer a modest
amount of assistance (in the 3 to 4 figure range).

As I am not a scientist myself but have a deep abiding interest in
and respect for those who are expanding mankind's knowledge I would
like to help in some way however small. I realize that scientists
are human too and I'm sure have their share of problems but in this
case it seems like you are definitely being prosecuted out of malice
or breath-taking ignorance.

So if you need my modest assistance please send me a return e-mail
with an address to where I can send the check. It may take awhile (a
few weeks?) because I am out of the country. As a matter of trust,
you can find my ramblings on Slashdot, I go by the user name
"wisebabo". Please do not give in if you can and admit guilt (with a
slap on the wrist), someone needs to show these people that the
majority(?) of Americans support scientific progress. But it is your
choice and I/we are in no position to tell you what to do.

Please do not disclose my identity/e-mail address (except as required
by law). Good luck-

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[nasor]

You don't seem to appreciate the distinction between fact and opinion that's an integral part of U.S. libel laws. According to U.S. law, statement of pure opinion cannot be libelous. You can print something like "John is a scumbag" without fear of libel laws, because that is simply an expression of opinion. In order for libel to occur you need to print a statement of fact, like "John is a ciminal." Calling someone a crackpot isn't a statement of fact - it's a statement of opinion, just like calling someone a "scumbag" or "oaf".

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[spun]

As I said, and the other post beside this says, read the review. If you don't have the time, try a Ctrl+F "crackpot" and you will see the term crackpot is never used in the review. The review author makes only factual statements about the book. He is in no danger at all from this crackpot, but now I may be ;-)

Re:the power of the web...

[theantipop]

This is a type of troll review that you see a lot on sites like YTMND [ytmnd.com]. You give a 5-star rating while sarcastically feigning praise in order to mock the submitter. It's subtle but much more effective than a 1-star "u r dum" troll as it also serves to debase the work's real supporters. It's a similar form of sarcasm as used by Stephen Colbert [comedycentral.com], if you've ever seen his work.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[budgenator]

I have to add another compliment for the book, though. In addition to the lovely artwork, it's an extremely high quality print; well bound, on heavy stock, and looking to last a thousand years. It seems no expense was spared getting it published, which is in contrast to the content, and is unusual for such flagrant crackpottery. It may well be popular among creationists, who can always be trusted to favor glossy superficialities over substance.

To Mr Pivar, I would suggest a simple rule. Theories are supposed to explain observation and experiment. You don't come up with a theory first, and then invent the evidence to support it. Lifecode [scienceblogs.com]

I'm reading that as calling the product "crackpottery" rather than calling the book's author a crackpot; possibly a rather generous position for the reviewer who also went to length to also find something complimentary to write as well as giving advise for future improvement.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[bockelboy]

If your numbers are right, the Roman Catholic Church is a nice second place compared to the Mormon church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Churc h_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints [wikipedia.org]

In 1997 (ten years ago, they've grown significantly since then), they were estimated to have $30 billion in assets and an annual income of $6 billion

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[nullspace]

For correctness, the root language of qua [reference.com] is Latin, not Greek. It is the singular ablative form of quis.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think you are allowed to publish such statements, as you need to warn the general public about the scientific wrongdoing by this person."

And how does calling th person a crackpot do that? Oh, it doesn't. So that point is wrong and stupid.

"The person is publishing a book that is ment(sic) as a scientific-looking publication...and therefore has the responsibility to follow the scientific method."

Well, first he wrote it, he's not publishing it. So that's wrong. Second, how do you figure? There's some unwritten rule that you have to adhere to scientific method if you're discussing science? Why? Because you said so? That seems to be the only justification you're giving, and seeing as you've been wrong on several points already, I'd say your opinion is pretty worthless.

All you've done in your entire post is insist that it's ok to insult someone because YOU personally aren't bright enough to figure out a book that discusses science may not be entirely scientific. Why does your inability to deduce that fact justify what is, at its core, the behavior of an unrepentant bully?

If the reviewer were a professional, he could have made his points without resorting to blatant insults. His (and your) inability to do so are clear evidence that neither one of you has an opinion worth listening to.

And as an aside, your post was really bad, and made you appear very retaliatory and ignorant. It very much reminded me of having a conversation with my 8 year old nephew, long on vociferous opinions and short on useful information or rational thought.

Qua Biologist

[geek2k5]

Stuart Pivar's noted areas of expertice seem to be chemical engineering, art collecting and business. (The business side may be associated with art collecting and possibly chemical engineering. It appears he has money. Some references call him an eccentric inventor and collector.)

Some patents with his name on them date to the mid 1970s.

Another article, written in 2006, claimed that he was 76. While I dislike dealing with age based stereotypes, he is at an age where some people believe that experience is knowledge. These people are often impossible to convince that they are wrong, even when faced with mountains of evidence to the contrary. (I'm hoping that this isn't the case. It is a sad thing to see a creative mind fossilize.)

There are some references that Pivar has been associated with well known evolutionary biologist Steven Jay Gould. While that does provide a contact with biology, it does not make Pivar a biologist. It may, however, be a potential source for the material in the books.

I will say that the illustrations provided in the review make me think of transformation art, especially that found in cartoons, anime, fantasy art and science fiction. LifeCode and related books might be a good source for ideas for people in those fields.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Lost_In_Specs]

I'm a big fan of PZ's blog, and he did say in another post that Pivar was a crackpot.

Pivar is a classic crackpot, and Lifecode isn't a science book by any measure. There is no theory there, and no evidence or observation. I can't believe any scientist would be taken in by it.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/pseudos cience_by_press_release.php [scienceblogs.com]

IANAEB (I am not an evolutionary biologist) but I'd side with Myers. Pivar sounds like a crackpot and a tool as well.