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?"

When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[elrous0]

Contrary to this "this is the first time this has happened!" tone of this article, religious nutballs (as this Picar guy appears to be), frauds, and crackpots actually have a long history of suing when someone challenges them. The Church of Scientology has sued [wikipedia.org] many people. Uri Gellar sued [wikipedia.org] James Randi and others. Crackpots sue all the time (that part of what makes them crackpots). Some, like this Pivar guy apparently, have the financial resources to use their lawsuits to harass (like the aforementioned Scientologists). It's just a sad reality, here in the U.S. anyway (where we have no "loser pays" lawsuit system).

This is the United States.

[AltGrendel]

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?"

Of course it could, probably will, and will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.

Re:I see dollar signs

[Billosaur]

If someone can be sued for their opinions... then Slashdot users will have to start a collection for a community lawyer pool, because some or all of us are going to get sued at some point.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Goaway]

Scientologists aren't crackpots, though. They're a very deliberate scam. The things they teach are a mixture of self-help material and crackpottery, but don't think for a second that the leaders actually believe in any of it.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Billosaur]

You see a common thread in these lawsuits: an individual or group cannot stand criticism of their ideas. Of course, this is nothing new, hence the Inquisition. Our legal system needs to do a better job in weeding out the frivolous lawsuits, and where a lawsuit has any merit, ensuring that when these individuals/groups lose based on the lack of supporting evidence, they should pay their opponent's legal fees. This might put a halt to Scientology's constant waste of the court system. The fact that people do not take them seriously is based on their own flawed thinking and their superiority complex. After all, their "religion" was based on the maunderings of a science fiction writer (and not a very good one at that).

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[faloi]

Just a quick question... On what basis do you claim Pivar is a religious nutball? I've read most of the connected articles and it sounds like he's just a regular nutball, religion isn't mentioned anywhere that I've seen. Unless you're just inferring that because he's putting up something contrary to real evolutionary theory (which I would maintain makes him a regular nutball).

Re:He's done himself no favours

[Billosaur]

Which now begs the question: if you go on Amazon, but the book, then review it and tell him he's a crackpot, are you going to be sued to? Can an Amazon review be held against you?

Re:hmm.

[Larus]

As Niels Bohr said, "Your idea is crazy, but not crazy enough to be true."

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[hansamurai]

I'm confused why you point out Christians in your subject. There is no indication that the author of the book is a Christian, or that its content is motivated by Christian principles. Nor do you mention Christians in your text, let alone wealthy Christians. I'm not denying that there aren't Christian nutballs, because there definitely are, but it is simply an off topic jab.

Either way, I agree with everything else you said.

Won't get far

[faloi]

As one article points out, the bar for libel is pretty high in the US, especially for public or semi-public figures. The author of the book has put themselves in the public view multiple times, for many different things. I'd expect it never makes it to court.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[plague3106]

And Christians aren't crackpots? What makes them better, that their leaders believe too?

Re:hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

(Before I drop into my string theory rant, I want to point out that there is a difference between having no evidence and MAKING UP evidence.)

String theory is an interesting bit of physically-motivated mathematics that has been WAY oversold as a description of nature. It is the theorist's job to invent new mathematical descriptions of unexplained phenomenon, and to extrapolate from what we know to what we could potentially discover. It takes a while to get there, though. Lots of nice ideas which are wrong get generated along the way.

Somewhere in the process the string theory PR machine got out of hand, and it started being sold to the general public as more than just a crazy conjecture. In the process, I think it has done a lot of damage to the credibility of high energy physics. There's a lot of argument within the field about string theory as well. I would suggest checking out The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of a String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next [amazon.com].

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[ajs]

I was wondering the same thing. I'm actually getting rather tired of this particular knee-jerk. Yes, there are Christian crackpots in the world. No, not all crackpots are Christian nor are all Christians crackpots. Faith in a deity is tangential to the search for truth through the scientific method. Only where one allows the two to become entangled does crackpottery arise.

Making a statement vs. stating an opinion

[BigGar']

This is why you should put "in my opinion" in front of opinion based statements. Even if you put a general declaratory statement of "this is opinion not fact" at the bottom of of the page it is, in my experience, it's good practice to preface such statements just to be clear.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[A nonymous Coward]

What is this, jesusdot, where every Christian thinks superstition is immune from derision just because it has been around for 2000 years?

Re:hmm.

[nomadic]

As Carl Sagan said, "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[plague3106]

I think its fair that if its ok to bash and debunk Scientology that Christanity is fair game too.

I don't see you complaining about Scientology being bashed. I can only assume you think THAT is ok because you are a Christian, otherwise you'd have mentioned that as well.

If I makes you feel better:

Jewish religion is bunk.
Christian is bunk.
Islam is bunk.
Scientology is bunk.
Buddism is bunk.

There... did I miss any major religion? Does it make you feel better that I'm not just picking on Christians?

Re:Professor's mistake?

[Qzukk]

the security of a contract?

Since when does one need the security of a contract to read a book and tell people what you thought of it?

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

They're in it with the RAND Corporation and the Reverse Vampires.

Re:hmm.

[tgibbs]

And I wouldn't be surprised if a biologist wouldn't call them science anyway. "Just math" would be a likely response I suspect.

As a biologist, I certainly regard string theory as science, because it is not abstract but rather directed toward describing physical reality. Whether it will turn out to be a useful theory in inspiring informative experiments (which is more important for science than rather a theory is actually correct) remains to be seen. The math is clearly very difficult, but it took many years to figure out how to test many of the predictions of relativity and quantum theory. A

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[spikedvodka]

but of course the church of the flying spaghetti monster isn't bunk

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[pimpimpim]

Just click the link I put in the original post, they also have the text in Dutch. Somewhere half way they mention the lawsuit, they won for the lower court in 2005, and lost for the higher court in 2007. The whole lawsuit took about 7 years and 90.000 euro, since this all started when they made a list of 'biggest quacks of the century' in 2000. They lost because the higher court used the definition of a quack as someone who intentionally fools people with non-working remedies, and didn't thought the woman promoted her non-working remedies with the intent of doing so. Put otherwise, they probably assumed she was too stupid to know what she was doing. Personally, I don't think "intent" should be part of quakery, instead the guilt of quakery lies in the fact that you, knowingly or unknowingly, are a potential harm to people who are in real need for a remedy, and are not working within the rules that are laid out for medical treatment. Hospitals and medicine are institionalized for a reason!

This court order defeats the centuries of learning by suffering that lead to the strict way medical treatment is organized.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[misleb]

I may be optimistic about human intelligence - but generally - I assume that the leaders of most major religions don't believe in the tenets of the religion but just see their position as a means to wealth and power. At least I hope so...

Well, to be fair to most major religions, I don't believe there is necessarily a whole lot of wealth waiting at the top. Power, maybe, but not wealth. Certainly there are exceptions like the Pope (not sure if he could be said to be wealthy, but he probably lives very comfortably) and televangilists. I'm almost positive that the leaders of most religions actually believe in the tenets of that religion.

Scientology is very different from a "normal" religion. As far as most outsiders can tell, Scientology really was started as a means to gain wealth and power. And since it was started relatively recently, there is not a whole lot of doubt on that point.

If the current leaders of Scientology do know it is all a huge scam, one woudl have to wonder how and when the transition from "gullible n00b/victim" to "wisened master" happens. I don't know about you, but if I found out that the organization I thought was going to rid me of all these harmful "thetans," while milking me for everything that I had, was just a scam, I'd be pretty damn pissed and rebellious. Then again, maybe I'd just say "fuck it" and start taking money/power back from the inside and just remain part of the group even though I know it isn't what I thought it was....

-matthew

I'm more inclined to believe that those at the top believe Scientology very strongly.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[samkass]

"Anti-Catholicism: The last acceptable prejudice."

Is saying something negative about the Pope really being anti-Catholic? Is saying that Jewish laws are probably based more in practical guides to avoiding ancient diseases rather than commandments from God anti-Semitic? If criticizing any belief system of someone's religion is being "anti" that religion, we start going down a path of extremist dogma where all rational thought is lost.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[pimpimpim]

I think you are allowed to publish such statements, as you need to warn the general public about the scientific wrongdoing by this person. The person is publishing a book that is ment as a scientific-looking publication (that is why he searched a review from a university professor in the first place), and therefore has the responsibility to follow the scientific method. He did not do that, but used crackpot methods to write the book. Should the author have used crackpot methods for a book that was not _claiming_ to be a scientific book, it should also not been crackpottery but just nonsense. Noone will call a cartoon artist a crackpot just because in the cartoon the principles of physics are ignored. This case is different, though, as it was claiming itself to be scientific.

Maybe the libel could have been avoided by not addressing the author as a crackpot, but instead calling the book a manifestation of crackpottery. Then it is not a personal attack, and should be safe from libel charges. This is just a form of newspeak, but if the laywers and courts agree with it, then so be it our new way to talk about crackpots.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

The 100% effective defense against a libel or slander suit is (1) The statements are true (2) it is clear you are stating your personal opinion.

If the blogger made a firm accusation, i.e. the writer kills baby seals, and that turns out to be knowingly false, then if written, that's libel, if it is said publicly, it is slander.

However, It is clear that the blogger is expressing his "opinion" about the man and his works. He is 100% protected in his capacity as someone reviewing a work to form an opinion and state it publicly either verbally or in written form.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't met very many humans, have you?

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Pxtl]

Considering the relative ages and sizes of the Church, I'd say that the $400 million vs. $15 billion is an impressive showing for Scientology. Consider how many centuries the papacy has existed, and how absolute their power historically was. Consider how many countries are, as nations, Catholic. Now compare that to the fledgeling CoS and you can see how terrifyingly fast the CoS is growing.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which supports the implication above, as both the pot and the kettle are black.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[immcintosh]

In philosophy, a subject in which I have specialized, we use a greek word qua frequently. Put simply, this word means, generally, "in the capacity of." I think it is fairly obvious that the author of this book qua biologist is demonstrably a crackpot. He writes on a very intensively studied branch of science, and proposes a number of theories which are blantantly contrary to well established and observed fact, on no better grounds than an active imagination. This, I would argue, is the very definition of crackpottery. Most sensible people in the modern world would call a doctor who proposed leeching as a panacea to be a crackpot for much the same reason--it is contrary to well established medical fact and commonly available evidence.

In any case, it seems quite clear to me that PZ is describing this man as being a crackpot qua developmental biologist, and not qua businessman or any other number of things he might be talented at. As such, I believe this accusation is absolutely true and utterly defensible by anybody with a rational understanding of modern science.

P.S. I would have liked to moderate this rather than reply, but none of the options seemed to adequately represent my feelings about it...

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[dougmc]

The 100% effective defense against a libel or slander suit is (1) The statements are true

Provably true, I might add. If you can't prove it, in a way that a court will understand, then it's not quite 100% effective.

(2) it is clear you are stating your personal opinion.

That isn't quite sufficient, actually. If I were to say `It is my opinion that you are a convicted child molestor', I could still be successfully sued for libel or slander even though I said this was my opinion.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[NJamesUR]

To be fair if you click on the link to the review, the author provides a link to the actual review: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/lifecod e.php [scienceblogs.com] Where he does use the term crackpottery. However, as it has been pointed out, by the meaning of the word crackpot, the author was making a true statement calling him that and should not be punished for it. The most likely reason for this lawsuit is to draw media attention to the book and cause ignorant or curious people to buy the book.

Re:The reviewer blogger should lose his home. libe

[geek2k5]

If you read the reviews, you will find that the reviewer tore apart the contents of the book, not the reputation of the Stuart Pivar.

If you dig a little further, you will find that Stuart Pivar seems to have a good reputation in the chemical engineering world and the art world.

A scan for Stuart Pivar in Google uncovers some patents he seems to be associated with regarding molding hollow plastic articles. (For some reason a Stewart Pivar is also associated with these patents. Are they the same person?) I can see where these patents could have made him a fair amount of cash if handled properly.

The same scan uncovers the fact that he was closely tied to Andy Warhol and was a cofounder of New York Academy of Art. He seems to have a reasonably good reputation in those circles. I especially liked an article where he rescued a Roman bronze from being broken into parts because it had been misclassified as a later sculpture.

You'll note that the reviewer didn't touch on those areas. Instead, the reviewer focused on his area of expertise, biology, and methodically tore apart the arguments that Pivar put forth. Since Pivar lacks a peer-reviewed scientific reputation in biology and related topics, you can't really say Pivar's reputation as a scientist was destroyed.

Destroying the reputation of those you disagree with is foolish. It is just a matter of time before someone with means properly makes you pay.

If Pivar truly wants to protect his 'reputation' as a scientist, then he will do it with hard facts backed up by peer-reviewed science and not a lawsuit.

Note that the comment about 'Destroying the reputation of those with disagree with' also applies to Stuart Pivar. Just because he has the money to take such a thing to court doesn't mean that he should. If anything, Pivar is in the process of destroying his own reputation as an elderly but budding scientist.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, perhaps it is vague to some people what an "opinion" is. In your statement, the term "convicted child molester" carries a factual assertion which is actionable. If I were to say, "based on what I've read, in my opinion, Michael Jackson is a child molester." That's a perfectly reasonable opinion and safe to say. If I were to say, "In my opinion, Michael Jackson is a convicted child molester" that would be slander because it asserts a false fact, "convicted."

The "child molester" title is a debatable item, like crackpot. We can argue about the truth of the conjecture. "Convicted," as you used it asserts that he was convicted or "proved."

If you say, "I think he's a child molester and I'm pretty sure he was convicted," and no evidence exists to prove you know otherwise, then your safe.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[rthille]

Yeah, well Gould is wrong. If there is a god who affects the universe (aside from initial conditions/laws), he would show effects and could be studied. If all god did was create the initial conditions, that still leaves the question of where did the creator come from, and why we'd bother with talking about the creator of the universe when he can't have anything to do with his creation.

"Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid", no just brainwashed. And human brains aren't so perfect that they can't believe two completely contradictory things and have not trouble believing them both true. Not to mention that falling back to religion for morality is utter shit. If you didn't have an evolved-in or culturally derived set of morals, you'd never be able to decide that it was ok to stop stoning adulterers.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Danse]

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.

Are you joking? If you write a book that proposes a theory about evolution, then you're expected to do it in a scientific way, otherwise, no, it's not science, it's a crackpot theory that fits the definition quite well. So calling him a crackpot is appropriate. He didn't even attempt to validate his theory.

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[turbidostato]

"Bad example. Placing an item into the mouth of a person who is having a seizure is a potentially fatal mistake. They can swallow it or chip their teeth on a spoon"

And that's exactly why it is a *good* example. You did a harm, still you went legally untouched because you can argue both good intentions and ignorance.

There's no need for a law to protect you in case you are trying to do something (legally percieved as) good and indeed you achieve something (legally percieved as) good!

Re:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[Dread_ed]

I would postulate that because the actions you describe (torture, burning people, murder of innocents) not only predate Christianity but also are expressed in every cutlture known to man, you might want to condemn all of humanity with the same vigor you attack the Christians. You see, the motivations to destroy those who are different than us, or those who do not bow to the prevailing powers structure that we ascribe to, are universal to all mankind. The vituperous way you attack Christianity and the revisionist way you view historic facts are proof positive of the same propensity, even in yourself. The seeds of motivation and self justifcation necessary to destroy that which you find distasteful are even evident in your absolute condemnation of Christianity.

Fortunately the "Christian" church has moved beyond this method of enforcement of the status quo and on to a system of tolerance of other doctrinal stances. In fact, for people who want to have their choice of belief systems no place is better than our current USA. Persecuting/ridiculing current Christians and their dogma because of the actions of people seperated not only by generations of time, but also by the great societal changes of the recent era would be akin to me ridiculing you because some of your evolutionary ancestors were cannibalistic.

Your ire is outdated due to the time of your birth by a few lifetimes at least. Fortunately for you that it was, those bloodthirsty bastards would have burned you for sure. If you would like a more reasonable and timely way to express your religiously motivated anger I might be able to suggest a certain other religion that is performing your most hated of acts throughout many countries of the world right now. These guys take the cake too. You don't even have to disagree with them to be a target of their violence. Even better, you could actuall DO something about it if you were so motivated, and possibly end another 1000 years of violence and the emergence of a new "most brutal evil organization."