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).

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.

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:

[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!

[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!

[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!

[Hognoxious]

The guy who wrote the review looks pretty guilty to me.

That's because you're a crackpot too.

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!

[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!

[rizzo420]

i searched the review linked in the article and couldn't find the word "crackpot". i don't think it's libel at all. the only thing the reviewer does is completely trash this guy's "science" and calls it "nothing more than a bunch of pictures". after reading the review, it's obvious that this guy came up with some completely outrageous theories and threw them into a book and called it "science".

Re:

[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 suppose

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.

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 ;-)

Vulgar Abuse

[giafly]

Just because someone publishes something that is wrong, doesn't mean you're allowed to publish statements that they're a crackpot. It's libel.

ShieldW0lf, you're a fucking retard! Vulgar abuse is not defamatory [lawteacher.net]. Thus you can't win a libel suit against me for calling you a fucking retard and the plaintiff in this case probably shouldn't sue for being called a crackpot.

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!

[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!

[nullspace]

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

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!

[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:

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

OMG! You are going to be sued now ;-)

Re:

[intx13]

I realize we're getting off-topic here, but this is something I've always wondered about. I think it's fair to say that Hubbard was not "into" Scientology - but what about the modern leaders? They weren't founders; they rose to their positions by buying into the whole deal (and buying is exactly the correct word!) and staying prominent within the organization for a long time.

I wonder if when they get together out of the eyes of the cash cows they slap backs and laugh among themselves at the profit they're

Re:

[neomunk]

As far as I know (I could be very wrong, but this is what I've read) when you start to get into the more rarefied reaches of the Scientologist hierarchy the lessons (they actually have step-ladder type lessons that become increasingly more expensive to purchase) start to tell you that the lower lessons are lies meant to prod a persons mind in THIS direction, or THAT direction, in order to prepare them for the REAL secrets, of course.

From what I've gathered, the end result is a mixture of the second and thir

Re:

[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 comf

Re:

[Artifakt]

There's a Story about the Hashasshim (The original assassins). New potential assassins were recruited, and were given a strong dose of drugs (probably not just Hashish, but a special formula also incorporating such compounds as Belladonna and Stramonium). While under the influence, they awakened in the presence of beautiful 'houris', and had hours of kinky sex, while eating exotic foods such as ice cream. Eventually, they fell asleep and awakened back in the normal world.
Then they were

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:

[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 revi

Re:

[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: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:When Wealthy Christians and Crackpots Attack!

[spikedvodka]

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

Re:

[rtb61]

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.

Not the Scientology is unique (it's just the market leader and the most profitable) in it cynical exploitation of the vulnerable but most of the main stream religions are actually trying to improve the lot of humanity no matter how misd

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:

[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!

[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!

[gordo3000]

What's a religion without nasty threats?

Philosophy?

Re:

[Mr. Bad Example]

> What's a religion without nasty threats?

  The Church of England?

  "Cake or death?"

Re:

[Stormwatch]

But he didn't eat anyone's brain. He just flew to the heavens. That means... Jesus somehow had Jean Grey's powers.

Re:

[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 n

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).

Lysenkoism, Progress, and other Anti-Darwinianisms

[billstewart]

This guy's theory, as far as I can tell without reading the book, has nothing to do with Creationism - it's that biological development is all about different shapes of Donuts. He's a businessman, so obviously the explanation for his theory is that he's spent too much time in boring meetings, doodling while waiting for a break so he can go get another donut and some more coffee, and perhaps we could speculate about what's in the brownies at afternoon meeting-break time.

There have been other major origin theories competing with Darwin's theories besides Creationism and its relatives, UFO cults, Scientology scames, and pre-Darwin attempts at science. Lysenkoism [wikipedia.org] is one of the best-known - it's important because of the damage it did to Russian science.

But the worst of them tend to come from people who *say* they believe in Evolution but Just Don't Get It. Most of them are either a view of "Evolution" as "Progress", or a view of "Survival of the Fittest" as a moral imperative and an excuse for anything from self-congratulation to racism and sterilizing the UnFit. The "Progress" types are at least friendlier - they're mostly wooly-headed liberals who believe that we're all getting Better and Better, though one technology columnist I like did refer to us evolving into something even cooler. The Social Darwinist types are generally nasty.

And both of these types are teaching in our schools, confusing kids about how evolution works and providing handy strawmen for the Intelligent Design movement. Unlike Creationists, who school boards can generally recognize for what they are, these guys get in without getting caught.

There are milder forms of these errors as well - the "slow, steady gradual evolution" model tends to be popular because it fits our worldviews the way Donuts fit Pivar's, and Gould's punctuated-equilibrium arguments are important counterweights to them. And people tend to mix up Darwinism with things we've learned later, like Mendel's genetics, details embedded in DNA, etc. Darwin's _actual_ work had a lot of big holes in it and occasional wrong assumptions. There's a lot of room for criticizing the Original Darwinism, and because it's a scientific theory, that's just fine. Knee-jerk defenses of Darwinism don't do it any favors - if anything they make it easier for the Creationists.

"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?

Re:

[Otter]

I think he's referring to the "However, the common threat of lawsuits finally became a reality..." in the blurb here, not to the link. Of course, the blurb also spells the blogger's name two different ways.

My sympathy for Myers/Meyers is limited, though. If you want to build your reputation on kicking around crazies, occasionally getting bitten back is the price you pay.

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.

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.

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!

[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!

[ColonelPanic]

The very real danger to the book's reviewer is that he may be placed in the position of defending rationality before a jury comprised of people who find it perfectly reasonable to symbolically eat the flesh of a cosmic Jewish zombie and telepathically implore him to save them from the consequences of a snake-deceived rib-woman's consumption of magic fruit.

Which is to say, in our rapidly medievalizing former republic, crazy nutbag plaintiffs are granted a decisive advantage.

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:

[Pojut]

"Dad, why is American government the best government?"
"Because of our endless appeal system." ...
. ...
"Wait, you're not actually writing that are you?"

Re:

[TheLink]

Well an appealing system is better than one with a lack of appeal right?

Re:

[chalkyj]

It's probably worth noting that he doesn't even call the author a crackpot - he says the book is "flagrant crackpottery." If you called someone's book "insane", you wouldn't necessarily be saying that the author is insane themselves.

I see dollar signs

[Sierpinski]

If someone can be sued for their opinions... man I'm going to make a TON of money from my mother-in-law!

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:I see dollar signs

[Nerdfest]

A pool full of lawyers ... for some reason, the thought brings a smile ....

Re:

[FishWithAHammer]

Face-down lawyers, I trust.

Re:I see dollar signs

[jedidiah]

Now, now.

That would be cruel to the sharks. Just think of all of the desperate shark screams as they're getting eaten alive by the lawyers.

Re:

[Fred_A]

A lawyer with a frickin laser on its head, now that's a scary thought !

Re:

[Scuff]

A community lawyer pool won't help when the inevitable happens and most of the slashdot users are suing each other. Well, it might help the lawyers. Everyone else loses.

new business plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Aha, I see the floodgates opening now:

1). Write ridiculously inaccurate book
2). Send it to a well-known, respected scientist for review
3). Wait for the scathing reviews to come in
4). Sue
5). Profit!

But, at the expense of respect. Hey, who needs respect when you have 15 million dollars?

Bestest. Review. EVAR.

[plover]

I love this quote:

The doodles in this book bear absolutely no relationship to anything that goes on in real organisms, but after staring at them for a while, I realized what this book is actually about.

This book is a description of the development and evolution of balloon animals.

It's that bad. This is a book suitable only for use at clown colleges, and even there, I suspect the clowns would tell us that it is impractical, nonsensical, and has no utility in their craft.

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

The chilling effect

[mcmonkey]

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. =)

And now people are afraid to write a bad review of the review!

Re:

[julesh]

I love this quote:

The doodles in this book bear absolutely no relationship to anything that goes on in real organisms, but after staring at them for a while, I realized what this book is actually about.

This book is a description of the development and evolution of balloon animals.

This prompted a poster on another blog I read [nielsenhayden.com] to produce what I think is the best lolcat ever [flickr.com].

Re:Bestest. Review. EVAR.

[Andrewkov]

It's that bad. This is a book suitable only for use at clown colleges

I would prefer it if you not refer to Princeton in that manner.

Me too!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ten-legged spiders? Stuart Privar is a classic crackpot!

And I'll proudly say it...anonymously.

Ten Legged spiders Exist!

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

They only require a little patience, a couple extra spider legs, and some super glue.

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'

Re:

[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?

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."

Re:hmm.

[Larus]

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

Re:

[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."

I think Pauli is more appropriate

[sconeu]

Pauli's famous two-liner:

This isn't right. It isn't even wrong.

Re:

[e2d2]

"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."

Yeah, because theories like superstring have so much observable evidence to support them..

Re:

[sholden]

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

Re:

[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

Re:

[mwvdlee]

Whether or not string theory is right and whether or not you can observe the evidence with you naked eyes (or, in fact, through any scientifical means you can fathom), it IS based on evidence. It tries to explain evidence that other (more high-level) theories currently cannot.

Re:

[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 w

Real scientists don't sue

[pzs]

This may not be true in all cases, but people who actually know what they're talking about don't usually need the law to back up what they say.

The other case of this was "Dr" Gillian McKeith [guardian.co.uk] a "nutritionist" who sells a lot of books about how you should eat less chips and more salad. This is all very well, but of course it also includes a bunch of quakery about eating leaves so that their photosynthesis can oxegenate your gut. As the article I link points out, that wouldn't work too well unless you had a torch up your arse.

Naturally, McKeith is mighty litigious at people who point out that she bought her doctorate from the web.

Peter

Re:Real scientists don't sue

[dkf]

This is all very well, but of course it also includes a bunch of quakery about eating leaves so that their photosynthesis can oxegenate your gut.

It's "quackery". "Quakery" is something to do with porridge oats.

Re:

[MBGMorden]

A lot of rural Christian churches are similar. Setting schedules and only allowing people to talk "when it's time" is seen as restricting when God's words can be said (big no-no).

As such there is a loose order in which things are normally done (in my church as a kid it was Group Hymns, Choir, Offering, Sermon, Altar Call), but if anyone wanted to sing, testify, get annointed, pray at the altar, etc., one was free to do so whenever they wish. I remember one elderly member ("Brother Maxi") who quite often w

Re:Real scientists don't sue

[Joe Random]

As the article I link points out, that wouldn't work too well unless you had a torch up your arse.

Gotta love the subtle differences between British and American English. If you put a torch up someone's ass here in the states, it's wouldn't be quite as . . . illuminating . . . an experience. Well, not unless you were one of the bystanders. You could even have some marshmallows ready to roast over the soon-to-be bonfire -- if you're able to deal with your bonfire running around, flailing and screaming, that is.

Hey, maybe the makers of Gigli...

[downix]

can sue everyone that thought the movie stank. Oh, even better, sue the people that didn't come and see the movie, after all because they didn't come and see what others had called a pile of rubbish!

Re:

[aadvancedGIR]

I guess you realize that there would be some problem to constitute a 12 person jury in that case.

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:

[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.

Professor's mistake?

[aadvancedGIR]

I really don't want to support Stuart Privar, but didn't Professor PZ Meyers made a mistake by accepting to review that book, apparently at the request of Stuart Privar or its publisher, without the security of a contract?

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?

I feel a class action suit coming on...

[Analogy Man]

If a reviewer can be sued for an unfavorable review, can the poor suckers that go to the "Movie of the Year - five stars!" file a class action suit against the lame-o reviewer for their $7.50 + $1M in emotional anguish?

Suing for fun and profit

[intx13]

In true Slashdot fashion, I did not read the review, but I wanted to make the general point that the fact that it's a nutjob filing the lawsuit doesn't mean it's not a valid lawsuit. Libel and other such laws are often valid, and sometimes when discussing a particulary outlandish author's particularly outlandish claims it's easy to slip from lambasting the claims to lambasting the author. If this crosses the line to libel then a lawsuit might, under some circumstances, be warranted.

I doubt that's the case

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.

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.

No chance of winning

[DrXym]

PZ Meyers is a tough but fair cookie. If the book is as bad as he claims I really see no judge in the land sending it to trial. The case is going to get laughed out of court if it even gets that far.

Libel is about incorrect factual statments.

[Vellmont]

This case obviously has no merit. You don't need to be a lawyer to know that libel in the United States is knowingly making incorrect factual statements. I.e. saying "John raped sue", when you know that not to be the case.

A value judgment like "this guy is a crackpot", or "the food at restaurant X is bad" is not libelous. Read the wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] for a more in depth description.

Re:Libel is about incorrect factual statments.

[pimpimpim]

Just check out the link I posted somewhere earlier on in this thread: a similar case in the Netherlands worked out all wrong. The "society against quacks" called someone a quack who wrote a book with very dubious statements about human psychology (even going into nonsenical racial disciminations). This society lost their defence when being sued for libel because the higher court took the definition of a 'quack' as someone who *intentionally* promotes wrong ideas. The court probably assumed the author was just stupid and therefore not knowing about how wrong she was. She wrote the nonsense without intent of writing nonsense, this didn't make her a 'quack' and therefore calling her a 'quack' an incorrect factual statement: libel!

This happened in 2007! A sad 0:1 in the competition of reason versus idiocracy, the defeats keep on coming :(

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.

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.

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:

[networkBoy]

Nah, Suing is for ametures. Once you go pro you get in government and censer your opposition. (case in point the censorship of dissenting opinions about global warming, just in case someone thought I was trying to troll)

That's it!

[Mycroft_514]

Now I can sue /. for the unfavorable reviews.

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.