Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
PZ's Being Sued
PZ is being sued for libel in New York Southern District Court by Stuart Pivar, author of the "Lifecode" books. Apparently because PZ reviewed them and found them wanting.
Wow. Suing someone for a bad review. That's the way to do real science, Stuart. Nice job.
A good write-up from Scientific American.com here.
PZ comments here:
[link] Huh. I'd heard some noise from Pivar threatening to sue, but this is the first I've heard of any formal action being taken. Since I'm a defendant (one who hasn't been notified of his status!) I suppose I should just shut up at this point and let justice run its course.
Since I'm a blogger, though, I can't completely shut up. I will just say that this is Pivar's attempt to squash a negative review of his book, which I posted here. Nothing in the review was motivated by personal malice, and I actually am inclined to favor structuralist arguments in evolution ... but I'm afraid my honest assessment of Pivar's work is that it does not support his conclusions. I still stand by my review, and now I'm a bit disturbed that someone would think criticism of a scientific hypothesis must be defended by silencing its critics.
Update 8-21-07: Jim Lippard has got a exhaustive post up over at The Lippard Blog that examines the suit (pdf) in detail.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
And here is the legal takedown!
High powered legal smackdown of the Pivar suit from Peter Irons, retired law professor at UCSD.
If I were Pivar, I'd get my lawyer to yank that suit before the judge has a chance to see it.
Hurrah for PZ
Religious "moderates" make for overrated allies, I think. Like Sam Harris says of religious abolitionists: "they were morally correct, but they were on the losing side of a theological argument".
Sure, Fundies "cherry pick" the bible as much as "liberal Christians" do, but they don't have to nearly as much; and if one were to truly take the bible--all of it and embrace all it says, you would be quite literally insane because of all the contradictions and resulting incoherence of views.
Liberal and nominal Christians are useful only in that they're more likely to be persuaded that religion is poisonous nonsense that is the root cause of some profound human misery and suffering. I don't want kindler, gentler theocrats...screw 'em. For what its worth, I'm not sure I understand what our "liberal Christian allies" exactly expect out of us..."to be seen, not heard?"--again, screw 'em. Sure, we'll work with you (liberal Christians) on separation of Church & State and all that, but we still gotta be who we are.
Just guessing but I suspect PZ labeled you a "concern troll". Look that up that term on Wikipedia sometime--I did, since it was a 'net term I simply wasn't familiar with.
I know what 'concern troll' means
and it is an aspersion on the sincerity of the one to whom it is applied.
We are pretty much prisoners of our culture. A few break free - that's great and all - and some then go on to dump vast contempt on the rest. Abandon your beliefs, or you are a fool, an utter fool! It is an exact analogue to someone who has made it 100 miles down the road calling up someone who's only traveled 25 and mocking them. However correct they might be about the other person's slow travel, it isn't likely to motivate them. Nobody's asking the far-traveler to go back to the 25 mile marker, or to pretend it isn't 75 miles distant from his own position. PZ has said he came from a secular family anyway - he was born on the 90-mile marker.
I'm really bored with explaining this 10 different ways because it's way off the main thread. If you disagree, fine.
Dumb move
When your published views on a particular point run outside or near the fringe of the scientific mainstream, as does Pivar's, a libel suit over being called a crackpot is about as dumb a response as one can make.
Apparently Pivar is unaware that truth is an absolute defense against the allegation of libel.
Based on that I predict this will never go to trial, and that Pivar will approach PZ and offer drop it before it is dismissed on the condition that PZ not seek reimbursement of his fees or file a counter-claim.
Forcing PZ to defend his opinion only invites PZ to offer further evidence to compound and confirm Pivar's alleged crackpot status. Pivar is determined to confirm PZ's opinion it seems.
crackpot
What is the factual basis for calling someone a crackpot?
Saying that his statements are wrong is easy to prove but calling someone a crackpot kinda falls into the catagory of slander.
If this all centers around crackpot it should be a fun court case to watch.
A bunch of lawyers all argueing about wether pivar is a crackpot or not.
Imagine a court of law trying to find out if pivar is a crackpot.
God is love
God loves you
Why not to use the bible as toilet paper
"Wazzat?" "Whut?" "At ridair." "Shit."
Methinks somebody has stepped in something.
I'd contribute to that fund
As some French philosopher would have said if he'd thought of it; "I may not agree with PZ's constantly denigrating speech on anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%, but I'll defend to fifty bucks his right to denigrate." I'm pretty sure that's how the saying goes.
Ahem.
PZ doesn't denigrate people who disagree with him.
He does have some interesting things to say about liars, and parasites, and fools. And those people who talk like they know something about science, but then get all the science wrong.
But then ... somebody SHOULD say something about those people.
Really?
Yes he does, Hank. I've seen it and been on the receiving end of it. In addition to being a great writer he is also a world-class jerk. But last I checked, that is not a crime.
What went down?
DOF-
I have never met PZ, but from reading his blog almost daily, I like him a lot. Sure he is tough on those his disagrees with, but calling him a world class jerk seems a bit uncalled for. Any chance you would tell us exactly what went down between you two that produced such strong feelings? If it's non of my business, that's okay too.
Dirk
I like his blog too, but...
Dirk -
I know this is going to come up again and again, but the story is really boring. Suffice to say that when he assumes someone isn't sincere, and calls them a troll and a stinking hypocrite, and tells them to go away, he might be saying those things to someone who is sincerely trying to raise a point about strategy and priorities and is in fact, otherwise completely in agreement with him regarding nearly every other issue under the sun. It's good theatre, but not exactly constructive, and he does it all the time.
He really does appear to lack any vestige of a clue as to why people believe, and he should make the effort to understand. It would make him far more effective in persuasion, just as understanding evolution makes him more effective in biology.
- DOF
World class jerk?
Sorry, nope. PZ Myers is a wonderful guy – generous, compassionate, open-minded, thoughtful, conspicuously honest, funny, and even humble.
PZ's not selling anything (although he does say he's writing a book), he's not out to control or parasitize anybody. He's just expressing his opinion in an honest, forthright and admirably American way.
If I had to describe his motivation at Pharyngula, I'd say he's decided to be open in expressing his dismay at silly, harmful beliefs, and the people who purvey them.
It appears to me that this dismay rises out of his genuine love of people, nature and knowledge ... and that the strength of his reaction to active assaults on those things is exactly equal to that love.
Comparing PZ with someone like, say, Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly, I'd say O'Reilly and Coulter have a genuine need to hurt other human beings. There's something sharp and brittle – and sick – about both of them, and they go out of their way to aggressively attack others ... mostly people who are unable or less inclined to defend themselves. Coulter and O’Reilly, and so many others like them, are classic and malignant bullies. (Take note that they’re also making a LOT of money off it.)
PZ, on the other hand, is a defender. Yes, to the degree that he cares about the things he cares about (which are the things I care about), he's an ARDENT defender.
But to stick him in the same category as someone like Coulter (as some might), or to simply label him a jerk, is off base.
Considering the threats truth, justice, science and even freedom face today, if we had a thousand people like PZ in the world today, that would still be about a million too few.
And for all that PZ contributes, he’s probably a thousand times less well paid than the REAL jerks.
I didn't say he doesn't have redeeming qualities
A spirited defense, Hank, and befitting a true friend. But there's a real element of "If you're not with us, you're against us" in his rhetoric. He's very quick to lash out at people who are actually his allies but who take a different approach. He knocks that same straw man down every day - that people who seek a more constructive relationship to religionists are trying to "silence" atheists. His characterization of that set (to which I belong) as "appeasers", "trolls", and "hypocrites" is a serious flaw.
I happen to think that atheism will win out in the end, whatever we do. And hate-mongering religious leaders deserve no cover. But there are a lot of people in the middle looking for somewhere to go. If only PZ could understand how much he sounds like (as opposed to "makes the same arguments as") the people they are trying to get away from.
But lawsuits to silence bad reviews? Rubbish!!!
Pfsh!
Once again a court of law is being asked to settle a scientific argument.
I followed the Dover trial and was of the opinion that the decision should find for the plaintiffs because clearly, the school board at the time was using intelligent design as cover for teaching religious beliefs in a public school. However, I thought the judge went out of his jurisdiction when he ruled on something best settled between scientists and philosophers of science: what science is.
As for this case, I dont expect it to go any further. A libel suit for a bad review? Sheesh. Grow up, man!
Pivar v. Seed Media Group
Brent: I've got a copy of the Pivar complaint on my website, linked from my blog post on the suit.
Pfft...
Pivar, yanking the judge by the sleeve: "He's a big meany doo-doo head. On his blog he wrote something negative about my meaningless book."
Judge: "Oh no! You mean something bad was written about something on a blog?!?!"
I can see the judge laughing Pivar out of court. This is just ridiculous.
Duh.
Oh, good.
May the goofy bastard start a trend of idiots suing scientists simply for opening their mouths.
That way America can REALLY become a second- or third-rate scientific power.
Oh, wait: "Goofy bastard." Is that libel? No, in this case, it's just the plain truth.
...
I'm predicting a lot of pro bono legal volunteerism to help with the defense. Hell, I'll contribute actual money.
And afterwards, maybe PZ can sue him back for a million or two. That would be sweeeet.