Speaking of ridiculous parsing of newspaper articles, here’s something Simon Singh wrote:
The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.
The US has some deep problems with an overly credulous culture, but at least we don’t labor under the libel laws of the UK, which are destructive of the basic principles of free speech. Truth ought to be protection against accusations of libel, but a judge didn’t think so in this case — Singh was found guilty of accurately describing chiropractic claims as “bogus”.
Well, maybe I shouldn’t rush to excuse the US from this sort of thing. We do have the recent case of a California judge finding a teacher in violation of the separation of church and state for calling creationism “superstitious nonsense”. Since creationism is religious, it is now going to be protected from criticism because you aren’t allowed to say that any religious belief is wrong in an American classroom.
We are so screwed.
Sure you are, but you can’t have employees paid by the state telling students who are compelled to be there that ID is science or that religious junk is superstition.
There are obvious problems with such restrictions, but it’s better than the alternative.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
And what’s more, the British judge didn’t understand the meaning of “bogus”. He asserted, against all common usage, that
This reminds me of the whole thing between the journalist Brian Greene and Andrew Wakefield. Namely how if there was even a shred of evidence that Greene wasn’t perfectly correct in his allegations that Wakefield was a lying bastard, he would’ve gotten crucified by UK libel laws.
And the reason that “truth” didn’t protect the teacher in C. F. et al. v. Capistrano Unified School District et al. is that by constitutional law the US does not decide religious truth. Nor does it generally decide “philosophical truth,” other than where these affect more material or temporal “truths.”
The government has far too much power when it decides “truth” vis-a-vis god and “meaning” that goes beyond empirical “truths.” We’re free to say that religion is superstitious nonsense because of the same restrictionis that keep the government from telling us that ID is truth, or that creationism is “superstitious nonsense.”
The free marketplace of ideas is among the most important freedoms we have.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
We aren’t screwed. We can still say “Creationism isn’t science” or “there is no evidence of a designer” or “ID makes no testable predictions”. We just have to be careful to make precise, value neutral statements that are factually correct when in a teaching capacity.
Why am I not surprised?
The judge in the Singh trial’s name is Justice Eady. Since Pharyngula is not hosted in the UK, I don’t have to worry about being sued for speculating that the British Chiropractors Association bribed Justice Eady. The question is, was the bribe cash or back rubs?
Weak Shit. Fraudopractic and homeofrauditic. ‘Nough said.
Sir David Eady defamed science with his foolish ruling. It’s hard to believe that a judge could be so hopelessly incompetent, but we do know that it happens.
Glen D — I hear you but if I said “the burning of witches in Salem was a result of the public’s superstitious nonsense” whould I be a COTUS violator? Or if I said “burning virgins to appease the rain gods was Mayan superstitious nonsense” would I be guilty? Just asking when does the ability of rational people to state the OBVIOUS truth become verboten?
Truthspeaker, ever heard of libel tourism? You can be sued for libel in the UK as long as the claim can be read in the UK.
Justice Eady seems to have a history with this term bogus – in 2006 he judged in a libel case involving a journalist referring to TV psychic Paul McKenna’s PhD as bogus, in favour of McKenna, even though it was established that the PhD was from a fake university. The issue was that McKenna didn’t intend to obtain a fake PhD and thought it was real, and he said the word ‘bogus’ implied it was intentional.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2006/1996.html
I have a post on my blog on this case with links to further coverage (including eyewitnesses), if anyone’s interested.
http://notsofriendlyhumanist.wordpress.com/2009/05/09/chiroquacks-vs-simon-singh/
Just asking when does the ability of rational people to state the OBVIOUS truth become verboten?
When you can afford to hire good lawyers.
English defamation law needs to be called a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Telling the truth should _never_ be a criminal or civil offense.
If we wish to make a strong statement against Creationism we can say something like this: Creationism lacks any scientific merit or Creationism lacks the ability to advance knowledge. Either of these is equally applicable to ID. We should certainly discuss the lack of predictive capacity and testability but should not be afraid to make strong statements that suggest that Creationism and its illegitimate child ID are unable to assist society in answering questions about the natural world that may lead to technological applications that benefit humanity.
I could seriously wish the teacher had said something like — accepting creationism as a scientific theory means discarding huge amounts of data collected in the disciplines of biology, geology, archeology, genetics, chemistry and physics.
I think the teacher got in trouble for editorializing. He voiced and opinion,
Correcting my comment:
When
youthe people who cannot afford to allow the truth to be told can afford to hire good lawyers.Yes, the British libel laws are absolutely destructive and idiotic.
Actually, the whole of Britain needs reform.
OOOPS I went away and then hit post with thinking.
…. He voiced an opinion, even an accurate one. I guess teachers aren’t permitted to do that.
The UK will be unpicking Eady’s rulings for years to come. Not only has he permitted practitioners to peddle unproven treatments safe from reasonable criticism, but has legally changed the definition of a word.
It’s madness that someone who is essentially unelected and untouchable can wield so much power, all in the name of an unelected and untouchable monarch.
Doesn’t the Capistrano case (“Creationism is religious in nature”) kind of set the stage for giving ID/Creationism the boot from classrooms once and for all?
Religious endorsement is not allowed in public schools, of course, but if the “teach the controversy” or “equal time” people are pushing for ID / Creationism, won’t they be blocked by that ruling?
We may have lost *THAT* battle, but I think the bigger picture it will work out benefitting us.
It’s that privy towards the planiff crap.
ConcernedJoe@10: If I understood Ed Brayton’s telling of the school thing right, what got the teacher in trouble was that it was a history class and the validity of creationism was a long way O/T. It was decided that much more disparaging comments about religion were OK because they related to the material in the class and therefore served a secular purpose. So I think (under American federal law) you can say that Creationism is stupid in biology class and that witch burning is stupid in history class, but not vice versa.
As for English* libel law: UGH! I don’t understand why the press don’t chuck more of there influence at this shit. It’s a rare occurrence of Fleet Street’s interests lining up with the interests of people in general.
*IANAL, but as understand it, “English” is correct and there are no “libel laws of UK”. It’s like the national football teams.
I got the cure for whatever ails ya. Some of this here elixir and a back rub. It’s all you need.
Mike, I’ve heard of libel tourism but I don’t really see how anyone could collect from me as long as I don’t travel to the UK. I feel pretty safe in alleging that Justice Eady ruled this way because the British Chiropractor Association facilitates Justice Eady’s frequent visits to male prostitutes.
I don’t understand some of the comments about the judge changing the definition of a word. Bogus implies deception, plain & simple. In fact, its etymology relates to the name of a device for forging coins.
There are lots of rules governing how teachers communicate with students. Personally, I’m not particularly happy with the Capistrano ruling, but regulating what a teacher says to a captive audience of schoolkids isn’t comparable to the serious free speech issues created by British libel laws.
It is a common tactic for purveyors of pseudoscience and anti-science to go for the muzzling of critics first rather than evidence. Unfortunately, UK libel make it very easy:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=485
It’s how David Irving managed to cost Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt and her British publisher a couple of million dollars and about a year out of her life suing her for libel because she quite correctly referred to Irving as a “Holocaust denier” in one of her books.
In the UK, it is only necessary for the plaintiff in a libel case to show that a statement about him is defamatory and may damage his reputation, and the bar for that is incredibly low. It is then up to the defendant to use justify his statement either by arguing that it’s the truth or that it was misinterpreted. In any case, what this mean is that, in essence, the plaintiff has a low burden of proof, and it is up to the defendant to prove that what he wrote was true, rather than being up to the plaintiff to prove that what the defendant wrote was false.
This just in…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8046341.stm
Note the last sentence in the first paragraph. Will they sue the Beeb? I think we should be told.
@24 – the use of the word bogus indicates that the item in question is not genuine, or counterfeit, but says nothing about the intention of the person using that item. I can give you bogus money unknowingly; I can make a bogus claim (“elephants have wings!”) without knowing it is bogus, and I can own a bogus piece of artwork (“Picasso’s lost masterpiece”) without knowing it to be a forgery. The claims of chiropractice are bogus, whether a particular practitioner believes them to be so or not, and a fake PhD is bogus whether the idiot who ordered it online was aware of that or not.
What the teacher should have said is ‘ID is superstitious nonsense’ because as we all have been told numerous times ID is not creationism or religion. So if the judge still ruled against him then you have an official statement saying it is religious superstitious nonsense.
1) Singh has *not* been found guilty. This was a preliminary hearing, and all that has been decided by the judge is the meaning of the terms to be tested. The fact that Singh probably didn’t mean it that way and the BCA apparently never claimed that he meant it that way has no bearing on it, it would seem, so I can definitely agree that this is farcical.
2) Re: McKenna. McKenna is *not* a psychic nor does he claim to be. He’s a hypnotist. Which is something rather different.
I feel that what is missing from the religious story is similar to what happened to you at Keck School of Medicine at USC when students from Liberty University tried repeatedly to trip you up with contrived questions. High school also has certain students who do the same, which is act as agents provocateurs for some organized religion.
Here is another case where truth-telling is (probabilistically) forbidden: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/05/11/woman-must-deny-rape-or-face-death/
Remember that the difference between the US and UK on libel issues is this:
If someone brings a bogus libel suit against you in England, you might lose and wind up bankrupt.
If someone brings a bogus libel suit against you in most of the US, you’ll probably win, but end up bankrupted anyway by your own legal costs.
(There’s a few isolated exceptions, like California with its strong anti-SLAPP law, but those are easy for a determined plaintiff to avoid.)
Certainly enforcement is a matter of context. As in, there wouldn’t likely be a plaintiff in those situations.
Brayton’s almost certainly got some of the issue down right, as well. I understood that the fact that it was (allegedly) a fairly isolated statement that made it worse, rather than having been a kind of give-and-take discussion.
That said, I don’t know that a teacher paid by the state calling any religious beliefs “superstitious nonsense” in the classroom fits current interpretations of constitutional law. No doubt there would be issues of conflicting constitutional values, including free speech issues at some point, however religion is more hands-off for the government than most other issues.
Again, I think that’s a good thing, since having a teacher call creationism “superstitious nonsense” as “opinion” or some such thing would seem to open up the classroom to a teacher’s “opinion” that ID is in fact good science. I would think that careful prefacing of an “opinion” should help, especially in a class discussion, yet the authoritative stature of the teacher is going to make even well-couched statements of opinion somewhat problematic.
One can teach about the witch-burnings without stating that it was due to “superstitious nonsense.” Why not bring in the “Biblical authority” that helped lead to it, since that’s a historical fact (I don’t believe that saying so could cause a constitutional problem)? Labeling is always prejudicially anyway, and calling one religious idea “superstitious nonsense” tends to let the other religious ideas off of the hook. Which is to say that perhaps calling creationism “superstitious nonsense” implies that theistic evolution is somehow better, which I’d say is true in some sense, but certainly not in other senses.
I tended to dislike hearing historical practices labeled as “superstition” or some such thing in school. It suggests that somehow they were “lesser thinkers” than today’s thinkers, or that BS about witches was unlike BS regarding “fine-tuning.”
So I prefer a more neutral approach regardless of the religious toes which might be stepped upon when opinion about religion is stated. It would be too much to demand for most issues, yet religion is such a problem that I do think it should be taught especially neutrally, both for constitutional and non-constitutional reasons.
The state can easily cause harm with respect to religion, and there would still be people offended by calling witch burning “superstitious nonsense,” sad as that is. If they’re adults, it’s time for them to learn, hence the free marketplace of ideas. If they’re children caught between pious parents who demand fealty to religion, and the state which compels them to go to school, I don’t mind that a decision is made to protect the child from such conflict–particularly because I don’t think the government should have their paid teachers telling children their “opinion” that “ID is science,” other than in a context which makes very clear that such an idea is only an opinion not backed up with science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
that would not help you. If the judge can, like the humpty-dumpty make your words mean what ever he decides them to mean, you are screwed at the moment you say anything.
he can simply decide that “Hi” or “thank you” mean F* or similar insult, or even a death threat which is afaik a felony and you will get behind bars
A search for ‘bogus’ on Google yields 10.8 billion hits. Rich pickings for lawyers? The first thing we do, let’s . . .
Richard Harris #24 wrote:
Wehaf at #28 just said what I was going to say. The ‘coin’ may be deceptive, but the people passing on the counterfeit money can still be unwitting stooges. “The Natural Healer mistakenly thought that the bogus remedy worked, and recommended it to her clients in good faith.” There’s nothing self-contradictory about the use of the word ‘bogus’ here.
I wonder if there might be some regional differences in how people use the word “bogus,” and they came into play here. I also suspect that the teacher who was censored for calling creationism “superstitious nonsense” fell afoul of the extreme sensitivity in some areas of academia to the use of the word “superstitious.” I have friends who react to that word — and to the word “superstition” — as if it were the n-word. It seems that insensitive imperialists in the past treated mainstream religions as “real” religions, but denigrated native, pagan, and non-western religions as mere “superstitions.” Thus, the term presumably reeks of colonialism, and racism, and should never, ever, ever, be used. It privileges some spiritual belief over others.
10.8 million, not billion. Why don’t you guys allow correction of mistakes?
@36: 10.8 billion? That’s a bogus number!
Richard Dawkins #38 wrote:
Obviously ‘we’ do, since you just corrected it.
Orac #26
Irving quite famously lost the case. As part of the ruling for Lipstadt and Penguin Books, Irving was required to pay their costs, which ruined him financially and subsequently forced him into bankruptcy
“Well, maybe I shouldn’t rush to excuse the US from this sort of thing. We do have the recent case of a California judge finding a teacher in violation of the separation of church and state for calling creationism “superstitious nonsense”. Since creationism is religious, it is now going to be protected from criticism because you aren’t allowed to say that any religious belief is wrong in an American classroom.”
I wouldn’t say we’re totally screwed. After all, now that judges have further upheld the president that creationism is indeed religious in nature we have one more weapon in our arsenal against ID. All it takes is proving ID is creationism with a new alias and a fake ID (pun intended) and we keep RELIGION out of the SCIENCE class. Yay for us.
Just looking for the silver lining.
I feel his ruling was bogus.
When a judge makes a ruling as obviously wrong as this one, it’s tempting to assume the judge was bribed or otherwise influenced in an unethical way. But it’s not necessarily the case that the British Chiropractor Association bribed Justice Eady with money or sexual favors from “massage therapists”. It’s quite possible that Justice Eady’s brain was fried from prolonged abuse of prescription pain-killers. Either of these explanations is possible, so at this time it would not be accurate to pick either one of them as the truth.
I disagree with the above statement. Nowhere does he mention anything religious. There are over 1000 creation stories all of which are superstitious nonsense. I can see if he stated directly “Christian creationism is superstitious nonsense” then I can say he was guilty, but creation is a secular term when not given as a specific creation story.
…yada, yada, yada. The UK libel laws do indeed admit truth as a defense. Read the linked blog article for the details. Let’s keep our facts straight and save the Pommie bashing for another time, yes?
We are sooooooooooo screwed. OH, sob, sob. Did you remember separation of Church and State? That means, according to you, no Religion in the classroom. But that also requires no promulgation of Atheism in the classroom, because Atheism is a religion. You doubt this? Then why do you say Stalin really was a religious person? And you have said this many times, trying to weasel out of the murderous behavior of Stalin and Mao, by portraying their actions as “really” due to religion. Really? Like they were Christians? Really? They were Atheists. Get off the ethical high horse. Scientists as these wonderful ethical doctors? So, machine guns, poison gas, tanks, bombers, and weapons of mass destruction, were all invented by Christians? Not Scientists? Get off this “We Scientists are so ethically wonderful” gig, and join the rest of humanity. And, prove there isn’t a God. So far, your arguments are not only not proved, but, not even close to convincing.
Another poll to crash…
http://www.blackvoices.com/blogs/2009/05/08/bottom-line-with-dr-boyce-why-are-celebs-stuck-on-scientology/
Man that was chock full of dumb.
Stalin wasn’t religious. He was consumed with power and paranoia that drove him to constantly distrust everyone around him resulting in all of the purges. Do a little history check bob, you need it. Mao wanted to silence religion because it was one of the greatest threats to communism as it had the power to organize. Communism is not Atheism, and Atheism is not a religion.
The rest of your rant is bumbling idiocy not even deserving a response aside from the demand we prove God doesn’t exist.
Sorry, the burden of proof is not ours.
Bob, you are an idiot.
@Bob (#47): You sir, are a fool with a persecution complex. You will find that most atheists do not care what you believe in as long as you don’t inflict it upon them. They are also rather confused about why being religious should be considered the default position. Religion does not make one ethical, nor does its absence make one unethical. It is our actions which determine that. And the onus is on you to provide a single shred of evidence for the existence of your god. Good luck to you.
The judge made the decision on the word ‘bogus’ and interpreted it to mean that chiropracters were being deliberately dishonest. Perhaps in future we should all use this word more often, with the clarification that if our target claims to NOT be deliberately dishonest, then the term ‘bogus’ does not imply, but instead the words ‘gullible, credulous, blind, ignorant, careless, reckless, negligent’ DO apply.
It seems absolutely logically consistent. One can’t improve a quack KNOWS his treatment doesn’t work, since his defence is to claim ignorance to the relevant literature; but this is ignorance and credulity, and as a so-called ‘medical’ practitioner, ignorance and credulity is reckless, careless, and negligent. I’m pretty sure this covers all bases.
I’d like to engage a technique that I learned from creationists– since they cannot prove that creationism is NOT superstitious nonsense… then, of course, it is.
I applaud the teacher who calls it like it is. In fact, I’d go so far as to point to the Dover decision– and call the case for creationism (in the words of Judge Jones): “breathtaking inanity”.
I am tired of those who use their power to silence and punish those who speak the truth.
Well, maybe I shouldn’t rush to excuse the US from this sort of thing. We do have the recent case of a California judge finding a teacher in violation of the separation of church and state for calling creationism “superstitious nonsense”.
He didn’t even do that. From http://www.ocregister.com/articles/corbett-class-religion-2402308-people-kids
Then why do you say Stalin really was a religious person? And you have said this many times
Where “many” is Bobian for “zero”.
Since creationism is religious, it is now going to be protected from criticism because you aren’t allowed to say that any religious belief is wrong in an American classroom.
PZ, you really ought to look more carefully at that ruling. The judge deemed 19 statements critical of religious belief as acceptable and ruled that only one served no secular purpose and thus violated the establishment clause. He was wrong about that one (it served the clear secular purpose of defending the sound teaching of science against the lies of godbots), but such mischaracterizations as the above do not help us.
I don’t understand some of the comments about the judge changing the definition of a word. Bogus implies deception, plain & simple.
You’re wrong, plain and simple.
In fact, its etymology relates to the name of a device for forging coins.
And the etymology of “nice” relates to stupidity. Etymology is not meaning. But in any case, possession of or passing along a counterfeit coin does not imply deception.
Come on, PZ, read the court transcripts. I’m not going to defend either creationism OR religion, but one of the things the defendent said in class was this: “How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to counter that rational approach… [W]hen you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.” Keep in mind that this is a history class. While I think that statement is true, it is not only inappropriate but in vioilation of our Constitution.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs chose a lawsuit as their FIRST action — didn’t even speak to the principal first — so they are clearly grandstanding — as is their nature, having no, you know, evidence.
Spicoli disagrees
Since creationism is religious, it is now going to be protected from criticism because you aren’t allowed to say that any religious belief is wrong in an American classroom.
Not so. It’s going to be protected from criticism that violates the Establishment Clause. If a high school teacher in the ‘bully pulpit’ of the classroom claims that creationism is ‘superstitious nonsense’, this does in fact put an agent of government in the position of ruling for or against a particular religious point of view, which violates the Establishment Clause.
But there are ways around this. For example, you could give a writing prompt:
“Some opponents of creationism have described it as ‘superstitious nonsense.’ Define ‘creationism’ as you understand it based on earlier readings, and then explain how this agrees or differs with your understanding of superstition.”
Or, a teacher could say: “Some people sincerely hold beliefs that appear to contradict the scientific evidence. ‘If you break a mirror, you’ll have seven years of bad luck,’ for example. We often describe these kinds of beliefs as superstitions, and we don’t usually worry about offending anyone who believes in magic mirrors, because we don’t know any such people. But there are other beliefs that also seem to lack scientific evidence, such as organized religion, and we do worry about offending people who hold those beliefs. Well, I don’t want to offend anyone, but the fact is that science doesn’t care about what we believe. Scientists are interested in evidence, and ideas that can’t be supported by observation and experiment don’t have any place in science. ”
In other words, never tell the students that their ideas are foolish, false, ignorant etc. Simply point out that ideas which can’t be tested are unscientific, and contrast them with ideas that can. Some ideas might be true, you can allow, but in the absence of evidence it’s no different from believing in untestable magic mirrors.
Justice Eady has form in this area. Private Eye magazine has long been documenting his rulings which have ultimately resulted in Britain having by and far the most draconian libel laws in a western nation. Yes, one man, one single man, is actually responsible for creating the current situation. Admittedly helped by a loose interpretation of the 1998 human rights laws.
Indeed it is an Eady ruling against an American publisher for a book not even for sale in the UK that has caused a bit of a backlash. Essentially writing into law (more of a clarification given your freedom of speech guarantees) that if a foreign Judge pompously decrees that a book should be pulped the publisher can just tell them to fuck the fuck off.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Eady
As do William S. Preston Esq. and Ted Theodore Logan…
No, the very same decision said it did not, within context, violate the Establishment Clause to call creationism “scientific nonsense.”
The judge’s ruling clearly allows the criticism of religious beliefs for secular purposes, just not the disparagement of them by government employees. Unfortunately, that can be a fine line that teachers will likely want to stay far from.
Chiropractic’s just as much bullshit as creationism.
Off- Topic, but Ray Comfort is giving away Red Lobster vouchers to us atheists (no christians allowed):
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
I’m going to get hate mail…
I know I’m going to get hate mail for doing this, but here goes. The economy is bad, and many people are going through a rough time financially. I’m not in a position to make much of a difference in people’s lives, but if you are going through a tough time I would like to send you a voucher for $25 to take your wife/friend out for a meal at Red Lobster. Sue and I are personally paying for this as a small gesture to show you that I (we) care about you.
The offer is limited to those who have posted comments on more than one occasion in the past on this blog, who live within the U.S. (sorry German Mike) and to the first 40 atheists who write. No Christians allowed. I don’t have shares in the Restaurant chain, this is not a publicity stunt, your name won’t be put on a mailing list or followed up, and I won’t be sending out a news release. There are no strings attached to this offer in any way. Just send your name and mailing address to mark@livingwaters.com and we will send you a gift voucher.
Posted by Ray Comfort on 5/12/2009 05:19:00 PM
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““
Red Lobster?
He does hate us.
Off-Topic:
Ray Comfort gives out Red Lobster vouchers to atheists – instead of claiming a voucher, tell him a charity to donate to instead –
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
I’m going to get hate mail…
I know I’m going to get hate mail for doing this, but here goes. The economy is bad, and many people are going through a rough time financially. I’m not in a position to make much of a difference in people’s lives, but if you are going through a tough time I would like to send you a voucher for $25 to take your wife/friend out for a meal at Red Lobster. Sue and I are personally paying for this as a small gesture to show you that I (we) care about you.
The offer is limited to those who have posted comments on more than one occasion in the past on this blog, who live within the U.S. (sorry German Mike) and to the first 40 atheists who write. No Christians allowed. I don’t have shares in the Restaurant chain, this is not a publicity stunt, your name won’t be put on a mailing list or followed up, and I won’t be sending out a news release. There are no strings attached to this offer in any way. Just send your name and mailing address to mark@livingwaters.com and we will send you a gift voucher.
Posted by Ray Comfort on 5/12/2009 05:19:00 PM
““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Coenzyme Q10 will cure all these things, guaranteed.
Anybody available to submit Ray’s offer on FARK???
The applicable meaning of the word “bogus” like the word “superstition” is exactly the same as the meaning of the word “wrong.”
It’s a shame that this is not more generally apparent or understandable.
Bob #47 – yet another common-name troll. They are getting so regular as to require an acronym, CNT.
Did you remember separation of Church and State? That means, according to you, no Religion in the classroom. But that also requires no promulgation of Atheism in the classroom, because Atheism is a religion. You doubt this?
I guess that means no science in the classroom, because science is a religion as well. We have faith that scientific methods allow us to do things that ahem … actually work!
It’s a miracle! Oops. Strike that statement from the records kids, and forget that you ever heard it, and do not include it in your deliberations of answers to your quiz questions.
You people are so fucking retarded it’s no wonder you are trillions of dollars into debt, and your rocket program to the moon has become the laughing stock of the entire world.
Now turn on that TV, and watch some nonsense.
The (compact) Oxford English Dictionary defines “bogus” as “not genuine or true.”
Monbiot on English libel laws, including their history, and again.
“Some of the successful cases appear to me to be remarkably petty. Last year the directors of the Sheffield Wednesday football club sued the fan site Owlstalk to force it to reveal the identity of 11 anonymous contributers to its forums, who had made derogatory comments about them”
In public schools in the US, teachers can say that religious beliefs, including Creationism, are in fact religious beliefs and that they have no place being discussed in a classroom; that sort of thing can be discussed outside of school premises.
So labeling Creationism “superstitious nonsense” by a teacher in a classroom should also not be allowed. I do think that punishment for such an action should fall under straying from the curriculum, and not as a blasphemy or insensitive speech violation, however. The severity of the crime is therefore minuscule.
To Bob at # 47–look, man, it’s simple.
1) You have missed the point. All are free to believe as all will.
2) You have missed the point. All are restrained from making their dogma law.
3) You have missed the point. None are allowed to dictate law, even the majority.
There are many points of view; approximately as many as the number of people who stop to think about points of view. The deciding factor is not which point of view is popular, it is what point of view provides demonstrable benefits. This judgment is left to you. If you are concerned about the welfare of your fellow humans you will shun those ideas that benefit a few by mere virtue of their insistence, or longevity. If you’re not, you won’t. Many ideas, long discarded, were once held as true.
Scientists rarely turn their discoveries into weapons. They frequently do turn discoveries into useful tools. Like the one we are using to communicate now. Hurtful and destructive applications of science are usually traceable to gummints, armies, big shots and small time punks. Anyone can come up with a bad idea.
Scientists are, by virtue of necessity and desire, dedicated to revealing true stuff without regard to personal druthers. To do otherwise would pull the rug out from under them.
Everyone should reflect on this occasionally. Say, the next time you flip a switch or signal the driver behind you that you intend to change lanes, or use a substitute sweetener or start your car remotely or mix a beverage or pick up a pencil or put on a blouse or a pair of pants or open a can or paint or, for the love of eternity, contemplate the universe at large.
Without science, which is probably the oldest and most finely honed of human skills (why it is so sparsely spread among the current general population is the subject of many ongoing discussions) none of those abilities would be available. You want light? Start a fire. Can’t do it without matches? You will probably die.
The difference is not belief or the ritual dedication or comfort in it. The difference is knowledge; hard won, not revealed. People learn by doing. The long slow slog of civilization bears goo witness to raw human endeavor than it does to magical diddlings.
So, Bob. Are you also 22, not 24 years old?
“goo witness.” Never wrote that before. I suppose I should have written “better witness.”
Though I rather like the sound of it.
Calm down PZ. The legal hivemind around here seems relatively unperturbed by the bogus US creationist ruling, as it appears to be, grounded in real legal precedent. Like science, it makes sense to those who study it.
The British ruling appears more finely coerced (parsed?) than the creationist brouhaha here in the states, but I am aware that some on this forum think the British judge was paid off by some form of reach around involving either his wallet or something that’s nestled closely nearby?
I have no opinion on that conjecture, but I do believe that Chiro is extremely craptacular, even if my saying so breaks the code of silence these neoScientoloChiropractors are trying to enforce.
Enjoy.
Sounds like porn movie
Not a porn flick, my good Rev. Just tryin’ to be like you.
Funny how easy it is, eh? Even with spell check and preview we make basic errors.
Seeing as the Celtics just came back from an eleven point deficit and beat the Magic in game five, I’d be laid back if the sun went nova. After the playoffs.
In the mean time, have you another dog?
“Red Lobster?
He does hate us.”
Christ on a cracker! I’d even take Olive Garden over the Lobster. Hell, even Applebee’s is better.
So labeling Creationism “superstitious nonsense” by a teacher in a classroom should also not be allowed.
Thus when students make mistakes, the teachers shouldn’t be allowed to correct them, it might offend their nutty beliefs.
i went to a chiropractor once. did wonders for back pain.
he also told me not to listen to the BS that chiropractors spout.
Some amusement:
@BongoBob
Come on, PZ, read the court transcripts. I’m not going to defend either creationism OR religion, but one of the things the defendent said in class was this: “How do you get the peasants to oppose something that is in their best interest? Religion. You have to have something that is irrational to counter that rational approach… [W]hen you put on your Jesus glasses, you can’t see the truth.” Keep in mind that this is a history class. While I think that statement is true, it is not only inappropriate but in vioilation of our Constitution.
Um, the judge disagreed … he said that isn’t a violation because it serves a secular purpose (it answers the historical question posed).
@Andrew Beaumont
So labeling Creationism “superstitious nonsense” by a teacher in a classroom should also not be allowed.
You, PZ, and others keep mischaracterizing what the teacher (James Corbett) said. He didn’t say that of “Creationism”. He referred to science teacher John Peloza’s “propagandizing” as “religious, superstitious nonsense”. For what that propagandizing consists of, see http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/444181
I wonder if Singh can cite Oxford or Webster in defense of the judge’s ridiculous notion of the word “bogus”?
I really really really want what that judge is on, be it hookers, bribes, booze, or whatever illegal substances might be involved, because it must be good.
…Sadly, his best option may be to appeal immediately to the European Human Rights courts and file grievance against the whole of UK law.
Before casting aspersions on his lordship, people ought to recall the famous adage:
…and even if he had taken favours from the plaintiffs, I’m sure like his notorious predecessor, Lord Verulam (aka Francis Bacon), he wouldn’t have allowed it to affect his judgement.
Seriously, I find this such a worrying development, that I would contribute to a fighting fund for the next instance.
How certain is it that higher instances will uphold the verdict? From my experience, the lower instances can surprise you once in a while…
POI. Simon Singh has not been found guilty. The judgement was the result of a hearing to establish the parameters for a libel trial.
One point to establish was whether the quoted paragraph was “comment” or “a statement of fact”. If it was a comment then Singh would need to show it was “fair comment”, if it were a “statement of fact”- then Singh would need to show that is were true.
The Eady’s ruling established that Singh needs to defend this paragraph as being it “a statement of fact”. However Eady went further in re-defining “bogus”. Now it is axiomatic that the defendant cannot chose the meanings of terms as it would then be easy to avoid any libel suit, based on defining terms so one could always say “that is not what I meant”.
Still in this hearing Eady’s definition is doubly bizarre since it not only goes against conventional usage but Singh proceeds to clarify what he meant by bogus in the following paragraph after the “bogus” paragaph.
“I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.”
So what Eady has done by defining “bogus” contrary to both conventional usage and how Singh carefully adumbrated as in the above quote is to require Singh to defend a position he likely does not believe nor ever asserted. Furthermore his lawyers under English law, cannot defend it unless there is evidence of clear evidence of fraud! Singh or no-one else has ever claimed this.
Eady has created an impossible situation for Singh to defend a plausible position. What Singh and his lawyers thought they were going to have to defend was the “not a jot of evidence” phrase as a statement of fact. This would have been very difficult but in a way Eady has given Singh an out, since there is no shame in declining to defend a position no reasonable person (i.e not Eady) could have have read him as asserting.
Still since the BCA continues to promote these “cures” on its website they no longer have any defence to claim these are not bogus on Eady’s definition of the term, since they cannot deny that they are unaware that according to standard scientific practice thse are bogus claims (on a conventionla meaning of the term). That is, in my opinion, this court case in conjunction with their website today alone is evidence they are making bogus (in the Eady sense) claims.
Further given Eady’s unorthodox and unconventional redefinition of the term “bogus” I can only provisionally conclude that this makes English Libel law look more unjust or, we can say, bogus (in the conventional sense). Whether such ruling is bogus in the Eady sense, one would have to get an answer from Eady or maybe via a good investigative journalist. I am am not going to speculate on the outcome of such an investigation, only offering fair comment on this whole situation.
I can only recommend, based on this and other highly dubious Eady judgements, that one of the quickest ways to improve English libel law is to get rid of Eady as a judge. Unfortunately this is not a democratically elected position in the UK. I can only appeal to those with such authority to take such action and I recommend that everyone else doe the same.
@Crudely Wrott (#74), your post reminded me of one of thunderf00t’s “Why do people laugh at creationists”-endings. Inspiring.
On topic, insane how such gags are applied to supposedly free media. How does that meet the legal definition of “libel”? And – granted these laws work both ways, which statements by such bogus practitioners (or any superstituous – or religious, respectively – people) amount to defamation of science and should thus be liable, too?
p.s.: Wehafs link (#32) is a really sick story, such a perfidous sarcasm.
Bob @ #47
And anyone else who comes up with the “Evil atheist commonist” trope again:
The “communist” states are classic theocracies.
They have “holy books” which are an infallible guide.
The “holy predictions” are also infallible, and so is the church (the Party) even when it is manifestly not so.
[ The classic, of course is that “the revolution” will occur in the MOST DEVELOPED states FIRST … ]
They persecute, with equal vigour, heretics (that is, believers in other forms of communism) and believers in other, competing religions.
At one point, they even joined christianity and islam in rejecting a central foundation of modern biology: have you ever heard of Trofim Lysenko?
They kill thousands/millions of unbelievers and “evil” people, in order to bring a perfect world about…
In short, the whole thing is modelled on the mediaeval RC church ……
The ultimate classic of a communist theocracy is, of course, North Korea, where the hereditary god-kings of the Kim family rule over their religiously terrorised subjects.
Furthermore, communism isn’t intrinsically atheist; it is (just) that the theocrats/ideologues saw (and still see) all the other religions as competitors with their own holy cause, and adopted “atheism” as a convenient stalking horse for persecution.
Atheism doesn’t lead to communism, nor even vice versa – you are pointing to a correlation but there is no underlying causation until you examine the interesting dynamics of a secular evangelical religion with a big god-shaped hole in it. Which is filled by the infallible Party.
So what are you saying? That the US is starting to take legal lessons from the UK instead of the other way round? We’ve long persued your litigation happy system for any and all danger, so you’re taking our lead against any and all defamation.
Yup, we’re all screwed.
Oh,for goodness’ sakes !
PZ !
I have one of the faster PCs out there,but Scienceblogs is crawling along,since the software update,and the inclusion of “chartbeat.com”(in the “ping” and “static” variety),which has awfully long response times,is slowing everything to a crawl.
Someone go and fix it already !!!
Wehaf, nothing’s sacred, Sastra, & amk
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines bogus as “sham, fictitious, spurious”. It’s a 19th C US word for an apparatus for counterfeiting coins, so it’s not had long to evolve its meaning too far away from the original association with deliberate dishonesty. Maybe there’s a difference in meaning between North American common usage & British common usage, with the former implying deception. But the British judge thinks it does imply deception.
Perhaps Simon Singh should have chosen his words better? I suspect the chiropractic practitioners are not being deliberately dishonest.
In this forum, where we are mostly rationalists, we can call chiropractic “bogus”. But I think it is more appropriate, in a ‘formal’ setting, to call it “unproven”. I don’t know enough about it to comment on its theoretical underpinnings, if any, or its clinical success record, if any. It smacks of quackery (?) to me, but what do I know? A medical doctor in the UK once recommended that I should try chiropractic treatment, which I duly did. I found it to be a complete waste of time & money, & if anything, it exacerbated my condition.
Why are chiropractic practitioners allowed, in some countries, to call themselves “doctor”? Is chiropractic a hang-over from a less scientific age?
I regret that Simon Singh has been found guilty by the judge. But how can the British Chiropractic Association actually be proven to be promoting something that they know to be dishonest? Even if there is no recognized theoretical underpinning to Chiropractic, & no evidence of its efficacy from suitable double-blind trials, it might still be difficult to prove their dishonesty. Such progress takes time. Are a so-called psychic’s claims bogus? We know they are, but there are plenty of dupes who’d disagree.
@Richard Harris
Your point has already been discussed and refuted, repeatedly.
I think it’s safe to say that this was a bogus judgement.
But I think it is more appropriate, in a ‘formal’ setting, to call it “unproven”.
It’s not merely unproven, it’s falsified, like the claim that vaccines cause autism.
Even if granted, are we not talking about a newspaper article (or even a comment), the content of which has to conform less to careful wording than to readability? Besides, the legally protected interest concerned are supposedly the economic losings the Chiropractic Association expects from the statement – no matter how you word it, the presumed ineffectiveness of the treatment “regarding children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying” will affect this interest, IMHO, similarly.
Richard Harris @92
I can’t help finding this line of argumentation disingenuous, and that you haven’t in fact proved the opposite of what you intended.
Surely it must be accepted that with controversial claims the public interest is very strongly that there should be a vigorous debate about the issues.
The belief or otherwise of the practitioners in their nostrums is just not testable, and shouldn’t be used as an argument to stifle the debate, nor should the terminology used be subjected to hair-splitting analysis to justify this: with issues like these the benefit of the doubt should be exercised in favour of free speech.
I can’t help feeling this judge has constitutional problems with this approach.
Language Log gives some good discussion of the use of “bogus” http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1426#more-1426
Religion is nonsense. But you only have to teach science, and let the students realise that the worldview based on evidence and reason contradicts all the religious ones. If they wish to push a cosmological model which is also mythological and therefore not scientific, they should be required to present evidence for it, otherwise they should be quiet about it. Simple, really.
From Matt’s link (#98),
is a fine analogy, I think.
If it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the claims for efficacy of chiropractic treatment are false, then why isn’t the chiropractic quackery banned? Why, I also ask, aren’t psychics who tell ‘fortunes’ banned? For the same reasons. There are plenty of dupes who believe this crap. Our proof isn’t their proof.
In a sane world, the chiropractic quackery & fortune tellers would be banned. Except, in a sane world these forms of superstition or nonsense wouldn’t need to be banned, because everyone would recognize them for what they are.
Unfortunately, we do not live in such a world. The judge’s decision reflects this.
But what is the role of the Advertising Standards Agency in this? If it is clinically proven that chiropractic treatment is ineffective, then they should not be able to advertise their services. But I notice that in the UK, ‘psychics’ still advertise their services. They can get away with it, so long as their claims are kept vague. It seems you can’t legislate against stupidity & ignorance.
I suppose that is because the legal system is designed with a responsible and informed public in mind – this precludes “bans” taking place if the advertised matter at hand does not in itself constitute a violation of the law, or an endorsement of its violation. Quackery does not violate the law, and everyone is free to believe what he or she wishes to believe, as long as it is not imposed on others.
Note, though, that I am legally illiterate, so my answer is just a poorly educated guess.
“‘The’ legal system” being so global a statement my “disclaimer” of not being legally literate was hardly being necessary.
*waiting for the better informed participants*
The problem with British libel law here is its allowance of the plaintiff to claim inference.
All they have to do is show that a reasonable person could take the word “bogus” to mean chiropractors knowingly peddle nonsense. Which of course some of them do, but that inference clearly cannot be proved for the whole of the association.
As a working journalist in the UK (though not for much longer – getting out before the newspaper industry completely dies on its arse) the allowance of inference and innuendo to form the basis of a libel claim makes it incredibly difficult to write a cogent, accurate story criticising any person or organisation.
As advertising dwindles, as does the space in which to fit complicated pieces, making it impossible to write enough words to completely avoid doubt.
Even if you do get room to put it all in, you can still be sued, again under the inference clauses, for not explaining yourself within the first half of the story, because readers will get the wrong impression if they don’t have time to make it to the end!
The result is the continued dumbing-down of British newspapers, where investigations and exposes are all about the lives of celebrities who, in the main, don’t sue because their private lives would be stripped bare in court. These court cases are always more interesting to the general public (google Max Mosley) than those based on what a judge thinks the word “bogus” could be construed to mean.
I know I’m going on a bit here now, but the basic result is that the criteria for the truth – legally termed “justification”, is virtually impossible to achieve. And seeing as “fair comment” must be based on a justified or privileged fact, that’s completely pointless too.
“Privileged” in libel law means it has been officially released by the government or other statutory body, or said in court.
Which means the only things we can tell the public without fear of prosecution are the things those in power want people to know. The Freedom of Information Act is helping, but not much, to be honest.
Seconded! and thirded and etc..
Until they fix this I may have to come up with some wort of protest. Possibly posting Kent Hovind’s baby pictures or the secret Jerry Falwell / Chicken sex tape or if it gets really serious every single sermon by D. James Kennedy at Coral Ridge Ministries, every day, every post until this is fixed.
“Truth ought to be protection against accusations of libel, but a judge didn’t think so in this case — Singh was found guilty of accurately describing chiropractic claims as “bogus”.”
To echo a few comments above, this isn’t true. What Eady did was to rule that the use of “bogus” was defamatory because it implied deceit – ie there was an actionable claim on the part of the BCA. If Singh can prove the treatments are bogus under Eady’s interpretation, which is going to be very tricky, then truth will be a defence.
Incidentally, the standard for interpretation in libel trials is the “natural and ordinary meaning of words” to a reasonable person, and it doesn’t matter what the author’s intention was.
That is a very sad story – at least you’re still one happy monkey!
wort of protest?
Am I brewing beer?
SORT of protest
What kind of perverse skull-plate manipulation would you have to do in order to even vaguely effect ear infections!?
God helps those that help themselves! (J/K)
Firefox and Adblock Plus work just fine. I never even noticed any slowdown because it’s already in my filters. The EasyPrivacy subscription has it.
Maybe the judge didn’t know, for example, that a bit of neck manipulation around the carotid arteries – a “technique” developed and much vaunted by the venerable field of chiropractice to enhance circulation and the well-being of the client (even though it has nothing to do with the back) – significantly enhances the chances of stroke.
Medical doctors – science – discovered that. Chiropractors did not…but do their best to disavow any culpability.
Rorschach and RBDC: I was about to post a complaint when I noticed yours. I couldn’t agree more. This sluggishness on this site right now is a major pain in the neck.
THIS IS TO BE FIXED.
Gorogh at #102 writes:
As a student I took great courage in the notion that the public was responsible and informed. Life as an adult has, sadly, disabused me of the notion. One of life’s great disappointments.
The seat of power in America resides with the general population. They are the ones who allegedly define the character of law. Without a responsible and informed population, the character of law becomes capricious, bending to the will of the few, the party faithful, the political congregation that has usurped the power of the general population. And this in the age of information!
Places like this blog, and assemblies of folks like those here, are a great potential force for education and encouragement. One can only hope that such influence spreads.
I’ll stick with it in real life because, on the individual level, every little bit helps. I have lots of opportunities to play my part. On a national and world level only a concerted and concentrated effort, sustained over time, will serve to raise the general levels of comprehension and compassion that are necessary to sustain a prosperous union.
I’m with you, Crudely! Well stated. Bingo!
No it’s still slow. I’ve been using all of the above for a long time and I have the slowdown issues on multiple computers from multiple sites. And I’ve tried 4 browsers now as well.
It’s not every post but it is many.
Crudely Wrott (#102), somewhat sadly considering your first paragraph, I agree with you on a personal level. That said, I might note that I really was not referring to my own view of “the people”, but how – by all accounts – the laws views them, namely as responsible and mature. And when I speak of “the law”, I specifically meant my incomplete picture of Germany’s law’s Menschenbild.
As one of my usual afterthoughts, I want to emphasize how much I love the opportunity to be here and speak to people ranging from far more intelligent than I am, over far better educated than I am, to simply like minded. All praise to that, and as an aside, praise to free speech and the internet. ‘nough said.
Just to be clear, it has not been completely established without a doubt that Justice Eady has been seen snorting cocaine off of Jacqui Smith’s butt crack.
@Rev:
I’m not seeing any slowdown on any posts on any of my computers. Well, except for posting a comment; that’s always been slow for me.
The following domains all show something blocked for me:
doubleclick.net, quantserve.com, researchblogging.org, sitemeter.com, chartbeat.com, sharethis.com, google-analytics
US and UK libel laws cover substantive claims. As Penn and Teller say in the intro to their “Bullshit!” series – you can call someone a “scuzzbag asshole motherfucker” but not a “con man” I look forward to the second edition of Simon’s book and hope he adopts their approach.
It is the comment posting I’m referring to. Sorry if I misread what you were saying. The commenting has always been slow like you said, but it seems even worse after the template update.
My Mac at home is OK, but using IE6 and XP on an old Dell circa ’90-91 at work is just torture. Came in handy this week though. I can write a couple of paragraphs while I’m waiting for the post to be processed.
Chiropractic is legalized charlatanism. It is on my list of the three most useless creatures and social pests. The first two are flies and mosquitoes.
As others before me have said, he hasn’t been found guilty of anything yet. It only means that unless Simon Singh can overturn this ruling in a successful appeal, he has a harder job defending himself in court.
Ray Comfort is giving away Red Lobster vouchers to us atheists (no christians allowed)
Hmmm…there’s something fishy about this. I think Raymond is playing a shell game on us.
There’s another distressing story here in Australia of a baby who suffered & died under a lack of medical treatment, from several intersecting stuff-ups, seemingly including homeopathy: Baby ‘suffered third world malnutrition’ by Katelyn Catanzariti, May 15, 2009. Some of the earlier evidence was even worse than what’s there. Sometimes I just don’t understand people.
In a sane world, the chiropractic quackery & fortune tellers would be banned. Except, in a sane world these forms of superstition or nonsense wouldn’t need to be banned, because everyone would recognize them for what they are.,/I> – Richard Harris
This reminds me of a priceless comment I heard on UK radio in a discussion about reducing crime, from a senior police officer:
“In an ideal world there would be more police officers.”
None of the other participants laughed at him.
You don’t have to say that creationism is wrong – just point out the lack of supporting evidence for it.
It’s always possible that someone will solve the metaphysical problem of proving the existence of a god, but since philosophers haven’t succeeded in several millenia, that seems unlikely…
A few comments on the legal position.
‘Privilege’ in libel law is simply defined. A potentially defamatory statement is privileged when it is made by someone with a duty to make it to a person who has a duty to hear it.
An MP enjoys absolute privilege to make statements in the House of Commons.
A schoolteacher has qualified privilege to make statements in respect of suspicion of parental abuse to e.g. social services or police personnel. That privilege may not extend, e.g., to telling her husband.
Truth is not always an absolute defence to a claim of defamation. If a statement is made maliciously, then the truth of the statement does not by itself protect the maker of the statement. This overlaps the qualified privilege principle. A potentially defamatory statement may be made about the private life of a public individual. Recently a newspaper printed a story with photographs about the private sexual practices of Max Moseley, president of the FIA (or something like that). Since all he does is run a motor sport organisation, the public has no interest in his private life (unlike, e.g., the Home Secretary who has the ability to influence public policy). The statements made about Moseley could have been defamatory, therefore, even though true.
Legal points continued.
It’s absolutely vital that a court starts from a position of neutrality. We should all remember that a judge who takes decisions based on his own personal conclusions will inevitably cause injustice.
Therefore Eady J starts from the position that he knows nothing about the value and benefit of chiropractic and in particular the BCA, which was the claimant before him.
We may all be able to start from the position that we are satisfied that chiropractic is woo-woo medicine, based on inadequately researched assertions made by probably well-motivated but over-enthusiastic people a very long time ago when evidence-based medicine was in its infancy.
But if you want a court to take that view, then you have to prove that from scratch.
You can’t bleat about this: all of us would be outraged if a court ever started from the position that there really was a god and all of us have to do what the god-botherers tell us.
(Well, we would in England. In America, where some if not most of your judges are elected – hollow laughter – you have some complete woo-woo morons in office who think nothing of trying to impose their personal viewpoint in everyone who comes through the court room door. Even the occasional Supreme Court justice has made public statements along those lines…)