I have arrived safely in Rochester, New York!
OK, totally unsurprising and boring. How about this for exciting news: Simon Singh has won an appeal, and gets to use the defense of fair comment in his battle with the chiropractic quacks.
Air travel works! Reason wins one!
Welcome to NY, PZ… enjoy the unseasonably pleasant weather!
Oh sure, I bet you just trusted materialistic science to whisk you through the air by accident.
I know damn well that flying requires major magic, like a flying carpet.
Good try at an April Fools joke.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Wish I could attend. As it is, I am stuck in Cleveland. Which does not rock, in spite of rumors to the contrary.
I am very pleased that Mr. Singh has won his appeal. Justice may yet prevail. Reason may win the day.
I just wish we didn’t all have to act so surprised when that happens.
Heh, for a moment I was thiking that the judge’s ruling was an April fool’s joke, and then next day he would return saying, “April fools, sucker! HAHAHAHAHA!” Now, that would be like being kicked in the balls three times. :)
Yeah! Once for each ball!
I hope the Chiropractors have to pay all the expenses.
I also hope that this decision gets lots of publicity. Sad to say, that still wouldn’t stop them spreading their woo, but it might bring a few people to the understanding that it is woo.
Testes, testes, one, two, er, three?
Well why not consider coming down to University of Maryland? We’ve got great weather and nobody interesting ever comes our way.
PZ Myers endorses air travel as reasonable. Video at 11.
Didn’t Spielberg do a film about an extratesticle? – or did I dream it?
Close, but the most professorial-sounding types say it more like this.
@10 – Ouch, now that was a shot in the Balzac!
I lay prostate before thee….
Tax Religion.
Tark
PZ when are you coming to SC again?
The appellate decision is well-written and does a good job of giving lip service to England’s terrible libel laws. The court referred to a number of cases that had been controlling and made nice noises about them, but eventually decided that in this case they were either not compelling or controlling. Instead, they looked abroad to see what was going on. They liked the reforms by law in some countries but they also found an important alternative that could be well-defended within their tradition:
Easterbrook is generally considered a good, but conservative judge.
The court was clearly upset with the chilling effect of the personal suit, but were also careful not to state that they were overturning the rotting edifice of British defamation law. Oddly, it looks as if they did exactly (and wisely) what they make no claim of doing.
Yay! Rochester is instantly cooler!
Oh by the way, if you’re interested in eating some tasty tentacles, the best Japanese restaurant in town is Shiki.
Er, not quite. Hearing of the impending invasion, Rochester wisely moved to a Pee Zed–free hovel in Rome. The new location has its own private army (from Switzerland for some reason). The gates have been shut, and they are refusing to let anyone in. A bunch of gay squatters did have to be moved out. Afterwards, a large cache of disgusting paedophile p0rn found. As soon as the gates are opened again, the police will presumably investigate, albeit there are rumours officialdom is in league with the evicted squatters.
There’s also a bunch of amazing paintings and statues. In recognition of all this fine artwork, RIT has been renamed RAT (Rochester Art Traditions) and re-purposed to teaching and appreciating artistic heritages.
Meanwhile, Poopyhead is staring at a empty field where Rochester used to be.
Best non-April-Fools news!
It’s about time…
Great news for Simon though!
I’ve never seen a bad word said about the legal blogger Jack of Kent.
I’m not a lawyer, but when he writes about the law, what he says always makes sense to me.
He picks the bones from the judgement, I think.
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/04/bca-v-singh-astonishingly-liberal.html
I won’t quote from it – the whole thing is worth a read – other than than to quote the only part of the judgement that he emphasises by emboldening.
‘Scientific controversies must be settled by the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation’
This judgement is VERY good news!
Welcome to upstate NY, PZ!
*still sulking in a corner ‘cos I can’t make it out to Rochester*
PZ, are you giving a talk there this weekend? I’m going to be back in town for a couple of days, so this inquiring mind would like to know!
Good deal. Singh is a good fellow, who spoke the truth.
windsurfer4944,
How many times do you need to be asked to stop embedding shit before you actually quit doing it?
A link will suffice.
I have read that this has cost Dr. Singh a small fortune. I for one would be happy to make a small donation to help him recover those losses–anybody know of a way to do that?
Also (OT), what about thoughts regarding the recent article in Science News discussing the widespread misuse and misunderstanding of statistical analysis in science and medicine? I don’t have a math mind, but I found the article disturbing.
To the Britons here used to reading British court rulings (I know, I know:). Is the writing style in this ruling typical? I ask because I find it very difficult. Multiple dependent clauses nested within each other and referring back to phrases that occurred dozens of words earlier, abstruse constructions that make one puzzle over what turns out to be a simple concept, etc. It strikes this Yank as deliberate (or learned) “putting on airs” to sound full of gravitas, when real gravitas could be conveyed more straightforwardly and elegantly.
I spend quite a bit of time as part of my job parsing statutes and court rulings (American, of course, since I’m in the US). Prolix and convoluted legal writing is a well-known and detested feature of the legal system, but even the most tangled US legal prose isn’t usually as. . .well. . .ugly as this.
I am not a lawyer, but (and not to sound immodest, just stating a neutral fact) my comprehension of legalese, statutory construction, etc., is far above that of the average layperson (because I have to do this for much of my job). But I found this ruling just painful and extremely slow reading. It felt like the prose was actively thwarting the reader’s attempt to get quickly and cleanly to the points being made.
That is a banned troll. He doesn’t think. Even though he was once allegedly a member of Mensa. Sad, sad, case really. It shows how stooooopid and amoral trolls can become…
I wish the same thing could be said about Bill Donohue:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/01/donohue-homosexuality-abuse/
PZ,
Your talk was FANTASTIC this evening at Rochester!
Living and working in the “Burnt over district” Pharyngula is one place that brings me comfort.
It was truly a great pleasure to finally meet you!
Happy monkey.
Jennie and David Robison
http://www.regentsearthscience.com
I thought that the good news would be that god stays dead after Good Friday. No such luck I guess – he’ll be back on Sunday.
Between this, the video of Philip Pullman taking down an offended Christian going viral (shorter PP: You have the right to be shocked; you don’t have the right not to be shocked) and Peter Tatchell standing up for the right of a complete dickhead to be a complete dickhead as long as he didn’t call for violence, this has been the best week for UK free speech EVAH!
Thank you fFor speaking in Rochester!! It was really terrific getting to see you, thus confirming that you are not just a mythical thing, like an invisible dragon in my computer or something.
Cheers!
Hey PZ, I was at the lecture at RIT. Great job of course. I have a number of comments if anybody is interested in reading it.
One question for PZ, though: Do you always get so many theists and “militant agnostics” asking you the same tired old questions? I expected one or two, but it seemed like a lot. And the questions were soooo dumb, mostly. Is that normal for your lectures?
More “Good News”…?
ABCNews reports on “Saint”…
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/miracle-faith-chase-kear-recovers-fatal-accident-prayers/story?id=10239513&page=1
I don’t think it was a coincidence that this ruling was handed down on April Fools’ Day. Perhaps the judges were having a good laugh at the BCA’s expense?
Too bad Simon has incurred legal costs of GBP200,000 though. And… will the BCA, stupid fools that they are, still take Simon to court for libel, even though Simon can now use the ‘fair comment’ defense?
From TFA:
BCA, your reputation is now in tatters, and your honesty and integrity have been called into question. Quit while you’re ‘ahead’!
Isn’t that the club you pay to tell you you’re smart?
>”…the methods of science rather than by the methods of litigation”
Non-overlapping Magesteria?
Alas English defamation law is still in desperate need of reform; I’ve discussed the Singh case, parsed the law and tried to make sure it’s all in plain English here.
Disclosure: I am a lawyer. Please don’t hold it against me.
Everywhere else I am skepticlawyer. For some reason I can’t do that here; apologies for the mass of letters and numbers.
There still is a big problem in English defamation law. If you make a factual assertion and someone says that it is not true and you made a defaming statement, it is up to you to prove what you said was true. Instead, it should be up to the one complaining to prove what you said was false.
This decision doesn’t change the law, instead the court decided that what Singh wrote was opinion and thus held to a different standard.
martha @41
Um, no. For example, your neighbour says you buy puppies and torture them. If we did it your way, it’s up to you to prove that isn’t true. And how precisely would you do that?
The person who makes the claim has to provide the evidence.
To clarify, my comments at @42 are not meant to be an interpretation of British libel law, simply an opinion on where the burden of proof should lie in martha’s hypothetical case – and her hypothetical is about the truth of the libellous statement whereas, I imagine, in a libel case, idea would be to show that damages were incurred as a result of the statement.
Two different things, if I don’t miss my guess.
Any lawyers out there please feel free to jump in and correct me…
“Our original argument remains that our reputation has been damaged. The BCA brought this claim only to uphold its good name and protect its reputation, honesty and integrity”.
Well, yes, htat’s what happens when you’re built on lies and someone has the truth..
Also, my understanding of British Libel Law is that hte problem is the level ofexpected proof, not that the accuser gets to sit pretty while the accused does the work.