Comments on: Simon Singh’s Libel Suit http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:38:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: John http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/#comment-63413 John Tue, 20 Sep 2011 00:32:40 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=2544#comment-63413 Simple. Call it Quack-fu. Simple. Call it Quack-fu.

]]> By: Camilla http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/#comment-18392 Camilla Tue, 23 Feb 2010 20:05:14 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=2544#comment-18392 In this debate over "bogus", I am reminded of the philosopher Harry Frankfurt's musings in his short book "On Bullshit". Frankfurt argues, fairly persuasively, that bullshit statements are different than lies - lies imply that their speaker knows the truth of the statement and deliberately chooses to state the opposite. Speakers of bullshit statements, on the other hand, are completely disinterested in the truth (or falsity) of their statements. Perhaps Singh would have been better off referring to the BCA's claims as bullshit (which it seems to me that they are) rather than bogus. In this debate over “bogus”, I am reminded of the philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s musings in his short book “On Bullshit”. Frankfurt argues, fairly persuasively, that bullshit statements are different than lies – lies imply that their speaker knows the truth of the statement and deliberately chooses to state the opposite. Speakers of bullshit statements, on the other hand, are completely disinterested in the truth (or falsity) of their statements. Perhaps Singh would have been better off referring to the BCA’s claims as bullshit (which it seems to me that they are) rather than bogus.

]]> By: Beatis http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/#comment-9274 Beatis Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:25:10 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=2544#comment-9274 Sorry, forgot to mention: it is of course an English translation. Sorry, forgot to mention: it is of course an English translation.

]]> By: Beatis http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/#comment-9273 Beatis Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:23:45 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=2544#comment-9273 @ Dax & anyone else who might be interested: The Dutch Society against Quackery appealed the verdict. The appeal was brought before the Dutch Supreme Court, who ruled in favour of the Society against Quackery and quashed the earlier judgment. The ruling of the supreme court and the conclusion (advice) of the advocate-general can be downloaded here: http://www.kwakzalverij.nl/1051/Opgelucht_over_arrest_Hoge_Raad @ Dax & anyone else who might be interested:

The Dutch Society against Quackery appealed the verdict. The appeal was brought before the Dutch Supreme Court, who ruled in favour of the Society against Quackery and quashed the earlier judgment.

The ruling of the supreme court and the conclusion (advice) of the advocate-general can be downloaded here:
http://www.kwakzalverij.nl/1051/Opgelucht_over_arrest_Hoge_Raad

]]> By: Stefaan Vossen http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/#comment-8296 Stefaan Vossen Mon, 01 Jun 2009 15:11:31 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=2544#comment-8296 blog-o-tainment? what is a non-muculoskeletal ailment? I can see why you stopped practicing, you never got it in the first place! The fact an ageing man more than a hundred years ago says something about it really doesn't define the way it is practiced and intended for today, really need to understand that possibilty, however intellectually challenging this may be to you... Maybe a review of the history of modern medicine might teach you something about how things evolve. Thing is, chiropractors are just very good at using a valuable treatment modality. Mainly because that's all they do all day long... And it's a treatment modality which can have substantial impact on the function of the musculo-skeletal frame-work which in turn CAN have substantial (and near-enough impossible to predict, hence why no chiropractor in the UK "treats" such conditions) effects outside of the musculo-skeletal frame-work. Call it positive fall-out. It happens all the time, but it doesn't constitute "treatment" as for that to be the case you have to be able to predict the likelyhood of such response. This is so obvious to today's chiropractic profession that it seems such an inane discussion to have. blog-o-tainment?
what is a non-muculoskeletal ailment? I can see why you stopped practicing, you never got it in the first place!
The fact an ageing man more than a hundred years ago says something about it really doesn’t define the way it is practiced and intended for today, really need to understand that possibilty, however intellectually challenging this may be to you… Maybe a review of the history of modern medicine might teach you something about how things evolve.
Thing is, chiropractors are just very good at using a valuable treatment modality. Mainly because that’s all they do all day long… And it’s a treatment modality which can have substantial impact on the function of the musculo-skeletal frame-work which in turn CAN have substantial (and near-enough impossible to predict, hence why no chiropractor in the UK “treats” such conditions) effects outside of the musculo-skeletal frame-work. Call it positive fall-out. It happens all the time, but it doesn’t constitute “treatment” as for that to be the case you have to be able to predict the likelyhood of such response. This is so obvious to today’s chiropractic profession that it seems such an inane discussion to have.

]]> By: Stefaan Vossen http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/#comment-8295 Stefaan Vossen Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:57:13 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=2544#comment-8295 Some Canadian Sceptic, what you say is not accurate. Poor work for a self-proclaimed sceptic. Btw. Doctor is not a term unique to medical professionals, it is derivered from "docere" Latin for teaching. Which is very much what most healthcare should be about, and particularly healthcare which is likely to be non-urgent (i.e. don't lecture about diet when I am having a heart attack). Hence why surgeons in the UK are called "Mr." The low standard of chiropractic educational institutions you reflect here is a fabrication... to further your self-gratification I must surmise, although I suspect you have no clinical credentials, so maybe this is like most around things here "blog-o-tainment" Stefaan Some Canadian Sceptic,
what you say is not accurate. Poor work for a self-proclaimed sceptic.
Btw. Doctor is not a term unique to medical professionals, it is derivered from “docere” Latin for teaching. Which is very much what most healthcare should be about, and particularly healthcare which is likely to be non-urgent (i.e. don’t lecture about diet when I am having a heart attack). Hence why surgeons in the UK are called “Mr.”
The low standard of chiropractic educational institutions you reflect here is a fabrication…
to further your self-gratification I must surmise, although I suspect you have no clinical credentials, so maybe this is like most around things here “blog-o-tainment”
Stefaan

]]> By: Anonymous Coward http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/#comment-7785 Anonymous Coward Tue, 19 May 2009 00:39:42 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=2544#comment-7785 I think that to pin the blame solely on British libel law is in this case not warranted. What makes this particular case so problematic is that the judge is deliberately reading something in the text that it manifestly doesn't say. Picking on the word bogus, assigning it a meaning that was not intended and is contradicted by the very next paragraph, is just an excuse or cover. When judges start ignoring reality, justice is pretty much fucked; when they start making up their own facts it doesn't really matter what the law says, as they can make you have transgressed it no matter what. Maybe British libel law is partly at fault in this case for making it easier to pull this, and maybe it is at fault more generically for being unjust, but that is not the primary cause of this particular miscarriage of justice. It is the abhorrent behaviour of the judge and the society that lets him get away with it. I think that to pin the blame solely on British libel law is in this case not warranted. What makes this particular case so problematic is that the judge is deliberately reading something in the text that it manifestly doesn’t say. Picking on the word bogus, assigning it a meaning that was not intended and is contradicted by the very next paragraph, is just an excuse or cover. When judges start ignoring reality, justice is pretty much fucked; when they start making up their own facts it doesn’t really matter what the law says, as they can make you have transgressed it no matter what. Maybe British libel law is partly at fault in this case for making it easier to pull this, and maybe it is at fault more generically for being unjust, but that is not the primary cause of this particular miscarriage of justice. It is the abhorrent behaviour of the judge and the society that lets him get away with it.

]]> By: Stewart http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/#comment-7659 Stewart Fri, 15 May 2009 04:12:13 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=2544#comment-7659 I have yet to see any reasons to give him respect, but to give him the benefit of the doubt until demonstrated otherwise, Sir David Eady should be referred to as “Sir David”, not “Sir Eady”. I have yet to see any reasons to give him respect, but to give him the benefit of the doubt until demonstrated otherwise, Sir David Eady should be referred to as “Sir David”, not “Sir Eady”.

]]> By: HHC http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/#comment-7404 HHC Wed, 13 May 2009 20:38:07 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=2544#comment-7404 American litigation does not normally consider mere opinion as actionable. But if a false statement is rendered by an expert on a matter within the scope of his/her expertise, it may be actionable as fraud or negligent misrepresentation. American litigation does not normally consider mere opinion as actionable. But if a false statement is rendered by an expert on a matter within the scope of his/her expertise, it may be actionable as fraud or negligent misrepresentation.

]]> By: HHC http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/05/11/simon-singhs-libel-suit/#comment-7343 HHC Wed, 13 May 2009 16:55:40 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=2544#comment-7343 Chris Kavanagh, In American law fraud is positive and intentional. It is a perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right. Under British law, BCA has been accused by Singh of promoting bogus treatments, these treatment are false treatments, i.e. not true or not genuine as the Brits would say. Chris Kavanagh, In American law fraud is positive and intentional. It is a perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right. Under British law, BCA has been accused by Singh of promoting bogus treatments, these treatment are false treatments, i.e. not true or not genuine as the Brits would say.

]]>