Great Time.com article. "Larry King and the Paranormal

SteveGrenard said:
Perhaps Robertson's announcement could also be construed as defending against spurious and yes, libelous speculation using the full panopoly of verbiage designed for that purpose: perhaps, maybe, possibl and so on.

Robertson clearly invited criticism but she invited concrete critcism, not supposition.
Click to expand...

Whatever. I see it as a clear warning not to say that they cheated. According to your criteria, as shown above, we may not even suppose publicly that cheating occurred, or be subject to lawsuit.

It doesn't matter much, anyway. Science is not ultimately conducted in courtrooms, and nature will have its way regardless of what we believe about it.

I take it you feel it is okay, for example, to accuse a researcher of fraud (e.g. Ed Dittus re Gary Schwartz and more recently even Garrette re Gary Schwartz) giving absolutely no evidence or proof to back up such assertions.
Click to expand...

No, I do not. I categorically denounce baseless accusations.

And if that's the reason people hide behind screen names (as you imply for yourself) and use hotmail and other e-mail forwarders or web-based e-mail, then we have been misled by many who give other reasons for using nom de plumes. Thanks for this succinct and tell-it-like-it-is rationale..... it was very revealing.
Click to expand...
Thank yourself; it is your rationale, not mine.

I am anonymous to avoid harrassment, not to avoid litigation. I have never written libelous statements, however. I'm not stupid: anyone can be traced.
 
Pyrrho: Science is not ultimately conducted in courtrooms, and nature will have its way regardless of what we believe about it.


Science sure as hell is not conducted by making unproven and unsubstantiated opinions such as so and so cheated or so and so is a fraud. You must be kidding.

Science is based on facts, not opinions or beliefs and when Garette, for example, says he believes Schwartz is a fraud and Dittus did the same before him, they were doing so not only without provocation but without any evidence whatsoever. That's what I call not very scientific. And when that happens, yes, lawyers and courtrooms often enter the picture. And it comes time to back up those opinions with facts and evidence or get hung out to
dry.



Pyrrho:
Thank yourself; it is your rationale, not mine.

I am anonymous to avoid harrassment, not to avoid litigation. I have never written libelous statements, however. I'm not stupid: anyone can be traced.
Click to expand...

Indeed they can. Excuse me for thinking that you choose to remain anonymous for fear of legal action.....
you were not very specific and this statement followed your verbiage re
legal action against people for expressing opinions which demean, denigrate, slander or libel others.
 
SteveGrenard said:
Pyrrho: Science is not ultimately conducted in courtrooms, and nature will have its way regardless of what we believe about it.


Science sure as hell is not conducted by making unproven and unsubstantiated opinions such as so and so cheated or so and so is a fraud. You must be kidding.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything in my statement to contradict yours. My point is that while it may be possible to use the court system to force adherence to a certain set of beliefs and then call those beliefs scientific fact, nature is as it is. Also, while scientists may be within their rights to sue those who call them frauds, such actions could easily be extended to those who merely voice opinions that contradict those of the offended researcher. I see a possibility that barratry could be used to stifle honest criticism.

I certainly agree with your statement that science is not conducted by making unproven and unsubstantiated accusations that someone has cheated or is a fraud. It is also important to remember that message boards are hotbeds of unproven and unsubstantiated opinions and accusations. Very little of it is actionable libel, even if offensive. Still, one has the right to protect one's reputation.

Science is based on facts, not opinions or beliefs and when Garette, for example, says he believes Schwartz is a fraud and Dittus did the same before him, they were doing so not only without provocation but without any evidence whatsoever. That's what I call not very scientific. And when that happens, yes, lawyers and courtrooms often enter the picture. And it comes time to back up those opinions with facts and evidence or get hung out to dry.
Click to expand...

Well, nobody is conducting science here. And you're right: if anyone claims that Schwartz is a fraud, evidence of this should be demanded of them. If they can't provide such evidence, they would be well advised not to make such accusations.

Indeed they can. Excuse me for thinking that you choose to remain anonymous for fear of legal action.....
you were not very specific and this statement followed your verbiage re legal action against people for expressing opinions which demean, denigrate, slander or libel others.
Click to expand...
Y'know, honestly, this whole "skeptic" vs. "believer" thing has pretty much worn thin with me. I'm in agreement with those who say that the argument has become pretty much sterile and pointless. There is altogether too much animosity and hatred and twisting of words, and there is nothing redeeming in it.

I know I've written a lot of offensive things over the time I've been involved in discussions, and for the ones I've written toward you, I honestly apologize. And you're partly right; to a certain extent I choose anonymity because people resort so quickly these days to litigation. I suppose I did waffle a bit in my answer.

Everybody seems to believe the worst of everyone else, and it's a pity, because so much time and intelligence is wasted in cheap shots and viciousness. There is no denying that both "sides" are at fault for creating this atmosphere of mutual derision.

When I see statements such as the one from Robertson, I'm saddened that what should be objective science is descending to the level of "if you say we cheated, we'll sue". That's no way to defend your work. There will always be skeptics and naysayers, and even those who cry "fraud". If the work is good and correct and true to high standards, it will stand. If not, it won't.

The thing is, I can't be honest with myself and back off from holding scientists to high standards of evidence. This in no way is an implication that someone is cheating or is a fraud -- it's just that, when we get down to it, they are doing themselves a disservice if they don't adhere to strict standards. The same should apply to skeptics.
 
It appears to me that Steve and Pyrrho agree on the general idea of libel and making accusations.

On the specifics, I need to clarify my own position and why I do not feel it is libel. I believe Ed's reasoning is similar to mine but I have no inside information and so am not speaking for him.

1. Schwartz is highly educated, to a level at which it is reasonable to assume he knows how to avoid fundamental and fatal flaws in an experiment's protocol

2. Schwartz conducted the Afterlife Experiments

3. Schwartz published reports and a book based on the Afterlife Experiments, claiming them as strong evidence of survival.

4. Fundamental and fatal flaws are pointed out. I do not know if they were pointed out directly to Schwartz, but I do not believe it matters. I am not a scientist nor a statistician, yet I wrote a fairly thorough deconstruction of the experiments pointing out both scientific and statistical flaws.

5. Schwartz continues to say the Afterlife Experiments are evidence of survival.

Someone with the education Schwartz has cannot fall back on the defense that he didn't know better in designing the experiments.

Therefore, I conclude that Schwartz engaged in fraud. I did not begin with that opinion; I arrived at it after reviewing his reports.

My conclusion of fraud is my opinion. The analysis of the experiments is not. The experiments are flawed, fatally so.

I distinguish between the two. Others should, also. Whether or not I can be found guilty of libel or slander (or whatever is the proper term) I do not know, but I know I should not be able to be found guilty for stating the following, which I stand by:

It is my opinion that Schwartz is a fraud.
I base this opinion on the fact that he continues to draw erroneous conclusions from experiments that his education has equipped him to discern as being fatally flawed.

My name is quite easy to find, if legal action is considered.

I do know how to counter sue.
 
There are a lot of things we can have opinions on: who will win the SuperBowl or the WorldSeries, how good the food was at a particular restaurant, how we liked the last book we read, whether we liked a movie or not, TV programs, etc etc ad infinitum. No one is going to sue anyone for voicing an opinion on such subjects. We say a movie stinks or a movie is great. We dont call it fraudulent. These are opinions. We read a book and report our opinions about what the book "said" and whether we felt it was a good or a bad book. We dont call it a fraud. We don't call the author a liar unless there is proof to back up such an assertion.

So there are subjects, areas where certain categories of beliefs and opinions constitute a serious problem unless backed up with hard evidence,
or you simply don't go there. You dont, for example, accuse someone of being a prostitute unless you have the pictures or police reports or eye witness first hand notarized testimony to back it up. You don't accuse someone of cheating on their wife unless you have the pictures/testimony to back it up. And you do not express the opinion someone has comitted fraud (look up fraud first) without the hard evidence to substantiate such an accusation based on the true definition of the term.


I thank Garette for giving us his reasons for his belief or opinion. The question is whether what he believes to be evidence really is sufficient evidence or evidence at all of this particular allegation. I don't know. When treading in this area it pays to be more careful than when simply giving a movie or restaurant review. Although I have heard, rarely, of restaurant owners suing food critics because they ruined their business by their writing one or more bad things in their newspaper resatruant reviews. And winning.
 
I don't disagree with any of the specifics of your last post, Steve.

There are opinions which, even if not illegal to voice, would be uncivil or uncharitable to voice.

I disagree on where we draw the line, though.

Strictly as an example: Suppose I say it is my opinion that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole and her boyfriend. Have I crossed the line? I obviously have no proof.

In most cases, I err on the side of keeping quiet. On occasion I do not. This is one of them. For one thing, I do not consider this situation analogous with some of your examples, particularly that of prostitution. Prostitution is (or can be) an honest profession, even if illegal. Schwartz is not (imo again) being honest.

If I feel that Schwartz himself has crossed the line and, more importantly, is swaying others with what I consider to be fraudulent means, why am I bound to be quiet about what I admit is my opinion? Some will call it uncivil. It probably is, but civility in this matter is a secondary consideration for me.
 
Originally posted by Garrette I don't disagree with any of the specifics of your last post, Steve.

There are opinions which, even if not illegal to voice, would be uncivil or uncharitable to voice.

I disagree on where we draw the line, though.

Strictly as an example: Suppose I say it is my opinion that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole and her boyfriend. Have I crossed the line? I obviously have no proof.
Click to expand...

I think it is safe to say this based on the court case; you and others with deeper pockets than you are safe in saying this because they know that Simpson has no desire to go back into a courtroom to debate this subject in a libel case proceeding. What's going on in the U.K. re Prince Charles is another example of this. Charles has been accused in the media of having had a homosexual liasion with a palace employee. At first the law in Britain prohibited the press from shouting the specifics, then they did so through innunedo safe in the knowledge that Charles is not likely to sue and if he did, it would be even a bigger story for them than what started it.

In most cases, I err on the side of keeping quiet. On occasion I do not. This is one of them. For one thing, I do not consider this situation analogous with some of your examples, particularly that of prostitution. Prostitution is (or can be) an honest profession, even if illegal. Schwartz is not (imo again) being honest.
Click to expand...

It is if you call a specific person the town whore and this person is married, has a young child and is obviously not doing what you said she was doing.
Sure prostitution can be a honest profession but under certain circumstances...in places where it is not legal and with respect to persons where it would be an immoral occupation, it is not a honest profession.



If I feel that Schwartz himself has crossed the line and, more importantly, is swaying others with what I consider to be fraudulent means, why am I bound to be quiet about what I admit is my opinion? Some will call it uncivil. It probably is, but civility in this matter is a secondary consideration for me.
Click to expand...

I think the problem comes in with your choice of the word "fraud." You need to research its meaning and then to test it against the existence of certain knowledge you have. There is a higher standard, that the knowledge in such a case is certain knowledge. If you feel confident enough to defend it in a courtroom, then sure, go ahead. However if you use the term loosely, in the certain knowledge that you and your pockets are not deep enough for any lawyer or accused person to bother to sue you, you can probably get away with it. This is not honest but goes on all the time. On the other hand if you are the founder, former chief stockholder and CEO of a multinational company and have a great deal of worth (or you are a Rosie O'Donnell) then you should worry about the legal and financial consequencies of your actions more carefully. Even though neither side won in the Rosie case, its still to be decided who pays who's legal costs and for Rosie thats projected at eight million dollars right now. On a much smaller level, such costs were what set Randi on his rear end after encountering Geller's lawyers in a courtrom. No lawyer is going to take a case, however, unless they are sure both the plaintiffs or defendents can pay up regardless of to whom the decision goes.
 
Whether or not a person could be convicted for voice an opinion is separate from whether or not someone else would try to obtain that conviction; we are agreed on that.

I think you meant I should look up the meaning of 'slander' as opposed to the meaning of 'fraud.'

In this instance, I mean 'fraud' in the sense that merriam-webster defines it, understanding that the legal definition will vary some from region to region.

a: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting
Click to expand...

In this case, the 'something of value' is the money spent on the book Schwartz wrote.

'Slander' and 'libel' are similar, but libel refers to the written word; I don't know what case law says about the internet and message boards--whether it qualifies as 'published' of whatever.

Here are m-w's definitions of the 2:

Libel

a: a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

Slander:

1 : the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
2 : a false and defamatory oral statement about a person -- compare
Click to expand...

These definitions could be interpreted to mean that whether an utterance/writing is expressed as merely opinion or not is irrelevent. I'd have to check various statutes if the legal definitions concur.

My position stands, though. Opinion should not be convictable (?), even if it is, especially when stated openly as such. To do otherwise is to presume idiocy on the part of the public, which while perhaps factually correct should not be the responsibility of the state.

All that being said, I know well the financial dangers of being the victim of even an unwarranted lawsuit. The warnings are appreciated.

I'm a big boy, though. I have voiced my opinion. Schwartz will know of my opinion soon enough directly from me. He can choose how to address it.
 
To accuse someone of fraud is to accuse them of an intentional criminal act.

Be sure to include Schwartz's co-author who wrote the book, Bill Simon as well as his publishers who printed and wholesaled the book, the distributors, Amazon dot com, Brentanos, Waldenbooks, Barnes and Noble and all others who have a position in your contention that you or others have been defrauded when they willingly purchased a book which they also could have reviewed first and prior to parting with their twenty dollars. And which, by the way, was returnable if they were unhappy with it. No, I don't think the circumstances or act of selling a book meets the standard for fraud nor do I suspect it was your intention to mean it that way when you said Schwartz is a fraud. I think you meant to say that his experiments were conducted criminally or fraudlently ... that the results obtained was done so by cheating. In this case be sure and include the five mediums, all the sitters, the TV crew, above and below the line, Linda Ellerbee, and her distributors (HBO),
Schwartz's research assistants, his
employer (The Univ of Az), his oversight committee (members of the faculty of the University including skeptics), the random assortment of univ students off the street to do a cold paper reading, his statisticians, oh, and Randi, who despite his protests, did have input on these experiments.
 
quote:Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Condolences on the loss of your cat.



Dittus: He didn't say it died, just that he buried it.

Response: Where did I say it died? Please don't misquote or put words into statements that werent there in the first place. Thank you.

And besides, why isn't Corey asserting this? Is he too busy burying more cats?
 
Garrette said:
Strictly as an example: Suppose I say it is my opinion that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole and her boyfriend. Have I crossed the line? I obviously have no proof.
Click to expand...

You got to be kidding, right??
scared.gif
 
"Hello, Mrs. Premise."
"Hello, Mrs. Conclusion. Buzy day?"
"Spent four hours burying the cat."
(for the python disabled))
 
SteveGrenard said:
quote:Originally posted by SteveGrenard

Condolences on the loss of your cat.



Dittus: He didn't say it died, just that he buried it.

Response: Where did I say it died? Please don't misquote or put words into statements that werent there in the first place. Thank you.

And besides, why isn't Corey asserting this? Is he too busy burying more cats?
Click to expand...

Steve, you really do have problems with the English language, don't you. You really are a humorless prig too, evidentially.

If you are expressing condolences it is for a loss. If he buried it, it is clearly not physically lost since he, well, he buried it. Your assumption was that it died (unless you aver that you thought that he buried it and forgot where). So, do you think that it died or do you think that Corey, lamentably, buried his kitty for safe keeping and then forgot where and thus condolences were called for?

Again, you show the basic weakness in your thought processes. You suggest that the banal possibility of a dead cat must be weighed against the possibility of a buried (yet alive) cat whose place of interment is forgotten. By extention, rather than believing that mediums are frauds, you conjure up an afterlife hypothesis. It all fits.

I will not explain my humorous jape since it would be beyond you. Console yourself with the sure knowledge that others who read it are chuckling while you remain clueless.

Oh, yes. I love your mentions of me when I am not around. It increases awareness of moi while firmly designating you as a groupie.

BTW, any number of high profile sceptics could not change the ratings of a tv show in any manner at all. The error range of ratings is pretty big (I forget the exact numbers) but they would have to shift the viewing of a couple of million households, at least. I never understood why action directed at sponsors is not used. If 1000 letters went to a product manager he/she would have pause. After all, one show is as good as another, generally, and all they would have to do is say "pull CO, buy Guiding Light" or whatever. Much simpler to do that than to argue the "truth" of JE. The fact is, in my opinion, that sceptics are as lard-assed as most other people and that complaining and talking to themselves is a hell of a lot easier than taking coordinated action. We need an Al Sharpton!!!!!!!!
 
I really got the impression Corey was burying Schrödinger's cat all along.


edited to place two dots over the 'O' in
Schrödinger
 
I suspect that Corey has a dark secret and is a secret Poe fan. It follows, therefore, that he buried a neighbors cat alive.:jaw:
 
I will go with the Nobel Prize Committee's homepage on this......

http://www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1933/


Its spelled differently by many people but I am afraid if you want to believe the Nobel prize committee, I was right. Also a lot of people called him Edwin but his real name was Erwin! LOL.

Erwin Schrödinger -- with those two dots over the "o."

"Erwin Schrödinger was born on August 12, 1887, in Vienna, the only child of Rudolf Schrödinger, who was married to a daughter of Alexander Bauer, his Professor of Chemistry at the Technical College of Vienna. Erwin's father came from a Bavarian family which generations before had settled in Vienna.....(truncated/snipped from the above website)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom