[ExI] Alcock on Bem in Skeptical Inquirer.

John Clark jonkc at bellsouth.net
Thu Dec 9 16:04:17 UTC 2010

On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:23 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
>> I'm not implying that Bem and the journal's reviewers and editors are
>> liars or idiots. I'm saying as overtly as I can that Bem and
>> the journal's reviewers and editors are liars or idiots; and I think
>> history will prove me correct just as it did the last time we had a
>> similar conversation. But if you think I'm wrong this time you know how
>> to make money off my error.
> I am not a lawyer, but I suspect you've just provided Professor Bem with an opportunity to make money from you.

Given our idiotic legal system you could be right. James (The Amazing) Randi has been sued by Uri Geller many times for pointing out the obvious fact that the man was a fraud, and one time he even won; a court in Japan found Randi guilty not of libel but of "insult", in Japan it can be illegal to say something bad about someone even if its true. Science writer Simon Singh was sued for pointing out the obvious fact that Homeopathic medicine, drugs that have been diluted so much that not even one of the molecules could remain, could not work. Singe eventually won the case but not before paying out over a million dollars in legal bills and putting his writing career on hold for over a year. Astrologers have sued newspapers for saying it didn't work, and in Israel a politician of all people was convicted of pointing out on live television the obvious fact that a prominent local astrologer was a fake. The junk science people have learned how to use the legal system. 

 John K Clark      

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20101209/87946c2d/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list