Friday, June 22, 2007

Reasons Not to Believe - Part 2

I am not alone!

Paul Gardner has also had a couple of papers misrepresented by Reasons to Believe.

3 comments:

  1. This also happened to TR Gregory, and one of his grad students, I believe.

    There should be some kind of legal recourse for researchers (or their institutions) when people misrepresent their data for an agenda, whether its Creationism, global warming, anti-vaxers-- whatever.

    I mean you cant just put a picture of Michael Jordan on a pair of sneakers on a whim.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's an interesting point, and one that's come up several times now in comments on this blog and on Pharyngula. I have absolutely no legal knowledge whatsoever so I really can't give an intelligent answer... but I suspect that being in Canada means that I wouldn't be the best person to file a lawsuit.

    My primary motivation in writing the last couple of posts was that people looking for information on Reasons to Believe would find web pages containing statements like mine. I don't think anything I do will touch RTB itself, but I'd like to think that I have the potential to reach someone who's undecided about evolution...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would hope that some curious people would see information on sites like RTB and go looking for more. Unfortunately, it seems like people who go to AiG and RTB just want their beliefs confirmed.

    I would think misusing your paper should count as defamation or maybe libel - particularly of your PI, who's still fighting for grants etc. Of course it's probably easier to improve the ranking of real science sites in Google than to win a lawsuit against creationists.

    ReplyDelete

I promise to respond to all respectful non-spam comments! Don't be shy! Oh, and please don't type my surname in your comments; I know you all know what it is, but I'd prefer Google to rank other pages before this blog.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.