In other words I am skeptical about the skeptics. I will try and explain why
(Aside: if you are unfamiliar with Simon Singh case read about it here and here)
First, let me say that I am no fan of chiropractic, nor any other form of CAM; but I am a fan of Simon Singh, owning two of his books, hearing him speak several times. I hope that he will win his case.
Having said that, here are the three things about the Bandwagon the case has attracted that worry me
1 It's really not about the Science
The bandwagon presents this case as being a noble one about the science: about the evidence for and against chiropractic, and about a scientist's right to question and criticise evidence, all exalted and privileged matters which do not belong in a libel court.
I do not agree. I don't think this case is really about the science - I think the heart of this libel case is Singh's ill-worded comment about the conduct of the BCA and the implication that they have been behaving dishonestly; and an allegation of dishonesty (if indeed that is what it amounts to) is an entirely proper subject for a libel trial.
This is what Singh said: the offending sentences are in blue, the rest is for context
"You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.You will observe that Singh is using unscientific and quite immoderate language - whacky, bogus, fundamentalists - not at all the measured language of the scientific debate that the Bandwagon like to present him as conducting.
I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions."
In my opinion it's clear that
- a bogus treatment is different from an ineffective treatment. A bogus treatment is one that has been prepared or applied in some way dishonestly
- anyone happily promoting bogus treatments is behaving dishonestly.
- so it's quite a serious thing to say
- the arguments in the comments here
- Justice Eady's very well written summary (see 12 and 13) of what he took the words to mean
2 That's not what he said / that's not what he meant to say / even if he did say it, he didn't mean it.
My first reaction on hearing about the case, and reading the words was: of course the treatments are bogus, and of course the BCA happily promote them. Keep strong, Simon.
What concerns me about the Bandwagon is that so much effort is spent trying to shy away from that firm and clear position - instead it is concerned with weaselling: while it might look bad at first glance, what Singh wrote doesn't really mean what it seems to mean. Argument proceeds on several lines
- bogus doesn't really mean dishonest, it simply means ineffective
- even if bogus does imply dishonest, 'happily' doesn't mean that the BCA know that the treatments are bogus
- not a jot of evidence doesn't mean literally 'not a jot' - of COURSE there are 'jots' of evidence, what Singh meant that the jots are unconvincing and overwhelmed by the balance of of other evidence to the contrary
The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is no reliable evidence to support this. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it promotes ineffective treatments.
The bandwagon will have it that this IS what Singh said, or at the very least that's what he meant.
But he didn't write like that. If he had written the sentence above I don't think he would have been sued. He went further. In particular I suspect it was the conjunction of 'happily' and 'bogus' that prompted the BCA to sue.
3 The Bandwagon has been a bad day for the Twittersphere
The Appeal Court expressed astonishment that this foolish case hasn't settled already.
I wonder if a big part of that was the twsunami that engulfed both sides on Twitter and the blogosphere when the case started. It made it hard for either side - but especially the BCA - to quickly back down.
Yes the twitter chat provided valuable moral support for Singh - and that has been good. But I do wonder if it has helped to keep the whole case alive.
23 comments:
Thank you for taking the time to put together the various comments you have made on my Blog into one blogpost.
As you will expect I disagree, but it is useful to have a counterview argued so well. I also accept fully the sincerity of your personal support for Simon.
Hmmm....Is it fair to summarise your argument as being that SS accused the BCA of intentionally promoting treatments that they know full well to be ineffective and that this is the position he should defend in court?
If so, I kind of agree with the first half but not the second half. SS DID (arguably) say that, but that can't wisely be his sole legal defence.
If as a lawyer you are defending a boy accused of breaking a classroom window, your argument will be:
1. He wasn't even in school that day.
2. If he was in school, he wasn't in that classroom when the ball was thrown.
3. If he was in the classroom, it wasn't he that threw the cricket ball.
4. In any case, it wasn't the cricket ball that broke the window.
5. If it was the cricket ball that broke the window, and if it was my client that threw it, then it was by way of an accident.
You put the other side to proof on every element of the case. They have only to stumble at one hurdle for your client to get off. To admit 1,2, 3 and 4 and to rely only on 5 as a defence might be an integral position to take but it is negligent to your client. You have to ask the other side to prove as much as possible.
We have an adversarial legal system, not an inquisitorial. If we had a European style inquisition, then one would probably leap straight in with a defence of SS's stated contention that the BCA happily promotes bogus treatments, but as we have an adversarial system, the lawyers start with saying "ah, it didn't even mean what the BCA thinks it meant" because if you can win on this argument then you don't have to go any further. If you lose that argument, well then your case is no harder than had you not put it forward in the first place.
In other words, SS's lawyers do not have a non-zero chance of winning the argument that SS's words meant only that the BCA had no reliable evidence that chiropractic could cure childhood asthma and so it is one they MUST argue because if they win then the whole case is lost to the BCA. If SS's lawyers lose that first argument, then they can still fall back on defending the position that the BCA knowingly and cynically promoted a treatment for which there was not a jot of evidence. It may come to that, and SS may win on that basis, but boy that will be a nailbiter and no fun at all for SS.
@ Law Student - I wasn't really commenting on what SS should do, that depends on what he wants:
- If he simply wants to win the case I agree that he should weasel in the way you suggest.
- but if he wants to be a heroic figurehead for a cause he could stand strong.
What I am commenting more on is the Bandwagon who see him as a heroic figurehead who, um, didn't really mean what he seems to have said, and even if he did mean that you can't prove it. For me, that stance is neither one thing nor the other, and simply doesn't work.
I think this is - actualyl - terrible test case for libel reform in science. It seems to have little to do with scientists freedom to evaluate evidence, and more to do with anyones freedom to bandy around intemperate accusations.
You say:
a bogus treatment is different from an ineffective treatment. A bogus treatment is one that has been prepared or applied in some way dishonestly
You're taking the Justice Eady line that bogus can *only* mean knowingly dishonest? Unlike the dictionary definitions which include "fake" and "phony" as well as "fraudulent" - why it have to be your choice of definitions, and to suggest otherwise is evasion (or being weaselly)?
In any case, surely a treatment presented as effective when it actually is ineffective is being dishonest? It's not as though the treatments were being presented as "give us money for this treatment, but we have no idea whether it'll work or not".
@anon -
yes indeed I think that the word 'bogus' clearly implies a deliberate deception has taken place. So do all the alternatives you give - 'fake', 'phony' and 'fraudulent', they all denote deception as well!
In contrast consider treatments that are 'mistaken', 'misconceived', 'botched' or 'bungled'. Those words would denote ineffective but well-intentioned treaments.
"You will observe that Singh is using unscientific and quite immoderate language - whacky, bogus, fundamentalists - not at all the measured language of the scientific debate that the Bandwagon like to present him as conducting."
You will observe that he was writing in the commentary section of a newspaper, not in a scientific journal.
And chiropractors DO have some quite whacky ideas.
And there ARE fundamentalist chiropractors who think they can cure everything.
(We will get to bogus.)
"anyone happily promoting bogus treatments is behaving dishonestly."
That is your opinion only.
That is not Simon Singh's opinion.
It is a matter of fact that Simon Singh did not think ther BCA were being dishonest.
Nowhere will you find him saying that he thinks they were knowingly and deliberately promoting these treatments.
"Its a wildly and pejoratively worded allegation of reprehensible conduct, defended."
That is your assessment only.
In my opinion, your "wildly", "pejoratively", and "reprehensible" are an over-the-top view of what Simon Singh actually said.
Is that libellous of Simon Singh? Probably as much as Simon Singh words could be considered libellous of the BCA. ;)
"My first reaction on hearing about the case, and reading the words was: of course the treatments are bogus, and of course the BCA happily promote them. Keep strong, Simon."
You can't expect Simon Singh to "keep strong" about something you believe he said or meant. He could not possibly have defended your interpretation of his words, because that is not what HE meant:
Yes, the treatments have not a jot of evidence.
Yes, they are bogus.
Yes, the BCA happily promote them
No, they did not do this knowingly and deliberately.
"Well, Singh could have expressed himself in the more temperate language"
Yes he could have.
But he didn't.
His meaning was clear to those who know Simon Singh's actual views - as opposed to those who read their own meaning into his words.
"If he had written the sentence above I don't think he would have been sued. He went further. In particular I suspect it was the conjunction of 'happily' and 'bogus' that prompted the BCA to sue"
Congratulations! The rectospectogram is an amazing instrument!
Simon Singh had no idea on what basis the BCA were suing him. He presumed they were contesting the lack of evidence. He had already explained his "not a jot" and "bogus" in the very next paragraph and, through the Guardian, offered the BCA right of reply and a chance to present their "plethora of evidence".
He was absolutely unprepared - as was everyone else - for the fact that he was expected to prove what was in the mind of the organisation called the BCA and to prove something that he did not actually believe to be true (that they promoted these treatments knowingly and deliberately)
Apart from all this, does he really deserve to spend 2+ years and $100,000+ for using strong language in an commentary section in a newspaper on a topic of public interest.
@billyjoe
the thing is: what he actually WROTE is going to be more important that what (he says) he meant.
@billyjoe said "you will observe that he was writing in the commentary section of a newspaper, not in a scientific journal"
Yes, indeed: It is not Simon Singh, scientist on trial here but Simon Singh, journalist.
It's not about the science
It's about the way he expressed himself in he article.
"the thing is: what he actually WROTE is going to be more important that what (he says) he meant."
What he wrote is at least ambiguous.
Did he mean that the BCA knowingly promoted these treatments or did he mean that they promoted them in ignorance?
Consdering the ambiguity and the fact that Simon Singh meant something like the second, where should that leave him?
"Yes, indeed: It is not Simon Singh, scientist on trial here but Simon Singh, journalist."
Simon Singh the science journalist.
"It's not about the science.
It's about the way he expressed himself in the article."
Well, we'll just have to wait and see what he is judged to have meant.
But, for Simon Singh, is was about the science that says there is no evidence for the chiropractic treatment of non-spinal conditions, and it was about the BCA who promote these treatments, and it was about Chiropractic Week during which the BCA promotes itself and its treatments to the public.
Simon Singh wanted to ensure that the the other side of the story was told.
" the fact that Simon Singh meant something like the second, where should that leave"
The FACT ?
Anyway, its what he *did* say that matters , not what he meant to say .
"The FACT ?"
Yes, it is a fact.
The judge was asking him to defend a meaning of his words that he did not intend and did not believe to be true.
Simon Singh did not believe that the BCA was acting knowingly, delberately, fraudulently. He believed that they were acting in ignorance about the evidence, the nature of evidence, the interpretation of the evidence.
"Anyway, its what he *did* say that matters , not what he meant to say ."
I've already responded to this:
The meaning of what he said is at least ambiguous. In that case, it has to matter what he intended.
His words against the BCA could be described as "trenchant" but justifiably so. This organisation pigheadedly continued to promote chiropractic for non-spinal conditions depsite a lack of evidence in support and against the requirement of the Advertising Standards Assoc.
Botogol, you are right about the bandwagon btw. Even though it is a bandwagon with its heart in the right place, it has got into the blinkered group think mentality whereby it won't accept any negative criticism of the great SS. That is dangerous territory.
law student, that is just a cheap shot. Why not try an argument for a change.
@billyjoe, I like you already ;-) Sigh, I was only sucking up to Botogol cos he seems like a nice chap :-)
Still, ho hum, an argument. Here I go.
You say that it matters what SS intended to say as his words were ambiguous (which is itself debatable but let's assume that's true). Unfortunately, in law, it is what SS said that matters and not what he meant to say. The definition of libel is the publication (tick) of a statement (tick) that could lead a reasonable person to think less of the person defamed (BCA). So the crucial, and only (apart from whether there is a defence of fair comment) issue is how would a reasonable person interpret the article written by SS in all its glorious ambiguity, and whether, after reading it, they would think less of the BCA. Well, I certainly did. What SS meant to say, or wishes he had said, or even intended simply isn't relevant. It is the effect the article has on the putative man on the Clapham Omnibus. If you care to argue that point then you will be demonstrating the blinkered group think of which Botogol initially complained - you and I and the rest of the bandwagon of SS supporters might "like" the law to be different, but that doesn't make it so. To rage against that is pointless, and would be dangerous to SS's case if taken up by his lawyers as they could only, in law, lose on that point. That's why they are not arguing it, and how you are displaying your blinkers (or, legal ignorance - sorry, and there is no reason why you should be an expert in libel law) in proffering that argument when it has no legal basis.
SSs best hope is a "fair comment" defence or proving that what he said (not what he intended to say) is true. IMO he should win on both counts.
love-fifteen :-)
Interestingly the Singh case was discussed last week in a more sober forum, outside the aegis of the bandwagon - over at The Lawyer website
It is interesting to read the views of non-bandwagon-riding, actual lawyers. They seem to think Singh's words meant prety much what I think they mean.
law student,
You are right.
Of course I am not a lawyer, or even a law student. What amazes me is that you think I am talking about the law here. I am not. I am talking about what SS actually wrote. Not how the law will interpret it. I suppose the implication of what I believe to be the meaning of SS words is that, if he is found quilty, the law is an ass and should be changed. But that is not what I am arguing here. I have no idea whether the law, as it stands, will find SS quilty.
So, I will ask you the following questions.
Do you (separate and distinct from what view you think the law will take) believe SS should be sued for libel on the basis of what he wrote in that article?
Knowing that SS did not believe that the BCA were *knowingly* promoting treatments for which there is no evidence, do you accept or reject the possiblilty of an alternative meaning for "happily" (I am not including "not a jot", and "bogus" because his next paragraph explains what he means by that) or do you think that it absolutely and undeniably means that he is accusing the BCA of dishonesty and no other interpretation is possible?
You say the the average reader of the Guardian will come away from the article thinking less about the BCA. In my opinion, if the libel law means that a person cannot write anything about any organisation which would tend to make people think less of that organisation, then the law is indeed an opponent of free speech and should be changed.
The BCA either knowingly promote treatments for which there is no evidence or, as SS believed, they do this in ignorance. In either case, EVERYONE reading the article SHOULD think less of the BCA.
billyjoe - you seem to be saying that because Singh is basically correct he should have the freedom to say whatever likes however he wants, even if he doesn't really mean it, and if that amounts to libel then the law needs to be changed.
hmmm.
SS meant exactly what he said.
Happy in their ignorance.
You just chose to interpret it differently. He cannot be held responsible for that.
Oops, did I say "chose" as in "deliberately chose", or did I perhaps mean "unconsciously chose"?
Goddammit, how careful do you have to be with picking and choosing your words in order to avoid litigation.
And so children this is how the SS bandwagon roamed the wild wild wild west. Indeed, a very exciting ride! At the end you can see that:
1. Botogol and BillyJoe will not have the letters ‘BCA’ tattooed on their body anytime soon (Need a volunteer inspector to verify;-)) and
2. Law Student analysis is spot on!
And the final conclusion: there will be no conclusion! The issues are open ended by default. Today’s winners may be tomorrow’s losers. Freedom of Speech debates will go on in and outside courts of law, and the gap between science and alternative (whatever) will not be disappearing either.
Enjoy the sunshine!
...and I suppose, M4GD, that you think you have made a worthwhile contribution to this debate.
@BillyJoe - please don'tbe rude to other commenters - even if you don't really mean it.
Botogol - is this a record number of comments for one of your posts?
Or is this comment even debatable? ;-)
Botogol,
"please don't be rude to other commenters"
Well, Botogol, it seems you have a little bandwagon of your own starting up here.
"...even if you don't really mean it"
And you still fail to see that it is not that SS did not really mean what you interpret him to mean but that his words can actually be interpreted differently to the way you have interpreted them - "happily ignorant" gets 33,000 hits in google, and "happy in their ignorance" gets 725,000 hits.
It is ironic that you remain happily ignorant of this fact
In any case, nobody on Botogol's badwagon, including the wagonmaster himself, has responded in any meaningful way to the points I have made.
Post a Comment