4 ms·

> The author really, really wants people to take sleep seriously, so he stretches the truth as much as possible to make sleep sound gravely important. Not very

> The author really, really wants people to take sleep seriously, so he stretches the truth as much as possible to make sleep sound gravely important. Not very ethical. But understandable. > He's writing to sell books and spread his message, ...and arguably that turns it into fraud. If not for the misrepresentation of the facts, would I have bought his book?

alsetmusic 6y ago
>> He's writing to sell books and spread his message, > ...and arguably that turns it into fraud. If not for the misrepresentation of the facts, would I have bought his book? Not to be overly-pedantic, but I think knowingly exaggerating the truth to sell books is more of a scam than a fraud. To me, fraud is closer to outright deception than exaggeration. Fraud is also better defined. Laws are written about fraud. Fraud, I think, is a weightier charge of duplicity. I base this only on my own internal reaction to the words. Here’s someone getting more into the lexicon: > In short, scam has no legal status as a term of law in most jurisdictions, except insofar as it may be defined as a type of fraud. The term fraud is broad but usually very carefully defined in statutory law. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/348183/whats-the-difference-between-scam-and-fraud https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/348183/whats-the...
- petertodd 6y ago
  Interesting! I didn't know there was a distinction in law between those two terms. I think your definition of "scam" is closer to what I was trying to get at.
- thu2111 6y ago
  I think that page supports the notion that it's fraud. People pay with money for the book because of its claims. The legal dictionary says: FRAUD. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. It's a pretty broad definition. Certainly a strong case could be mounted that this fits, however, academics are basically never prosecuted for fraud and there would be enormous institutional resistance to doing so, given the prevalence of fraud in the research literature.

alsetmusic 6y ago

>> He's writing to sell books and spread his message, > ...and arguably that turns it into fraud. If not for the misrepresentation of the facts, would I have bought his book? Not to be overly-pedantic, but I think knowingly exaggerating the truth to sell books is more of a scam than a fraud. To me, fraud is closer to outright deception than exaggeration. Fraud is also better defined. Laws are written about fraud. Fraud, I think, is a weightier charge of duplicity. I base this only on my own internal reaction to the words. Here’s someone getting more into the lexicon: > In short, scam has no legal status as a term of law in most jurisdictions, except insofar as it may be defined as a type of fraud. The term fraud is broad but usually very carefully defined in statutory law. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/348183/whats-the-difference-between-scam-and-fraud https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/348183/whats-the...

petertodd 6y ago
Interesting! I didn't know there was a distinction in law between those two terms. I think your definition of "scam" is closer to what I was trying to get at.
thu2111 6y ago
I think that page supports the notion that it's fraud. People pay with money for the book because of its claims. The legal dictionary says: FRAUD. An intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. It's a pretty broad definition. Certainly a strong case could be mounted that this fits, however, academics are basically never prosecuted for fraud and there would be enormous institutional resistance to doing so, given the prevalence of fraud in the research literature.