It is currently Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:39 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 5:39 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 6:58 pm
Posts: 2461
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:
I was instead referring to the possibility that people at BYU might be following this thread to see what it revealed about DCP’s writing.


Yeah, this is an important point. If DCP does wind up getting into trouble over this, it's most likely going happen because one of his colleagues at BYU sounded the alarm. Let's face it: he has pissed off a lot of people at BYU over the years, most notably people in the "new" Maxwell Institute, and people over in Religious Education. Think how nasty DCP was towards Blair Hodges, for example. And Hodges strikes me as someone who actually and sincerely cares about things like academic integrity and scholarly ethics. Will he (or someone like him) look at this and decide to act?

I also have to wonder about the "acolytes"--guys like Steve Smoot and Neal Rappleye. How do they react to this? Do they just shrug it off? Are they bothered by it?

Blair hasn’t posted here in years. Not sure how much he follows this site silently though. Everybody Wang Chung mentioned that he knew of several BYU folks who were following the thread here. I suppose he could have heard what was going on from them.

I have to say, Shades should feel good about the variety of readers this site seems to have. It appears that there are at least quite a few pro-LDS lurkers here.

_________________
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?

"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MormonDiscussions.com.

Music is my drug of choice.

"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MormonDiscussions.com
_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:00 pm 
2nd Quorum of Seventy

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:45 am
Posts: 690
Lemmie wrote:
And recall, he actually used that same Pearcey essay to plagiarize TWO blog entries, in addition to the one you noted above, this 10.23.17 one also: "What difference does Darwin make?" (see here).

Yes, that's right. Regarding the third footnote in Dr. Peterson's post, when I searched the string ["berenstein bears" or "berenstain bears" and "or ever will be"], I noticed everyone from Pearcey to Charles Colson to Dinesh D'Souza to Dan DeWitt to Dr. Peterson became alarmed when they innocently opened up a Berenstain Bears nature/science book one day and discovered the identical insidious Darwinist messaging between the book covers.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 6:56 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 6291
Tom wrote:
Lemmie wrote:
And recall, he actually used that same Pearcey essay to plagiarize TWO blog entries, in addition to the one you noted above, this 10.23.17 one also: "What difference does Darwin make?" (see here).

Yes, that's right. Regarding the third footnote in Dr. Peterson's post, when I searched the string ["berenstein bears" or "berenstain bears" and "or ever will be"], I noticed everyone from Pearcey to Charles Colson to Dinesh D'Souza to Dan DeWitt to Dr. Peterson became alarmed when they innocently opened up a Berenstain Bears nature/science book one day and discovered the identical insidious Darwinist messaging between the book covers.

:lol: Yes, I noticed that. It's interesting that you mention it, because when I was looking into Peterson's plagiarism I also noticed that his Berenstain Bears quote was incorrect. The text from the actual Berenstain Bears book is this:
Quote:
Nature is you!
Nature is me!

It's all that IS
or WAS
or EVER WILL BE!
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E2%80% ... WWrSijJS_M

According to Peterson's footnote, he is quoting the book itself, even though what he wrote in his blog entry is NOT from the book. What he wrote does, however, exactly match what Pearcey wrote, right down to the ellipses and the error:
Pearcey wrote:
The Berenstain Bears’ Nature Guide. In it, the Bear family invites the reader on a nature walk, and after a few pages, we open to a two-page spread, glazed with the light of the rising sun, proclaiming in capital letters:
“Nature … is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”23

And here is Peterson:
DCP wrote:
As the 1975 children’s book The Bears’ Nature Guide, featuring the Berenstain Bears, informs its young audience,
“Nature . . . is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”[3]
[bolding added]

In his comments, however, Peterson insists he doesn't know her...
Quote:
Finally, IS Nancy Pearcey a young-Earth creationist who believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed? It's certainly possible; I know little about her....
...surely not enough to trust her to get the words to a children's book correct. :rolleyes:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:03 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 4:03 pm
Posts: 2564
Location: ON, Canada
Doctor Scratch wrote:
Kishkumen wrote:
I was instead referring to the possibility that people at BYU might be following this thread to see what it revealed about DCP’s writing.


Yeah, this is an important point. If DCP does wind up getting into trouble over this, it's most likely going happen because one of his colleagues at BYU sounded the alarm. Let's face it: he has pissed off a lot of people at BYU over the years, most notably people in the "new" Maxwell Institute, and people over in Religious Education. Think how nasty DCP was towards Blair Hodges, for example. And Hodges strikes me as someone who actually and sincerely cares about things like academic integrity and scholarly ethics. Will he (or someone like him) look at this and decide to act?

I also have to wonder about the "acolytes"--guys like Steve Smoot and Neal Rappleye. How do they react to this? Do they just shrug it off? Are they bothered by it?

"Think how nasty DCP was towards Blair Hodges, for example. And Hodges strikes me as someone who actually and sincerely cares about things like academic integrity and scholarly ethics. Will he (or someone like him) look at this and decide to act?"

I suspect that if Blair does decide to act, it will not be an act of revenge for nastiness. I think he's more classy than that.

_________________
NOMinal member

Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:36 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 3120
I just wanted to add that this thread is well on its way to 10,000 views.

The more attention DCP's dishonest and unethical behavior gets, the better. If DCP had a shred of dignity or honor he would have self-reported himself (as required) to the Honor Code Office/Administration.

He's leaving quite the legacy for himself.

_________________
"The Word of Wisdom has been an integral and faith affirming part of my life." Daniel C. Peterson, who has been morbidly obese for the last 40 years and tips the scales at over 400 lbs

"I'm on sabbatical in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books." Daniel C. Peterson in 2012


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:53 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 6291
Note that Peterson has now added the following to his 10.23.17 blog entry, "What difference does Darwinism make?" again transforming his previously argued 'unintentional' plagiarism into intentional plagiarism:
Quote:
[These paraphrastic notes are drawn from an essay by Nancy Pearcey titled “”Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears,” which appeared as chapter 4 of Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William Dembski.]
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... kbjbrsB.99


Definition of mosaic plagiarism found in 'paraphrastic' notes, adapted for Peterson's example:
Quote:
Why [what Peterson is now euphemistically calling "paraphrastic notes", previously published as written by him, are STILL] plagiarism:

This paraphrase is a patchwork composed of pieces in the original author’s language... and pieces in [Peterson's] words, all rearranged into a new pattern, but with none of the borrowed pieces in quotation marks. Thus, even though[Peterson] acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as [Peterson's] own.

https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html


For reference, here's a link to my original post, documenting the plagiarism in the above entry:

viewtopic.php?p=1102029#p1102029


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:24 am 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:01 am
Posts: 6859
Lemmie wrote:
Note that Peterson has now added the following to his 10.23.17 blog entry, "What difference does Darwinism make?" again transforming his previously argued 'unintentional' plagiarism into intentional plagiarism:
Quote:
[These paraphrastic notes are drawn from an essay by Nancy Pearcey titled “”Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears,” which appeared as chapter 4 of Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William Dembski.]
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... kbjbrsB.99


Definition of mosaic plagiarism found in 'paraphrastic' notes, adapted for Peterson's example:
Quote:
Why [what Peterson is now euphemistically calling "paraphrastic notes", previously published as written by him, are STILL] plagiarism:

This paraphrase is a patchwork composed of pieces in the original author’s language... and pieces in [Peterson's] words, all rearranged into a new pattern, but with none of the borrowed pieces in quotation marks. Thus, even though[Peterson] acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as [Peterson's] own.

https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html


For reference, here's a link to my original post, documenting the plagiarism in the above entry:

viewtopic.php?p=1102029#p1102029


This would be embarrassing for a lay person to be caught doing, for a BYU Professor to be at it...well, Wow, just Wow. You’ve even made it easy for him to correct and he STILL won’t make it right. Truly staggering and utterly rebuts any defence of unintentionality that Jesse Pinkman has tried to suggest.

What is wrong with him?

How does he retain any credibility in the classroom or on the staff?

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:55 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 6:58 pm
Posts: 2461
Quote:
Malkie:
"Think how nasty DCP was towards Blair Hodges, for example. And Hodges strikes me as someone who actually and sincerely cares about things like academic integrity and scholarly ethics. Will he (or someone like him) look at this and decide to act?"

I suspect that if Blair does decide to act, it will not be an act of revenge for nastiness. I think he's more classy than that.

I completely agree with that. I actually miss Blair posting here. I very much doubt he will act on anything from the thread here. If he even still reads here.

_________________
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?

"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MormonDiscussions.com.

Music is my drug of choice.

"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MormonDiscussions.com
_________________


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:01 am 
High Priest

Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 12:21 pm
Posts: 376
Morley wrote:

Actually, it's common practice, for a variety of reasons.


Sure the Light of Christ is in us all; thus making it common practice. I get that. I've said that before, but feeling too lazy to cite it. Guess the devil's working within me now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:02 am 
2nd Quorum of Seventy

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:45 am
Posts: 690
Lemmie wrote:
Note that Peterson has now added the following to his 10.23.17 blog entry, "What difference does Darwinism make?" again transforming his previously argued 'unintentional' plagiarism into intentional plagiarism:
Quote:
[These paraphrastic notes are drawn from an essay by Nancy Pearcey titled “”Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears,” which appeared as chapter 4 of Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William Dembski.]
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... kbjbrsB.99

Definition of mosaic plagiarism found in 'paraphrastic' notes, adapted for Peterson's example:
Quote:
Why [what Peterson is now euphemistically calling "paraphrastic notes", previously published as written by him, are STILL] plagiarism:

This paraphrase is a patchwork composed of pieces in the original author’s language... and pieces in [Peterson's] words, all rearranged into a new pattern, but with none of the borrowed pieces in quotation marks. Thus, even though[Peterson] acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as [Peterson's] own.

https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html

For reference, here's a link to my original post, documenting the plagiarism in the above entry:

viewtopic.php?p=1102029#p1102029

I agree.

Here's a revised template for Dr. Peterson's use:
Quote:
These [select the most accurate description of the nature of your silently taken notes: rough/ extremely rough/ unbelievably rough/ rough-and-tumble/ chopped/ raw and largely unprocessed / somewhat processed/ largely processed/ diced/ minced/ puréed/ paraphrastic /closely paraphrased / very closely paraphrased/ plagiarized] notes are drawn from a[n] [insert one and only one of the following adjectives: awesome/ banner/ brilliant/ classic/ dope/ dynamite/ estimable/ fabulous/ fantastic/ first-rate/ hype/ incomparable/ incredible/ indispensable/ inestimable/ inimitable/ intriguing/ irreplaceable/ invaluable/ keen/ landmark/ magisterial/ marvelous/ redoubtable/ remarkable/ savage/ splendid/ superb/ terrific/ top-notch/ tremendous/ wonderful] [insert appropriate category of work from which your notes were silently taken, e.g.: essay/ article/ monograph/ book/ tome/ magnum opus] by [insert name of author or authors from whose work your notes were silently taken] titled “[insert title of work from which your notes were silently taken]."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:31 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:15 am
Posts: 2923
Location: OreIda
Dupe Cut Pasterson makes useless attempt to clean up his mess.

https://youtu.be/gpnQNB4Y4rU

_________________
aka Pokatator joined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:25 am 
2nd Quorum of Seventy

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:45 am
Posts: 690
DrW wrote:
The main problem with DCP's engagement with science is that he often cites, and sides with, anti-science religionists ranging from pseudoscientific "experts" with Ph.D.s, to out and out crackpots such as those associated with Ken Ham or the Discovery Institute.

This cadre of anti-evolution young earth creationists, intelligent designers, quantum mechanical mis-interpreters, dowsing adherents, cosmological fine tuners, and other assorted denizens of the anti-science / pseudoscience fringe get more play on Sic et Non than Elvis Presley on payola radio.

The fact that DCP searches out and cites these kinds of wingnut sources is a clear indication that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, or that he is intentionally misrepresenting science in order to meet his perceived obligations as an apologist. Unlike religion, science is not whatever one happens to believe. Modern science is what remains as reality whether one decides to believe it or not.

DCP is doing his undiscriminating readers a great disservice. He is either lying to them about objective scientific facts, or he is a pretender completely unqualified to be commenting at all, or both.

Either way, following DCP and Sic et Non on science is about as useful as following Bernie Madoff on personal finance.

I've found that one of his recent newspaper columns, "Defending the Faith: The miracle of Thanksgiving pies," Deseret News, Nov. 23, 2017, parrots cosmic fine-tuning arguments made by others. Peterson has cited sources in some Deseret News columns he's written or co-written (see, e.g., here, here and here), but Peterson does not cite any in his Thanksgiving column.

Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books), 183, 185:
Quote:
Consider also the strength of gravity. Shortly after the big bang occurred, the matter in the universe was randomly distributed. There were no stars, planets or galaxies—just atoms swirling about in the dark void of space. As the universe expanded, gravity pulled ever so gently on the atoms, gathering them into clumps that eventually became stars and galaxies. But gravity had to have just the right strength—if it was a bit stronger, it would have pulled all the atoms together into one big ball. The big bang—and our future prospects—would have ended quickly in a big crunch. And if gravity were a bit weaker, the rapidly expanding universe would have distributed the atoms so widely they would never have been gathered into stars and galaxies. Without stable stars like our sun, there cannot be solar systems where life can flourish. The strength of gravity has to be exactly as it is for stars to form.

But what do we mean by “exactly”? Well, it turns out that if we change gravity by even a tiny fraction of a percent—enough so that you would be, say, one billionth of a gram heavier or lighter when you get on the bathroom scale—the universe becomes so different that there are no stars, galaxies or planets. And no planets implies no life. . . .

Another initial condition in the finely tuned universe model was the density of the universe. In order to develop in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of this density must have been so great that a change of one part in 10[^]15 (i.e., 0.0000000000001 percent) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded person choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

9 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), pp. 72-73. Specific numbers were taken from appendix A in John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale, Questions of Truth (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).

Peterson:
Quote:
If, for example, gravity differed even slightly — making you weigh a billionth of a gram more or less than you do — or if the universe’s expansion rate were even slightly slower or faster, or if the overall density of the cosmos varied by as little as 0.0000000000001 percent — roughly the same precision required for a blindfolded man to choose a single predesignated coin from a pile of pennies sufficient to pay off the national debt of the United States — either a “Big Crunch” would shortly have followed the Big Bang or, alternatively, atoms would have scattered so widely that neither galaxies, stars, planets nor apples could have formed.


Last edited by Tom on Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:05 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 6291
Back to the topic:
Tom wrote:
I've found that one of his recent newspaper columns, "Defending the Faith: The miracle of Thanksgiving pies," Deseret News, Nov. 23, 2017, parrots cosmic fine-tuning arguments made by others. Peterson has cited sources in some Deseret News columns he's written or co-written (see, e.g., here, here and here), but Peterson does not cite any in his Thanksgiving column.

Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books), 183, 185:
Quote:
Consider also the strength of gravity. Shortly after the big bang occurred, the matter in the universe was randomly distributed. There were no stars, planets or galaxies—just atoms swirling about in the dark void of space. As the universe expanded, gravity pulled ever so gently on the atoms, gathering them into clumps that eventually became stars and galaxies. But gravity had to have just the right strength—if it was a bit stronger, it would have pulled all the atoms together into one big ball. The big bang—and our future prospects—would have ended quickly in a big crunch. And if gravity were a bit weaker, the rapidly expanding universe would have distributed the atoms so widely they would never have been gathered into stars and galaxies. Without stable stars like our sun, there cannot be solar systems where life can flourish. The strength of gravity has to be exactly as it is for stars to form.

But what do we mean by “exactly”? Well, it turns out that if we change gravity by even a tiny fraction of a percent—enough so that you would be, say, one billionth of a gram heavier or lighter when you get on the bathroom scale—the universe becomes so different that there are no stars, galaxies or planets. And no planets implies no life. . . .

Another initial condition in the finely tuned universe model was the density of the universe. In order to develop in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of this density must have been so great that a change of one part in 10[^]15 (i.e., 0.0000000000001 percent) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded person choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

9 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), pp. 72-73. Specific numbers were taken from appendix A in John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale, Questions of Truth (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).

Peterson:
Quote:
If, for example, gravity differed even slightly — making you weigh a billionth of a gram more or less than you do — or if the universe’s expansion rate were even slightly slower or faster, or if the overall density of the cosmos varied by as little as 0.0000000000001 percent — roughly the same precision required for a blindfolded man to choose a single predesignated coin from a pile of pennies sufficient to pay off the national debt of the United States — either a “Big Crunch” would shortly have followed the Big Bang or, alternatively, atoms would have scattered so widely that neither galaxies, stars, planets nor apples could have formed.

What are the odds that both Peterson and the other author would each come up with the same analogy, independently, involving blindfolds, pennies, and the US National Debt? Let's see how he will handle this one.

It is telling that Peterson only corrects his plagiarism when it is discovered by someone else. He knows there are many, many more, is he going to wait until each one is discovered to give credit to all of the authors whose intellectual property he has plagiarized?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 14206
Lemmie,

I'm up to now FIVE Deseret News articles where there is undeniable, irrefutable evidence of plagiarism. I've decided not to post them here because I'm genuinely curious if he'll correct his, uh, mistakes OR if DN editors care enough to conduct a review and correct any, uh, mistakes.

- Doc


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:13 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:01 am
Posts: 6859
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Lemmie,

I'm up to now FIVE Deseret News articles where there is undeniable, irrefutable evidence of plagiarism. I've decided not to post them here because I'm genuinely curious if he'll correct his, uh, mistakes OR if DN editors care enough to conduct a review and correct any, uh, mistakes.

- Doc


Which makes Jesse Pinkman’s arguments even more laughable than they already were.

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:16 pm 
God

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:01 am
Posts: 6859
Lemmie wrote:
It is telling that Peterson only corrects his plagiarism when it is discovered by someone else. He knows there are many, many more, is he going to wait until each one is discovered to give credit to all of the authors whose intellectual property he has plagiarized?


Yep.

I think you guys may have laid bare, a serial plagiarist who’s been passing others work off as his own for a long, long, time.

_________________
“A reliable way to make people believe in falsehoods is frequent repetition, because familiarity is not easily distinguished from truth. Authoritarian institutions and marketers have always known this fact.”
― Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize Winner, 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'


Last edited by I have a question on Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:04 am
Posts: 3962
Location: Firmly on this earth
Dr.W wrote:
The main problem with DCP's engagement with science is that he often cites, and sides with, anti-science religionists ranging from pseudoscientific "experts" with Ph.D.s, to out and out crackpots such as those associated with Ken Ham or the Discovery Institute.

This cadre of anti-evolution young earth creationists, intelligent designers, quantum mechanical mis-interpreters, dowsing adherents, cosmological fine tuners, and other assorted denizens of the anti-science / pseudoscience fringe get more play on Sic et Non than Elvis Presley on payola radio.

The fact that DCP searches out and cites these kinds of wingnut sources is a clear indication that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, or that he is intentionally misrepresenting science in order to meet his perceived obligations as an apologist. Unlike religion, science is not whatever one happens to believe. Modern science is what remains as reality whether one decides to believe it or not.

What else is fascinating is how all his other readers simply fall at his feet in adulation of it. I mean, seriously, does anyone read anymore?! I have taken him to task on this numerous times here on this board (in fact, it bores the hell out of us, but ought not to, it ought to galvanize us actually) for just that one sided enlightening without actual context (which means the OTHER side - duh!). If a scientist is a Christian, Peterson will be there. No matter how idiotic their reasoning or evidence is, Peterson will be there. He doesn't think through things himself, he finds a way to bolster Mormonism with non-Mormons (the mirage of being objectively credible), and it actually works with the majority of Mormons familiar with him and his writings! When he used Ehrman as a basis of his agnosticism yet believing in a historical Jesus, I threw the book at him! And I think justifiably. Ehrman's Jesus would never correlate to the invention of Mormonism's Jesus, historical, theological, philosophical or otherwise. Ehrman's vast majority of research destroys the Mormon authors' views of Jesus, be they from the BYU Studies group, the FARMS group, or the General Conference group of geriatrics running the show. But hey! Ehrman still supports Mormonism!

It's stupidity like this that makes Peterson fascinating. His own intelligence is his own enemy and he cannot see the forest for the trees. His bias runs rough shod over everything that might make Joseph Smith look like a complete dolt, and there is much! His ignoring the obvious is the other side of the coin of him using only biased materials which might make Mormonism a smidgin more acceptable.

_________________
"Scientism as a criticism most often is leveled by someone who wants to suggest dogmatic, unthinking devotion to science as a strawman criticism of someone deploying science against something they'd prefer to believe." - EAllusion


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:54 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 6291
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Lemmie,

I'm up to now FIVE Deseret News articles where there is undeniable, irrefutable evidence of plagiarism. I've decided not to post them here because I'm genuinely curious if he'll correct his, uh, mistakes OR if DN editors care enough to conduct a review and correct any, uh, mistakes.

- Doc

I'm curious too, Doc, what the DN policy is these days. Someone referenced when the Eyres were caught plagiarizing in their DesNews column, IIRC, the DesNews reported that in response they went back and reviewed some 200 or so columns for plagiarism.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:05 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:15 am
Posts: 2923
Location: OreIda
Looks like the integrity of DN, BYU, Pasterson's associates are likely to be called into question. They would all be wise to open an investigation and get this mess cleaned up ASAP. Pasterson isn't going to do it, in my not so humble opinion.

_________________
aka Pokatator joined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 1:13 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:19 pm
Posts: 9765
Location: Multiverse
Philo Sofee wrote:
Dr.W wrote:
The main problem with DCP's engagement with science is that he often cites, and sides with, anti-science religionists ranging from pseudoscientific "experts" with Ph.D.s, to out and out crackpots such as those associated with Ken Ham or the Discovery Institute.

This cadre of anti-evolution young earth creationists, intelligent designers, quantum mechanical mis-interpreters, dowsing adherents, cosmological fine tuners, and other assorted denizens of the anti-science / pseudoscience fringe get more play on Sic et Non than Elvis Presley on payola radio.

The fact that DCP searches out and cites these kinds of wingnut sources is a clear indication that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, or that he is intentionally misrepresenting science in order to meet his perceived obligations as an apologist. Unlike religion, science is not whatever one happens to believe. Modern science is what remains as reality whether one decides to believe it or not.


What else is fascinating is how all his other readers simply fall at his feet in adulation of it. I mean, seriously, does anyone read anymore?! I have taken him to task on this numerous times here on this board (in fact, it bores the hell out of us, but ought not to, it ought to galvanize us actually) for just that one sided enlightening without actual context (which means the OTHER side - duh!). If a scientist is a Christian, Peterson will be there. No matter how idiotic their reasoning or evidence is, Peterson will be there. He doesn't think through things himself, he finds a way to bolster Mormonism with non-Mormons (the mirage of being objectively credible), and it actually works with the majority of Mormons familiar with him and his writings! When he used Ehrman as a basis of his agnosticism yet believing in a historical Jesus, I threw the book at him! And I think justifiably. Ehrman's Jesus would never correlate to the invention of Mormonism's Jesus, historical, theological, philosophical or otherwise. Ehrman's vast majority of research destroys the Mormon authors' views of Jesus, be they from the BYU Studies group, the FARMS group, or the General Conference group of geriatrics running the show. But hey! Ehrman still supports Mormonism!

It's stupidity like this that makes Peterson fascinating. His own intelligence is his own enemy and he cannot see the forest for the trees. His bias runs rough shod over everything that might make Joseph Smith look like a complete dolt, and there is much! His ignoring the obvious is the other side of the coin of him using only biased materials which might make Mormonism a smidgin more acceptable.

Nibley offered a security blanket to TBMs. DCP has taken up that role. Never mind that the blanket is threadbare, unraveling and obviously useless. Never mind that the blanket often seems equally a veil for concealing the truths that expose the fraud of the "Lord's Anointed." Never mind it's also a veil between the believer and the frightening necessity of growing up and becoming an adult in the world, responsible for your own thoughts and identity rather than forever remaining an obedient embryo encapsulated in a corporate cult. Never mind.

_________________
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

--Martin Luther King, Jr.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism
PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 10:27 am 
2nd Quorum of Seventy

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:45 am
Posts: 690
Lemmie wrote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Lemmie,

I'm up to now FIVE Deseret News articles where there is undeniable, irrefutable evidence of plagiarism. I've decided not to post them here because I'm genuinely curious if he'll correct his, uh, mistakes OR if DN editors care enough to conduct a review and correct any, uh, mistakes.

- Doc

I'm curious too, Doc, what the DN policy is these days. Someone referenced when the Eyres were caught plagiarizing in their DesNews column, IIRC, the DesNews reported that in response they went back and reviewed some 200 or so columns for plagiarism.

Some relevant links regarding the Eyres:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765 ... tml?pg=all

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765 ... plete.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 194 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: krose, Physics Guy and 23 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group