Discussion of the ''DCP / plagiarism'' thread

[_Jesse Pinkman]

We're up to what? Three pheughk yews now? I feel like JP is handing out f-yous like Oprah hands out cars...

ANYWAY.

Can a brutha get himself sum more of dat plagiarism? It's funner to out Plagiarizin' Peterson than to figure out JP's latest post.

- Doc

You read my mind Doc! I realized that earlier in the thread, i said to Jesse Pinkman that Peterson had plagiarized twice from Pearcey's Chapter, "Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears," but that I hadn't provided documentation for that other Pearcey plagiarization, so here you go:

Peterson posted a log entry on October 23, 2017, entitled:
What difference does Darwinism make?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... 3585799864

which is lifted almost in its entirety from Pearcey's chapter 4 in the book Uncommon Dissent:
"Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears."

This blog entry has 6 paragraphs, starting with paragraph 1:

From another of those manuscripts, some notes in a fairly raw state:

He starts off easy in paragraph two, taking Pearcey's ideas but adding some words of his own:

Why does the public care so passionately about a theory of biology? Because people sense intuitively that there’s much more at stake than a scientific theory.

and Peterson's version:

Why does the public care so much about Darwinism and evolution?  Nobody becomes exercised over quantum mechanics, the role of chlorophyll in photosynthesis, or general relativity.  It is because Darwinism is not merely a theory in biology but a world view, with profound implications for our understanding of our own nature and for our sense of our relationship to the universe.  Whether they can articulate this or not, most people grasp it intuitively.  And they are entirely right.

paragraph 3 to the end, however, are directly and completely plagiarized from Pearcey:

John Dewey penned a famous essay called “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” where he announced that Darwinism had given rise to a “new logic to apply to mind and morals and life.”38

In an essay entitled “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” the famous American philosopher John Dewey declared that Darwinism had given rise to a “new logic to apply to mind and morals and life.”[1]

As one leader in the Ohio controversy put it, “A naturalistic definition of science has the effect of indoctrinating students into a naturalistic worldview.”1

As a participant in the textbook wars relating to evolution has expressed it, “A naturalistic definition of science has the effect of indoctrinating students into a naturalistic worldview.”[2] 

In fact, Darwinian naturalism is being targeted to even younger children. A few years ago, I picked up a book for my little boy called 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 the indoctrination has not remained confined to school curricula.  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]

"The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another," the great zoologist Ernst Mayr once
said, "but rather the replacement of a worldview, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new worldview in which there was no room for supernatural forces."34

“The Darwinian revolution,” wrote the famous zoologist Ernst Mayr, “was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, but rather the replacement of a worldview, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new worldview in which there was no room for supernatural forces.” [4]

When Darwin's theory was accepted in biology, says historian Edward Purcell, its broader implication was understood to be a new theory of knowledge generally. People working in fields outside of science—the soc'al sclences, law, and politics—came to see that Darwinism implied "a wholly naturalistic and empirically orientcd world view." In this worldview, theological dogmas became "at worst totally fraudulent and at best merely symbolic of deep human aspirations." 36

As historian Edward Purcell notes, people working in subject areas far afield from biology soon came to understand that Darwinism implied “a wholly naturalistic and empirically oriented world view” in which theological doctrines were to be viewed as “at worst totally fraudulent and at best merely symbolic of deep human aspirations.”[5]
 

how can this possibly be seen as unintentional plagiarism? This is intentional.

I agree that he should have credited Pearcey in this. I’m not seeing where he did. He does footnote everything else. I would attribute this to carelessness, but I understand where you are coming from with this. I think it comes down to what kind of a person you think DCP is. Obviously, a lot of folks here don’t like him. He is no angel. He has managed to piss off a lot of people, including me at times. Dan told me himself that he has feared being caught up in unintentional plagiarism because he tends to take quick notes on different articles and doesn’t always write down the origin he has taken notes from. It looks like that is what has happened here. It isn’t an excuse. Obviously, Dan needs to be a lot more careful in his documentation of sources. But I see it more as an example of rushed, careless writing rather than true intentional plagiarism. He should have taken the time to find the name of the article he took notes from and attributed the author for the work.

Again, I have never stated that Dan wasn’t guilty of plagiarism. My argument is whether or not his plagiarism was intentional. I know that most here see this as intentional. I do not. And hopefully, if Dan is reported to either BYU or Deseret News for this, they will not see it as intentional either.

ETA-What I will suggest to Dan, is to take a look at this thread. Lemmie, you have actually done a lot of homework for him. It would be easy enough for him to go back through the articles he has written and add in the sources you have cited that were omitted.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Ironically, Lemmie, you may have actually done DCP a kindness in pointing out these articles, sources and all. It gives him the opportunity to go back into those articles and add the missing sources.

[_Ceeboo]

Dear Jessie,

It is really starting to get painful to witness this.
Would you consider allowing me to rescue you from this raging inferno that you continue to place yourself in?

You need not do this Jessie.
It isn't possible for anything to be more crystal clear than this.

I understand and appreciate that he is your friend - but the friendship that you both share has exactly nothing to do with any of this. Nothing.

I hope you take this the way I intended.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ironically, Lemmie, you may have actually done DCP a kindness in pointing out these articles, sources and all. It gives him the opportunity to go back into those articles and add the missing sources.

Well. He's going to have to go back through virtually everything he's posted online, published online, and published in print because what you're tepidly acknowledging is what he's done SINCE FOREVER.

eta: Can you imagine being a student of his and say, you wrote something insightful or pithy, you get your grade and move on, and then a few months or years down the road you see something he published that you know, you know you wrote, but there's really no way to prove it? How would you feel? Now just imagine you're a colleague and he does this to you? Outright theft of your intellectual property? What happens when you're a professional and this comes out that he's routinely pilfered your ideas and wrote them out as his own? What if you had put years of study into a particular article or book and he just swoops in, copies and pastes, adds or subtracts a few words or thoughts, and then publishes it? What if it elevates his career while you languish relatively unknown and uncompensated?

The fact that you're so cavalier about his actions is mind boggling and disappointing.

- Doc

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Dear Jessie,

It is really starting to get painful to witness this.
Would you consider allowing me to rescue you from this raging inferno that you continue to place yourself in?

You need not do this Jessie.
It isn't possible for anything to be more crystal clear than this.

I understand and appreciate that he is your friend - but the friendship that you both share has exactly nothing to do with any of this. Nothing.

I hope you take this the way I intended.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Thanks, Ceeboo. I've basically stated my position in all of this.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Ironically, Lemmie, you may have actually done DCP a kindness in pointing out these articles, sources and all. It gives him the opportunity to go back into those articles and add the missing sources.

Well. He's going to have to go back through virtually everything he's posted online, published online, and published in print because what you're tepidly acknowledging is what he's done SINCE FOREVER.

eta: Can you imagine being a student of his and say, you wrote something insightful or pithy, you get your grade and move on, and then a few months or years down the road you see something he published that you know, you know you wrote, but there's really no way to prove it? How would you feel? Now just imagine you're a colleague and he does this to you? Outright theft of your intellectual property? What happens when you're a professional and this comes out that he's routinely pilfered your ideas and wrote them out as his own? What if you had put years of study into a particular article or book and he just swoops in, copies and pastes, adds or subtracts a few words or thoughts, and then publishes it? What if it elevates his career while you languish relatively unknown and uncompensated?

The fact that you're so cavalier about his actions is mind boggling and disappointing.

- Doc

First of all, you are creating scenarios which you cannot prove happened. I understand your point, Doc, and I'm not being cavalier. I have acknowledged that he needs to fix the problem. Again, I'm unclear of what you are expecting from me.

[_Tator]

Ironically, Lemmie, you may have actually done DCP a kindness in pointing out these articles, sources and all. It gives him the opportunity to go back into those articles and add the missing sources.

Personally, I don't think Pasterson's ego will allow him to take that opportunity.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

First of all, you are creating scenarios which you cannot prove happened. I understand your point, Doc, and I'm not being cavalier. I have acknowledged that he needs to fix the problem. Again, I'm unclear of what you are expecting from me.

Have some integrity? Stop defending a thief? Stop shaming people who point out robberies as the problem?

- Doc

[_I have a question]

Here’s what should happen.

1. Friend A draws Friend B’s attention to Friend B’s unintentional plagiarism.
2. Friend B is horrified by his own shoddiness and immediately corrects unintentional plagiarism, all unintentional plagiarism.
3. Friend B passes on his gratitude via Friend A to the person who has pointed out the unintentional plagiarism.
4. Friend B commits to checking his work going forward, all his work, to avoid more unintentional plagiarism.
5. Friend A volunteers to check friend B’s work to avoid future unintentional plagiarism incidents.
6. Friend B is so committed to correcting his own shoddiness he gratefully accepts Friend A’s offer.
7. No more incidents of unintentional plagiarism get published by Friend B because both he and Friend A have thoroughly checked before publication.

What are the odds?

Well, not that good. Because this isn’t Friend B’s first rodeo...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromo ... ng-defeat/

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Here’s what should happen.

1. Friend A draws Friend B’s attention to Friend B’s unintentional plagiarism.
2. Friend B is horrified by his own shoddiness and immediately corrects unintentional plagiarism, all unintentional plagiarism.
3. Friend B passes on his gratitude via Friend A to the person who has pointed out the unintentional plagiarism.
4. Friend B commits to checking his work going forward, all his work, to avoid more unintentional plagiarism.
5. Friend A volunteers to check friend B’s work to avoid future unintentional plagiarism incidents.
6. Friend B is so committed to correcting his own shoddiness he gratefully accepts Friend A’s offer.
7. No more incidents of unintentional plagiarism get published by Friend B because both he and Friend A have thoroughly checked before publication.

What are the odds?

Well, not that good. Because this isn’t Friend B’s first rodeo...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithpromo ... ng-defeat/

It's not even Friend B's 10th rodeo. Friend B has even been forced to go on record several times and attempt to explain/apologize for his plagarism:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... today.html