Discussion of the ''DCP / plagiarism'' thread

[_Dr Exiled]

Perhaps there is a little Trump or Al Gore in DCP? Public figures like these two tend to be full of themselves and overenthusiastic in their self-congratulations. Trump likes to take credit for what others do and Gore famously tried to take credit for inventing the internet. DCP has gladly taken the role the apostles refuse to do, that of day to day defender. It is so obvious that the church isn't what it claims that it forces apologists to defend no matter what, even if the apology is so obviously wrong. They have to lie to themselves continually in order to remain sane and so I can see where someone like that, who forces a positive self-view on himself, would have a tendency to think other's thoughts are actually his own thoughts. Or that person could justify the plagiarism lie in order to prop up his own grandiosity as his reputation and the church's are equated in his mind.

[_Lemmie]

Kish mentioned something in an earlier post about the actual work product that I found interesting. Kish mentioned that it appeared obvious that Dan had an overall lack of knowledge when it came to the scientific subject he was writing on. I believe that is true, which is why, I’m sure, he took so many notes from other authors.

i think you are referring to DrW's excellent post where he looks beyond the plagiarism to an even more serious issue:

The example cited here highlights a problem with DCP's work product that, to me at least, is more disturbing than his plagiarism - which is plenty disturbing in and of itself.

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.

[Guest]

Accusing Dr. Peterson of not being a scientist and explaining science is one thing.

Making anonymous accusations of plagiarism is another. I don't see it. Scholars use, paraphrase and quote others all the time. Common phrases in academia are not subject to plagiarism. Common concepts the same. We use software to detect plagiarism for copyright work; none of this would fly here.

In particular, I condemn the academics on this board who pile on. You know, [deleted], who you are. Whom, whatever.

As I pointed out when Board started making these accusations, the OP perversely failed to quote Dr. Peterson's statements accurately to make them appear more likely to have been plagiarized. Bad scene. Sloppy at best, malicious at worst. The fact that you anonymous cowards don't care about the quality of Tom's opening post - well.

[_Lemmie]

The only thing I can think of as far as his mindset is that since this is a blog he is posting on, it is less formal than a full-fledged article published for the School, or a literary publication that folks actually pay for. The reason I mention this is because he brought it up himself in one of his Mea Cupla articles.

Maybe he doesn’t feel that his documentation has to be as formal due to the nature of this being a blog. Therefore, it doesn’t have to follow all of the standardized rules.

From page one of this thread:

And in case DCP argues his blog doesn't count, the BYU definition is pretty inclusive:

Plagiarism may occur with respect to unpublished as well as published material.

from the BYU Honor Code: https://registrar.BYU.edu/catalog/archi ... orCode.pdf

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The fact that you anonymous cowards don't care about the quality of Tom's opening post - well.

In light of Yahoo Bot's drive-by fatuousness I remind everyone who he is:

On a side note, Yahoo Bot is a total mystery to me. I literally have no idea how someone who can hold such insanely r******* opinions such as his and somehow do what he's done personally and professionally. It's amazing. Like. I feel like I'm watching a r******* leopard fall out of a tree right onto an antelope. He's a leopard. He clearly climbed the tree somehow. He fell onto an antelope. He's eating the now unconscious antelope. He's been nominated as Leopard of the Year now. Somehow he mated and made more leopards. But that leopard is r*******. You can see it. When it roars it oftens makes literal herpy derpy sounds. Its leopard eyes are all wonky. But there he is. Leopard of the ____ ing Year.

This world is really something...

- Doc

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Kish mentioned something in an earlier post about the actual work product that I found interesting. Kish mentioned that it appeared obvious that Dan had an overall lack of knowledge when it came to the scientific subject he was writing on. I believe that is true, which is why, I’m sure, he took so many notes from other authors.

I had not even read the articles mentioned before this thread appeared because the subject matter held little interest to me.

Going forward, I would definitely suggest that Dan stays away from topics that he has little or limited knowledge of in order to avoid getting caught in this kind of serious trap again.

Jesse,

In looking over the thread, I don't see where Kish mentioned anything like what you are attributing to him here.

Im so sorry, DrW, my memory is slipping. This thread is too long. LOL. It was you who made the comments I was thinking of involving work product. Here is the link:

viewtopic.php?p=1102213#p1102213

[_Lemmie]

As I pointed out when Board started making these accusations, the OP perversely failed to quote Dr. Peterson's statements accurately to make them appear more likely to have been plagiarized. Bad scene. Sloppy at best, malicious at worst. The fact that you anonymous cowards don't care about the quality of Tom's opening post - well.

Well, your credibility is definitely shot. Let's work backwards:

1)Tom is not the OP of this thread, I am.

2)Subsequent to the OP, you never pointed out I "perversely failed to quote Peterson's statements accurately." It would have been nonsensical to do so, because in my OP, I noted that Peterson starts with 2 Wikipedia quotes, and then I quoted the rest of his blog entry, fully and completely, which I show he plagiarized from Radin.

and last, the weirdest one of all,

3) Who is "Board," and when did "Board" start anything??

Accuracy is really not your thing, Yahoo.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

As I pointed out when Board started making these accusations, the OP perversely failed to quote Dr. Peterson's statements accurately to make them appear more likely to have been plagiarized. Bad scene. Sloppy at best, malicious at worst. The fact that you anonymous cowards don't care about the quality of Tom's opening post - well.

Well, your credibility is definitely shot. Let's work backwards:

1)Tom is not the OP of this thread, I am.

2)Subsequent to the OP, you never pointed out I "perversely failed to quote Peterson's statements accurately." It would have been nonsensical to do so, because in my OP, I noted that Peterson starts with 2 Wikipedia quotes, and then I quoted the rest of his blog entry, fully and completely, which I show he plagiarized from Radin.

and last, the weirdest one of all,

3) Who is "Board," and when did "Board" start anything??

Accuracy is really not your thing, Yahoo.

Just a guess, but I think he meant “the board” , as in, MDB in general. Yahoo Bot has had a long-time feud with the entire board here.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

For what it’s worth, I reported Bot’s post because he mentioned a poster’s in real life first name. I’m asking that the name be removed from the post. Maybe upon reading this, Bot will have the decency to edit the post himself.

[_Yahoo Bot]

[deleted] was his name he used here for more than a thousand posts. I have no clue what his ILN is. [deleted] was loyal to the Church; Kishkumen was not. Actually, Kishkumen started posting first. I was the one who detected they were one and the same.