DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[Guest]

Posting this here to document Peterson’s latest excuse (in a very, very long list of excuses) for his plagiarism:

Postscript: To ____ ______ and one or two of her associates, who eagerly scan these blog entries in hopes of finding evidence of plagiarism: The entries that I identify as “notes” are, as I say, notes. In the particular case above, they are notes from John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011). They are notes from that text. I do not count them as my original creation. I do not count them as a publication of mine. They are notes, of the kind that I would, in the old days, have written onto an index card or into a notebook for future use. I share them here because I think that some might find them of interest, and also because using them as blog entries gives me an incentive to extract them from my readings. (It’s plainly easier and faster to read and to mark passages than to copy out notes from those marked passages, but making double use of them [here currently, and as resource material for a planned future book] makes the task more agreeable to me.) Sometimes, as here, they will be all or mostly actual quotations. Some other times, they will all or mostly be my closely paraphrased jottings, or something in between the two.]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... nking.html
[also, excuse is also posted in ]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... oices.html

That extra work of typing in “ at the beginning and “ at the end of a quote is apparently exhausting. Although he manages to add color, bolding, and pages when he does quote, and he also goes to the trouble of rearranging words, adding and subtracting adjectives and adverbs, and rearranging sentences when he plagiarized, so with all that effort it seems pretty disingenuous for him to argue quoting properly is too much work.

[_Lemmie]

I have posted this explanation about what constitutes plagiarism before, but since Peterson seems to have decided it is time to start up his nasty habit again, I thought it was worth reposting:

[/i]
Why this is plagiarism:

This paraphrase is a patchwork composed of pieces in the original author’s language (in red) and pieces in the student-writer’s words, all rearranged into a new pattern, but with none of the borrowed pieces in quotation marks.

Thus, even though the writer acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as the student’s own.

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

[bolding added]

For a prime example of this, let’s look at one of Peterson’s recent posts, titled Correcting a basic mistake in neuroscience, or just committing one? posted APRIL 23, 2020 BY DAN PETERSON.
( link: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... g-one.html )

In this blog entry, Peterson is ostensibly reviewing and quoting from Douglas Fox, in Scientific American:

Dan Peterson:

I share some notes that I jotted down from Douglas Fox, “The Brain, Reimagined: Physicists who have revived experiments from 50 years ago say nerve cells communicate with mechanical pulses, not electric ones,” Scientific American (April 2018): 60-67:

Curiously, although physicians have been administering general anesthesia for nearly two centuries now, and although they have discovered dozens of different but effective anesthetic compounds, nobody actually knows exactly how anesthesia works. We know that they all shut down body and brain functions in the same order — memory formation first, then pain sensation, then consciousness and, ultimately, breathing — across all animal species, from flies to humans. But nitrous oxide , ether, sevoflurane, and xenon are so very different in their molecular structure that it seems highly unlikely that they function in the same way in their common effects.

Thomas Heimburg, a physicist at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen who trained in quantum mechanics and biophysics at the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chemistry in Göttingen, Germany, believes that anesthetics change the mechanical properties of nerves. What difference would that make? Writing for Scientific American, Douglas Fox says that,

You’ll notice the last two paragraphs are framed as a quote of Fox’s article in Scientific American. The problem is, in the two paragraphs before that, to use the words in my opening quote, are plagiarism because “ even though the writer acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as the student’s own.”

Let’s compare, starting with the source of Peterson’s first paragraph, which although it is touted as a review, is still represented as Peterson’s own work by omitting quotation marks. Or should I say, misrepresented. The original, from Fox’s article in SA:

Physicians have administered general anesthetics for 170 years. They have discovered dozens of effective compounds. When given at progressively higher doses, the drugs all silence nerve functions in the body and brain in the same distinct order: first memory formation, then pain sensation, then consciousness,and eventually breathing. This same sequence happens across all animals, from humans to flies.Yet no one knows how anesthesia actually works. The molecular structures of nitrous oxide, ether, sevoflurane and xenon are so different that it is unlikely they exert their common effects by binding to equivalent proteins in cells, as other drugs do.

And now, Peterson’s plagiarized paragraph:

Curiously, although physicians have been administering general anesthesia for nearly two centuries now, and although they have discovered dozens of different but effective anesthetic compounds, nobody actually knows exactly how anesthesia works. We know that they all shut down body and brain functions in the same order — memory formation first, then pain sensation, then consciousness and, ultimately, breathing — across all animal species, from flies to humans. But nitrous oxide , ether, sevoflurane, and xenon are so very different in their molecular structure that it seems highly unlikely that they function in the same way in their common effects.

I would continue on, but Peterson’s plagiarizing is so ubiquitous and so obvious that yet another proof, on top of the more than a dozen or so in this thread alone, doesn’t seem necessary. Suffice it to say, throughout this entire blog entry Peterson has blatantly stolen someone else’s intellectual property, yet again.

Peterson has now added an explanation for his plagiarism documented above:

[Postscript: To those who obsessively scan these entries seeking evidence of plagiarism against me: These are, as I said above, notes from Douglas Fox, “The Brain, Reimagined: Physicists who have revived experiments from 50 years ago say nerve cells communicate with mechanical pulses, not electric ones,” Scientific American (April 2018): 60-67. They are notes from that text. I do not count them as my original creation. I do not count them as a publication of mine. They are notes, of the kind that I would, in previous days, have written onto an index card or into a notebook. I share them because I think that some might find them of interest, and also because using them as blog entries gives me an incentive to extract them from my readings. It’s plainly easier and faster to read and to mark passages than to copy out notes of those marked passages, but making double use of them (here currently, and as resource material for a planned future book) makes the task more agreeable to me.]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... g-one.html

[_Dr Moore]

Wow, just wow. Some truly low lows by Dr. Peterson. Is he losing his mind? Who does he think he is, to outright doxx someone in blatant retribution for a legitimate, well-researched watchdog thread?

This is the kind of behavior that ruins careers -- straight up. BYU ought to have a zero-tolerance policy on such things.

[Guest]

In Peterson’s latest explanation of his plagiarism, in blog post titled: Correcting a basic mistake in neuroscience, or just committing one? he makes this curious statement:

Postscript: To those who obsessively scan these entries seeking evidence of plagiarism against me: These are, as I said above, notes from Douglas Fox.... They are notes from that text. I do not count them as my original creation. I do not count them as a publication of mine. They are notes...

If that is the case, why does he put quotation marks around only some of the paragraphs, and not all?

Also, if they are notes from someone else’s text and not his “original creation,” why does he carefully change a few synonyms, the order of a few lists and sentences, a verb tense here and there, and change or add a few adverbs and adjectives? If they are the “author’s words,” why is he doing anything other than quoting them?

These sophomoric efforts to disguise plagiarism are ridiculous.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

He always does this, though. He’ll make some half-assed attempts to ‘correct’ some blog entries, or he’ll go back and half-ass some citations on some articles, or he’ll go on the attack like he just did. I don’t know why he bothers. It’s not like BYU cares. It’s not like the Deseret News cares. He’s been getting away with this since, I suspect, at least his days in UCLA. WHATTYA WANNA BET HIS DISSERTATION IS PROBLEMATIC, RIGHT DAN?

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

:rolleyes:

[Postscript: To Mina Estevez and one or two of her associates, who eagerly scan these blog entries in hopes of finding evidence of plagiarism:

I can tell you without question that you have it exactly wrong, Daniel. I know for a solid fact that you're wrong. You're falling for the same crap as you did when you came up with the Chino Blanco accusation. How stupid are you?

You're dead wrong. You're dead dog wrong. Your dead dog is dead dog wrong.

You're one of the most gullible human beings I've ever seen on the boards.

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh, wow. He's making what I'm almost certain is a false accusation in an attempt to doxx someone.

It's false.

[_Dr Moore]

In case it's been a while since Dan bothered to attend a training seminar on academic integrity, including plagiarizing, the following resource may be a helpful refresher. It was written in 2012, same year he began blogging.

https://www.law.nova.edu/online/files/A ... ty2012.pdf

BYU's plagiarism standards are similar.

Does Dan wish to argue a position that plagiarism standards selectively apply to some settings, such as submission to a professional journal, and not in others, such as blogging? It would help if he'd clarify that position. (And, that position is easily proven erroneous today.)

Or does he seem to argue that he has never plagiarized? In which case, how does he explain his 1/1/2015 blog, labeling several paragraphs of text "my ongoing commentary" and then pasting someone else's written words with only minor edits?

I challenge Dan to set a higher standard for his students and peers by (a) requesting a thorough review of his blog writings for instances of plagiarizing, followed by (b) redaction or issuance of proper citations for plagiarized material.

The violations are there, and direct accusations have been made. What does he do? Pretend these are "personal attacks" as some twisted Clintonesque legalism? "No, President Worthen, I did not have plagiaristic relations with that website, BibleStudy.org."

This isn't a personal attack. Personal attacks are stupid. This is something far more serious -- accusation of a pattern of academic dishonesty. And the thread here has built up an impressive body of evidence, which I've only just now finished reading from start to finish (whew! and ewww!).

It might take a while, investigating and cleansing the record of more than 10,000 blog posts since 2012. But that IS the price of shortcutting, sorry to say. Meanwhile, Dan might consider simply removing his entire blog history until such time as he can confidently verify the absence of plagiarized content.

Would an honest professor wish to set any lower standard for students, peers and Saints?

Public figures always hate it when independent watchdog groups call them out for dishonest behavior. Kicking and screaming doesn't make the behavior any less dishonest. Do the right thing, Dan. Stop whining about the accusations and do something about the problem.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Lol. He actually plagiarized a Trip Advisor writeup for his ‘Stave’ post:

https://www.fjordnorway.com/things-to-d ... h-p1024333

“Built around 1180 and is dedicated to the Apostle Andrew. The church is exceptionally well preserved and is one of the most distinctive stave churches in Norway. Some of the finest features are the lavishly carved portals and the roof carvings of dragons's heads. The stavchurches are Norway's most important contribution to world architecture and Norway's oldest preserved timber buildings.”

Compare and contrast to this cut-paste-and-modified paragraph in his article:

“ The most famous, best preserved and most authentic of the remaining stave churches, though, is that of Borgund, which is not far from Urnes and, having been built and dedicated to St. Andrew the Apostle around A.D. 1150, is only slightly younger. With its carved portals and especially with the dragons that are carved on its gables, it is difficult to escape the impression that, notwithstanding its Christian dedication, one is looking at a building that is very closely related to the Viking age.”

You can see he lifted bits and pieces, as he does, from a few other sources, but you already knew that. So...

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

DanielPeterson Mod Moksha • 5 hours ago

If I quote directly and significantly from Wikipedia, I'll cite it as a source.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 4894811537

Well that’s a lie.