DiscussMormonism.com

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:50 pm

I put up my post 50 minutes ago. If my calculation of the time differences is correct, DCP wrote that excuse/paragraph and added it to his blog entry about 25 minutes after I posted.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:50 pm

That was quick. The first paragraph below was just inserted at the beginning of Peterson's plagiarized blog entry:

Some Notes On “Fine-Tuning” And The Multiverse
LAST UPDATED ON: MARCH 13, 2024 AT 1:27 PM
MARCH 12, 2024 BY DAN PETERSON
5 COMMENTS

The following is basically a close paraphrase (for my note-taking purposes) of “A Beginner’s Guide to the ‘Fine-Tuning’ Argument” by Max Baker-Hytch of the University of Oxford. As always with such notes, I make no claim of originality for what follows but share them because, while I’m taking notes for my own eventual use elsewhere, I think others might find them of potential interest. I do not claim entries on this blog as publications of mine:

Over the past few decades — I, at least, certainly didn’t notice such claims when I was in high school....

I put up my post 50 minutes ago. If my calculation of the time differences is correct, DCP wrote that excuse/paragraph and added it to his blog entry about 25 minutes after I posted.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:50 pm

That was quick. The first paragraph below was just inserted at the beginning of Peterson's plagiarized blog entry:

Some Notes On “Fine-Tuning” And The Multiverse
LAST UPDATED ON: MARCH 13, 2024 AT 1:27 PM
MARCH 12, 2024 BY DAN PETERSON
5 COMMENTS

The following is basically a close paraphrase (for my note-taking purposes) of “A Beginner’s Guide to the ‘Fine-Tuning’ Argument” by Max Baker-Hytch of the University of Oxford. As always with such notes, I make no claim of originality for what follows but share them because, while I’m taking notes for my own eventual use elsewhere, I think others might find them of potential interest. I do not claim entries on this blog as publications of mine:

Over the past few decades — I, at least, certainly didn’t notice such claims when I was in high school....

I put up my post 50 minutes ago. If my calculation of the time differences is correct, DCP wrote that excuse/paragraph and added it to his blog entry about 25 minutes after I posted.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:00 pm

In 2020, Max Baker-Hytch published a piece in Solas Articles, titled
A Beginner’s Guide to the Fine-Tuning Argument.

Here's the full reference:
A Beginner’s Guide to the Fine-Tuning Argument
Author Max Baker-Hytch Date Published 24th February 2020
https://www.solas-cpc.org/a-beginners-g ... -argument/

Max's first paragraph seems familiar...

MB-H wrote: In the past few decades a broad consensus has emerged among physicists that a number of aspects of the physical cosmos appear to be ‘fine-tuned’ for life, which is to say, various aspects of its basic structure and of the fundamental laws that govern it are balanced on a knife-edge. If any of them had differed by only a very tiny amount, the universe would not have been capable of supporting life at all. Some of these ‘fine-tuned’ features of the universe are such that had they differed only very slightly, the universe would not even have contained galaxies and stars, let alone complex conscious creatures like ourselves

Which could be because Peterson published a very similar piece on March 12, 2024. (And by very similar I mean virtually word for word, with identical ideas, thought development and references.)

Peterson's blog entry:

Some Notes On “Fine-Tuning” And The Multiverse
LAST UPDATED ON: MARCH 12, 2024 AT 10:46 PM
MARCH 12, 2024 BY DAN PETERSON
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... verse.html

DCP's first paragraph is compared to MB-H, with his words and phrases in blue...



I am relatively new here. Is he aware of these connections? If so how does he reconcile this with scholarship? Is he operating on a different paradigm when blogging? Does he think it fools people? I don't get the motivation.

_Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 22, 2019 10:05 pm

If any of the academics want to pull his dissertation and shoot it to me I'll give it a hard look for any instances of plagiarism. Your anonymity is, of course, sacrosanct.

LD791.9.N3 P442
Peterson, Daniel Carl, 1953-
Cosmogony and the ten separated intellects in the Rāḥat al-ʻAql of Ḥamīd al-Dīn al-Kirmānī / by Daniel Carl Peterson.
1990

- Doc

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 11:24 pm

Goddamn Dan, seriously?! You didn't do this as editor of the FARMS Review, why now?!? It's patently idiotic of you. And its SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO easy to see you continuing to do it over and over. Don't you honestly get it???

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 9:44 pm

What a fine job you did, Marcus. Perfectly structured. DCP is a plagiarist and a fraud.

- Doc

drumdude wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 10:40 pm

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:50 pm

I put up my post 50 minutes ago. If my calculation of the time differences is correct, DCP wrote that excuse/paragraph and added it to his blog entry about 25 minutes after I posted.

Bravo, Marcus!

Tom wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2024 12:11 am

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:50 pm

That was quick. The first paragraph below was just inserted at the beginning of Peterson's plagiarized blog entry:



I put up my post 50 minutes ago. If my calculation of the time differences is correct, DCP wrote that excuse/paragraph and added it to his blog entry about 25 minutes after I posted.

Basically a close paraphrase? A close paraphrase doesn’t contain entire phrases and full sentences copied from the original. Did he miss paraphrasing exercises in high school?

I noticed that the Proprietor has edited his explanation to describe his post as “basically a close paraphrase or a gloss” (emphasis added). A gloss?