Peterson posts his plagiarized work-in-progress.

[_Lemmie]

Apparently, Symmachus got under DCP's skin:

One of my occasional critics recently pointed out, quite correctly, that I have absolutely nothing to say and that this blog is and has always been utterly bereft of ideas.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... 5uBY311.99

He responds by trying to prove he really has had ideas in the past. The consequences are disastrous.

Here, though, are some notes that I jotted down several years ago in one of my incomplete manuscripts:

One of his manuscripts? Or just notes? He does give a source at the bottom for some of the medical information, and another source as " ? " so it is hard to tell.

It does look like he put together an essay, the unfortunate part is that he seems to have plagiarized far too many parts of it directly from an op-ed piece published in the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer, dated July 15, 2002.

Right after one section of blatantly incorporating a full paragraph of Dr. K's work into his, DCP includes the footnote [1], which is listed as "?" at the bottom. The other seven or eight times he does it, there are no references. if he wants to pass off his work-in-progress as just notes from someone else's work, then he should give the source. if I can find it 15 years later with just a quick search, so can he.

It's one thing to just take notes, but DCP has clearly mixed much of Dr. K's piece into his writings and is passing his work and ideas off as his own.

And just in case DCP wants to argue that Mr. Krauthammer plagiarized him, note that the op-ed piece was published July 15, 2002; in his notes Peterson referenced July 22, 2002 as the date he checked the medical article. Additionally, that medical article he referenced was published July 17, 2002:

Risks and Benefits of Estrogen Plus Progestin in Healthy Postmenopausal Women; Principal Results From the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Trial

JAMA. 2002;288(3):321-333. doi:10.1001/jama.288.3.321

Also, in one of the parts DCP plagiarized, Dr. Krauthammer refers to something from his personal past medical experience; it's hard to imagine Dr. K plagiarizing that from DCP.

Here is DCP's work-in-progress, the inserts are from Krauthammer's op-ed piece:

But let’s take a very down-to-earth branch of science, nutrition.  We have recently learned that butter may be better for us than stick margerine.  Eggs may not be bad for us, after all.  Diet fashions seem to change like the seasons. 

But how about eggs? After years of egg phobia, we have learned that eggs may not be bad for you after all. And that butter is healthier than stick margarine. Every month, it seems, some accepted nutritional fact is overturned.

In psychiatry, the lives of many patients were destroyed by lobotomies and shock therapy—therapeutic techniques that are now so far out of fashion that we can scarcely imagine a time when they were (but they most definitely were) the preferred methods of dealing with several mental health problems. 

Most shocking, perhaps, is the simple reminder of how contingent are the received truths of modern medicine. We know how pre-modern medicine got it wrong, from centuries of leeching and bleeding to the lobotomies and shock therapies...

Just a few decades ago, virtually every kid had a tonsillectomy.  That was just part of growing up, at least in America.  Yet we now understand that tonsillectomies are mostly unnecessary, and can be worse than useless. 

When I was a kid, everyone got a tonsillectomy. It was a rite of passage. We now know that this was unnecessary surgery, indeed, worse than useless.

We used to know that ulcers were caused by stress, or by excess stomach acid.  Now we know they result mostly from infections of the bacterium Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori).

That ulcers are caused by stress or stomach acid.

If there was anything absolutely sure in medical education, it was the fact that the mean human body temperature was 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.  Everybody knew it, not just doctors.  However, in 1992, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study in which scientists actually measured the mean human body temperature, and it turned out to be 98.2 degrees.[1]  So what’s the source of the figure 98.6?  A German physician by the name of Carl Wunderlich came up with it in 1868, and nobody had bothered to check it since then.

My favorite myth is 98.6. If there was anything solid in my medical education, it was that mean body temperature was 98.6 F. Well, in 1992 the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study that actually measured it. It turns out to be 98.2 degrees. Where did the 98.6 come from? From the German doctor, Carl Wunderlich. In 1868. No one had bothered to check it since then.

As I write, a massive study of hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women has just been halted, three years before its scheduled completion, because the data strongly indicate that the estrogen-progestin combination that such therapy uses appears to cause an alarming increase in blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, and invasive breast cancer....

Hence the shock this week when a massive study of hormone replacement therapy in postmenopausal women had to be halted three years early because the estrogen-progestin combination appeared to cause an alarming increase in invasive breast cancer, blood clots, strokes and heart attacks.

...Whereas, three decades ago, global cooling was the big threat, we now know that the real threat is global warming. 

Thirty years ago, the scientific consensus was that we were headed for global cooling. Today it is global warming.

We now know many things, and, unlike earlier generations, our knowledge is secure.  We are sophisticated.  We are enlightened.  Our science is solid.... 

But we think of modern science as infinitely more enlightened and more solid.

Is it possible that DCP just thought of all these things, and, using identical words and phrases, strung them together in a essay the same week Dr. Krauthammer did? This is just getting ridiculous.

Here is the web-archived original version of DCP's latest plagiarism, in case he decides to quietly add sources and pretend it didn't happen, like he did last week:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171009225 ... icant.html

[_candygal]

I think an apology to Charles K would be appropriate..this is kind of some sad note taking!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yahoo Bot showing up to make a fool of himself once again in 3-2-1...

- Doc

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Incredible. Just incredible.

At what point will Peterson finally acknowledge he has a massive problem with plagarism?

[_Lemmie]

Incredible. Just incredible.

At what point will Peterson finally acknowledge he has a massive problem with plagarism?

You'll notice that Peterson commented ONLY on Symmachus' post, which was the final post in the previous Peterson-plagiarism thread, plus he added a "drawn from" acknowledgment at the end of the plagiarism discussed in that thread, so it's clear he's been following the discussion.

What he didn't do was comment on or apologize for his plagiarism. That would just open up too many cans of worms, I suppose.

[_Lemmie]

well that didn't take long. DCP must be here constantly!

An addition to his latest blog example of plagiarism:

Postscript: Some of my more obsessive and personally unpleasant critics have found a new passion, gleefully accusing me of plagiarism. They point to undeniable similarities between some of what’s written above and a 2002 column by Charles Krauthammer that I had completely forgotten.

These are very old notes. That’s important: Not merely that they’re old but that, as I said above when I first introduced them, they’re notes. This particular manuscript — it’s actually just a computer file — has lain dormant for many years, and it’s nowhere near being in its final state. For the most part, it’s not even continuous prose. And it’s not organized according to any outline nor in anything like the way it will be when it’s finished (should it ever be finished). It’s made up of isolated quotations, links, notes, paraphrases, reminders to myself, and so forth. I’m blogging parts of it as a way of dusting it off. Is it ready for publication? Emphatically not. Do I consider blogging the same as publishing? Emphatically not.

This sort of zealous public faultfinding grows tiresome. It’s wearisome to have one’s reputation assaulted constantly, and anonymously. (On the particular board where this is going on, it’s been going on for approximately ten years. Day after day, week after week, year after year. On any given day for a decade, roughly ten percent of the threads displayed on the board’s front page are dedicated to me. The word weird doesn’t begin to describe the phenomenon.)

I’m not very optimistic about change, though.

“Charity . . . is kind; . . . doth not behave itself unseemly . . . thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity” (1 Corinthians 13:4-6).
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... 9GUbKr1.99

[_Lemmie]

It’s wearisome to have one’s reputation assaulted constantly

DCP doesn't like it when people point out his plagiarism.

There is an astonishingly simple solution to that.....

[_MsJack]

well that didn't take long. DCP must be here constantly!

An addition to his latest blog example of plagiarism:

Do I consider blogging the same as publishing? Emphatically not.

Yes, blogging is a form of publishing. If you use Wordpress, the button that you push to run a post actually says, "Publish!"

[_I have a question]

Dictionary definition of “Publish”

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/publish

Excerpt:

to submit (content) online, as to a message board or blog

The very fact that you, anyone, can go to his blog and read what he has written is, in and of itself, irrefutable evidence of it being published.

[_DrW]

Incredible. Just incredible.

At what point will Peterson finally acknowledge he has a massive problem with plagarism?

DCP also has a problem of substantial mass in attempting to harmonize science with religion. He apparently feels duty bound to engage in an apologetic rear guard action as science steadily advances while his version of religion retreats.

In the last two months, at least 20 posts at Sic et Non are related to science - always from a somewhat naïve religionist point of view.

In this undertaking, DCP has largely reduced himself to a routine of copy and paste from books and articles about science (or pseudoscience). He tends to focus on material by individuals who are little more than Christian apologists with degrees, or discredited ID proponents. He picks out ideas from these texts that he sees as compatible with religion and throws in a nice graphic or two to attract attention.

He quotes passages from these sources extensively, while offering no insights, or even demonstrating the most fundamental understanding, regarding the original subject matter.

He apparently sees his calling as assuring his audience that their unfounded beliefs are still valid and important and that religion and science will eventually harmonize - except when chooses to quote Bruce R. McConkies's prophetic assurance that such harmonization will never happen.

Symmachus is spot on in his assessment of Sic et Non and DCP. Lemmie's recent findings as to the extent of DCP's plagiarism on the blog just makes things worse.