DiscussMormonism.com

DrStakhanovite wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:20 pm

Marcus wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 5:26 pm

so, it has been clearly pointed out that Peterson plagiarized his latest entry on 'sentient puddles.' Is Peterson going to let that plagiarism stand? It is time for Lem to come back, and document Peterson's plagiarism, and I have it on good authority that this entry is by no means his only recently plagiarized entry. Peterson's plagiarism has not ended.

He is qualifying it now:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:These four blog posts represent an initial pass through a topic that interests me very much and that, should I continue to survive past my sell-by date, I intend to deepen and extend considerably. They do not claim any originality for themselves or for me. And the same can be said about this blog entry itself.

This is how he'll deny assertions of plagiarism.

he can try. as you and i and virtually the entire world well knows, including the BYU honor department, Deseret news and the Patheos website, that's not how you acknowledge someone else's work when you quote and mosiacally paraphrase them without quotation marks or any indication of their work, and do not acknowledge their name anywhere. Ever. Peterson cheats like that regularly, however.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 5:57 pm

Marcus wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 5:26 pm

so, it has been clearly pointed out that Peterson plagiarized his latest entry on 'sentient puddles.' Is Peterson going to let that plagiarism stand? It is time for Lem to come back, and document Peterson's plagiarism, and I have it on good authority that this entry is by no means his only recently plagiarized entry. Peterson's plagiarism has not ended.

LEM!!! LEM!!! LEM!!! LEMMM!!!!!!!!! We WANT LEM!!!!!

you are an angel.

DrStakhanovite wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:20 pm

Marcus wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 5:26 pm

so, it has been clearly pointed out that Peterson plagiarized his latest entry on 'sentient puddles.' Is Peterson going to let that plagiarism stand? It is time for Lem to come back, and document Peterson's plagiarism, and I have it on good authority that this entry is by no means his only recently plagiarized entry. Peterson's plagiarism has not ended.

He is qualifying it now:

Daniel C. Peterson wrote:These four blog posts represent an initial pass through a topic that interests me very much and that, should I continue to survive past my sell-by date, I intend to deepen and extend considerably. They do not claim any originality for themselves or for me. And the same can be said about this blog entry itself.

This is how he'll deny assertions of plagiarism.

is this an additional clarification? his article now includes:

"In an article entitled “The Trouble with Puddle Thinking: A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle” (in Proceedings and Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales 154/1 [June 2021]), the Welsh-Australian astrophysicist Geraint F. Lewis and the Australian astrophysicist and cosmologist Luke A. Barnes explain the failure of the analogy as follows:"

Marcus wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:16 pm

DrStakhanovite wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:20 pm

He is qualifying it now:

This is how he'll deny assertions of plagiarism.

he can try. as you and i and virtually the entire world well knows, including the BYU honor department, Deseret news and the Patheos website, that's not how you acknowledge someone else's work when you quote and mosiacally paraphrase them without quotation marks or any indication of their work, and do not acknowledge their name anywhere. Ever. Peterson cheats like that regularly, however.

The “qualification” was there in the beginning, I believe.

huckelberry wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 10:05 pm

DrStakhanovite wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:20 pm

He is qualifying it now:

This is how he'll deny assertions of plagiarism.

is this an additional clarification? his article now includes:

"In an article entitled “The Trouble with Puddle Thinking: A User’s Guide to the Anthropic Principle” (in Proceedings and Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales 154/1 [June 2021]), the Welsh-Australian astrophysicist Geraint F. Lewis and the Australian astrophysicist and cosmologist Luke A. Barnes explain the failure of the analogy as follows:"

No. That was there in the beginning (taken from Tim Barnett’s article).

Marcus wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:16 pm

DrStakhanovite wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 6:20 pm

He is qualifying it now:

This is how he'll deny assertions of plagiarism.

he can try. as you and i and virtually the entire world well knows, including the BYU honor department, Deseret news and the Patheos website, that's not how you acknowledge someone else's work when you quote and mosiacally paraphrase them without quotation marks or any indication of their work, and do not acknowledge their name anywhere. Ever. Peterson cheats like that regularly, however.

This just never ceases to amaze me. Peterson KNOWS how to reference, I have read a lot of his stuff, a LOT of it I tells you! And he has footnoted it when it was in print. Why not online?! I, for the life of me, do not get why he has stopped actually referencing items from others. Is he afraid it will take away from his own self-proclaimed greatness or something???

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 11:55 pm

Marcus wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 10, 2023 7:16 pm

he can try. as you and i and virtually the entire world well knows, including the BYU honor department, Deseret news and the Patheos website, that's not how you acknowledge someone else's work when you quote and mosiacally paraphrase them without quotation marks or any indication of their work, and do not acknowledge their name anywhere. Ever. Peterson cheats like that regularly, however.

This just never ceases to amaze me. Peterson KNOWS how to reference, I have read a lot of his stuff, a LOT of it I tells you! And he has footnoted it when it was in print. Why not online?! I, for the life of me, do not get why he has stopped actually referencing items from others. Is he afraid it will take away from his own self-proclaimed greatness or something???

I think it’s more that patheos sends him a reminder to post once a day if he wants to keep making money. He’s lazy and only puts in the minimum required effort to oblige them.

Tom wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 1:52 am

The proprietor writes:

The late atheist polemicist Christopher Hitchens is said to have called the fine-tuning argument “the most intriguing” among the arguments for the existence of God. The vocally atheistic physicist Sean Carroll has grudgingly termed it “the best argument that the theists have when it comes to cosmology.”

And it’s no wonder that Hitchens and Carroll and others have been at least slightly taken aback by evidence for fine-tuning.

It is worth quoting Carroll at greater length:

So let’s go to the second argument, the teleological argument from fine-tuning. I’m very happy to admit right off the bat – this is the best argument that the theists have when it comes to cosmology. That’s because it plays by the rules. You have phenomena, you have parameters of particle physics and cosmology, and then you have two different models: theism and naturalism. And you want to compare which model is the best fit for the data. I applaud that general approach. Given that, it is still a terrible argument. It is not at all convincing. I will give you five quick reasons why theism does not offer a solution to the purported fine-tuning problem.

This is such an excellent catch! That thoroughly dishonest quotation of Carroll is so in character for both creationists as well as Peterson.

I wish these people could devise better arguments but I'm afraid they won't be able to. Literally all of Peterson's copy pasta is stuff that's been debunked for decades or even a century.

Even if they were able to come up with something better, a decent argument for creation doesn't rule out multiple creators or get you to Elohim.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 08, 2023 8:03 pm

I do think the multiverse is about as big an ask, belief-wise, as God. It’s like a tax shelter that costs as much as paying taxes. If the multiverse is someone’s alternative faith, fine, but they shouldn’t try to claim at the same time that they’re so much more scientific and rational than us credulous theists.

Here's Sabine Hossenfelder's take on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHa1vbwVaNU

And another relevant one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAVUvq6BE1E

I don’t like watching videos for information. It’s harder in video to skim through the fluff to find the content than it is in text, and a YouTube video on a subject one knows is bound to be mostly fluff even if it’s as concise as the general audience can absorb. Can you summarize what Hossenfelder says?