Discussion about Kevin's methods re Plagiarism

[_marg]

The 2 sources I used are

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/R ... C5A00D9677

This is written as an interview with Peter BetBasoo in which he acknowledges getting his ideas from Robert Spencer in the book Religion of Peace and acknowledges with direct quotes and paraphrasing what is in the book.

I do not have that book nor read it but there is an article apparently written by Robert Spencer in which the same ideas are presented as in the book.

http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/articledetails.php?archives=1&artid=507

So the main and original source appears to be Robert Spencer. His work appears to be used by Catholics writing apologies for Christianity, including Kevin apparently. Peter Betasoo confirms what is in the book. Peter BetBasoo is a Catholic who founded an agency to report on news and issues of Iragi Christians. According to wiki Robert Spencer is a Catholic American writer who specializes on criticising Islam.

I believe all the quotes I use come from Spencer and I’ll just write Spencer after the quote but one can find the link above. I include reference to BetBasoo what he says is so similar to what Kevin presents. They both rely heavily on Spencer.

First let’s begin with an appreciation of what plagiarism is. I’ll use wiki since it presents a succinct definition.

“Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement.”

Notice it says “practice of claiming or implying” so it involves a deliberate implication or actual claim made. Notice the requirement is not about copying word for word but rather incorporating material of someone else’s written or creative work in whole or in part.

So let’s take a look at what Kevin said:

He states and asks: “There is a reason why science has flourished in Christianity and come to a complete halt under Islam.
Does anyone know what that reason is?”

After a few responses he says:

“The answer lies in the fact that in Islam, God's power is not limited to natural laws. Since God, according to Islam, is absolutely transcendent, his will is not bound with rationality.”

"At Regensburg, Pope Benedict XVI observed that "for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." ... from Spencer's article

If Allah could not be counted on to be consistent, why waste time observing the order of things? It could change tomorrow.

"Accordingly, there was no point to observing the workings of the physical world; there was no reason to expect that any pattern to its workings would be consistent, or even discernable. If Allah could not be counted on to be consistent, why waste time observing the order of things? It could change tomorrow." ... R. Spencer article


This is why Islamic science took a serious nosedive with Al-Ghazali, the Quranic scholar who repudiated all the philosophers before and after him, even calling for their deaths. He denounced the natural laws, the very objective of science, as a restraint on the free will of God, who if he chose, could make a round square, a frozen flame, a married bachelor, etc. These things he could do because no natural laws exist.

“Stanley Jaki, a Catholic priest and physicist, explains that it was al-Ghazali, the philosopher that the authors of the Open Letter recommend to the Pope, who "denounced natural laws, the very objective of science, as a blasphemous constraint upon the free will of Allah." " Spencer

TD asks Kevin: Do you think Christiantiy is limited to natural laws?


Kevin responds: No, what I am saying is that Christians in history have not been limited by a philosophy that says a truth isn't worth learning … Note there is not a mention of these ideas coming from anywhere but himself.


TD writes: I do not get the impression that at any time the Christian view of God limited "him" to natural laws.

Kevin responds again using same argument as presented by Spencer but no acknowledgement of this. “Well, according to Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic priest who was perhaps Christianity's most influencial thinker, "Since the principles of certain sciences - of logic, geometry and arithmetic, for instance - are derived exclusively from the formal principal of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of these principles; He cannot make the genus not be predictable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle's center to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles."

"St. Thomas Aquinas even goes so far as to assert that "since the principles of certain sciences - of logic, geometry, and arithmetic, for instance - are derived exclusively from the formal principals of things, upon which their essence depends, it follows that God cannot make the contraries of these principles; He cannot make the genus not to be predicable of the species, nor lines drawn from a circle's center to its circumference not to be equal, nor the three angles of a rectilinear triangle not to be equal to two right angles." Spencer article


Kevin continues to TD : I agree with Rodney Stark, when he says Islam does not have "a conception of God appropriate to underwrite the rise of science. Allah is not presented as a lawful creator but is conceived of as an extremely active God who intrudes in the world as he deems it appropriate."

And isn't that amazing so does Spencer agree...

"Social scientist Rodney Stark adds that 'it would seem that Islam has a conception of God appropriate to underwrite the rise of science. Not so. Allah is not presented as a lawful creator but is conceived of as an extremely active God who intrudes in the world as he deems it appropriate. This prompted the formation of a major theological bloc within Islam that condemns all efforts to formulate natural laws as blasphemy in that they deny Allah’s freedom to act.'" R. Spencer

Note Kevin imples he is doing the research, he’s reading Stark and he's agreeing with Stark. meanwhile this is the exact argument presented by Spencer with exact quote of Stark.

Kevin writes: Robert Spencer touches on something significant when he says, "Christian mathematicians and astronomers believed they could establish scientific truths because they believed God had established the universe according to certain laws - laws that could be discovered through observation and study."

"Christian mathematicians and astronomers knew that their investigations would lead to knowledge of the truth, because they believed that God had established the universe according to certain laws - laws that could be discovered through observation and study." Spencer

Now he gives some recognition of Spencer and quotes him. But the implication is that all previous argument had nothing to do with Spencer.

He steal Spencer’s research, his quotes all the while presenting it as if it’s all his ideas.

Now I’m not going to continue on. There is enough here to establish that Kevin stole the research, the ideas, the sources for back up..just about everything and probably from the book version rather than the article by R. Spencer.

This is plagiarism. This is someone fraudulently attempting to get credit for words, and ideas and sources and research not his own. This is deliberate disingenuous stealing of another person's work. Had Kevin said I recently read a book or some article by Spencer in which he presents this argument.... And I'd like to ask you all if you know the reasoning for such and such ..the argument presented by Spencer ... then Kevin would have presented it honestly.

[_dartagnan]

Good grief, I have never seen that article in my life, but it should be of no surprise that the same material appears in his books, which I own. I said I pasted from notes I had already taken from books I own.

I stated right up front that I had relied on Spencer and others.

Note Kevin imples he is doing the research, he’s reading Stark and he's agreeing with Stark. meanwhile this is the exact argument presented by Spencer with exact quote of Stark.

I implied that I read books by citing the authors? Gee, ya think? Of course I did. You just proved I did by citing the relevant excerpts, but none are direct citations. I took notes, after all, which don't tend to include direct citations, but rather a summary of arguments and conclusions.

The fact that the three of us agree with one another doesn't change the fact that I own the relevant books and I wasn't copying from the web.

You're an idiot. This is your proof that I plagiarized!?!?!

You simply find the books I said I was using and then proved that I really used them?

WOW. AMAZING!!!

Nobody here agrees with your conclusion marg, so take your frustration elswhere. Go shown JAK a good time tonight.

[_marg]

Good grief, I have never seen that article in my life, but it should be of no surprise that the same material appears in his books, which I own. I said I pasted from notes I had already taken from books I own.

I stated right up front that I had relied on Spencer and others.

You're an idiot.

Nobody here agrees with you, so take your frustration elswhere. Go shown JAK a good time tonight.

Of course Kevin you will resort to ad homs. What else is there for you to do but deny and attack? The evidence is there that it is impossible for you to have presented that argument without using Spencer unless Spencer wrote a book which essentially presented well known Catholic apologies circulating publically. But there is too much similarity in what you say, the same sources used etc.

Now if you were upfront that you relied on spencer, I'll give you the benefit of doubt, please quote and link. thanks

[_marg]

Good grief, I have never seen that article in my life, but it should be of no surprise that the same material appears in his books, which I own. I said I pasted from notes I had already taken from books I own.

I stated right up front that I had relied on Spencer and others.

by the way Kevin if you are referring to you being upfront today...stating now that you relied upon others that is too late. I'm already establishing that. In that thread you presented an argument as if you had done the research, you had found sources to support the argument ie. Aquina & Stark, when in fact that all comes from Spencer. And I don't care that you didn't read that article Kevin, that article was based upon the book. I also don't care that you used notes...where in that thread do you acknowledge this was not your research your work, where do you acknowledge that you relied upon Spencer?

[_dartagnan]

Of course Kevin you will resort to ad homs.

That isn't an ad hom. I guess you didn't pay attention to Tarski when he was educating you and JAK on the proper meaning of the term.

What else is there for you to do but deny and attack?

I'm not the only one denying this is plagiarism. Who else here agrees with you?

The evidence is there that it is impossible for you to have presented that argument without using Spencer unless Spencer wrote a book which essentially presented well known Catholic apologies circulating publically.

And?

How does that change the fact that I read the book, learned from it, took notes, and applied my knowledge in the appropriate environment? I even made it perfectly clear that I had Spencer and Stark in mind. That isn't plagiarism.

But there is too much similarity in what you say, the same sources used etc.

There is also too much similarity between the manner in which I configure a CISCO router, and what my college professor taught me in our CISCO classes. Should I make it clear to my employer every time I peform a service, that my knowledge didn't really create itself in my own brain, but that I had actually learned my skills from those who taught me? Am I dishonest if I don't?

Yes, you're an idiot.

Now if you were upfront that you relied on spencer, I'll give you the benefit of doubt, please quote and link. thanks

You're desperately trying to make some kind of parallel with the plagiarism of your internet man, JAK. There is no comparison. I read books, JAK surfs the web. That's it. JAK argues on any subject that undermines his agenda, even if he has no relevant expertise. And to compensate for that gap of ignorance, he thinks he can sit at wiki all day borrowing quotations and ideas.
He got busted for this by moniker and Gad. Stop pretending you've managed to prove anything similar with your rant above.

All you have proved is that I actually rely on books, and not the web. If you think I don't own Stark's book, then tough. I own three of his books. The fact that Spencer and Stark cross each other's paths in their own books is hardly surprising since they argue the same thing. This is normal in scholarship, but then, you and JAK wouldn't understand that.

[_Scottie]

[I think this is better suited of the off-topic forum]

[_marg]

How does that change the fact that I read the book, learned from it, took notes, and applied my knowledge in the appropriate environment? I even made it perfectly clear that I had Spencer and Stark in mind. That isn't plagiarism.

Kevn you did not make it clear that your source was Spencer. If you did please quote where you did. Because that is what this is about, if you cited Spencer then quote where you did. You mentioned and quoted one thing from spencer that was the extent of your acknowledgement. In that thread you presented the argument as if it was your own, you used Aquinas with a quote and so did Spencer, you used Stark with a quotesand so did Spencer, and you used the same quotes. You used the pope and so did spencer, same quote, from same sources, and same argument presented. You did not give credit to your source. That kevin is plagiarism. That is fraudulent, dishonest. That is a deliberate attempt to get credit for work you did not do.

You are not in the same league as R. Spencer. Presenting his work as if your own is not acceptable. It doesn't matter that you took notes and then worked from your notes.

[_marg]

[I think this is better suited of the off-topic forum]

I thought that as well Scottie. Except if Kevin has presented an argument on this forum and he plagiarized and that can be established it affects his argumentation in this forum. In addition Kevin has written numerous posts of attacks on JAK, which are in this forum and he is deliberately attempting to poison the well and has admitted that. So it does relate to this forum. Added to that that Kevin used the thread set up I believe by Shades discussing JAK's posting style and that is in this forum. So it would be a double standard to move this and yet to have had that thread stay for as long as it has.

[_dartagnan]

by the way Kevin if you are referring to you being upfront today...stating now that you relied upon others that is too late. I'm already establishing that.

What the hell? Are you saying that I went back and inserted references to Spencer just after you posted this thread? If not, then how in the hell did you figure you "established" it is "too late" to claim I mentioned Spencer? The post is intact as it was when I first posted it two months ago. I haven't edited it since.

The first post in the thread was just a thesis I threw out, and it wasn't something I even borrowed from Spencer in teh first place. This was something I had been arguing long before Spencer's book was published. You can find several MADB threads where I argued teh same thing. Spencer's book was published just last year. His book did make some good points, which I decided to use when I was asked to explicate further, in the very next post.

So how in the heck does this show that I tried to "imply" this knowledge came to me ex nihilo?

What kind of idiot interprets it this way? Don't answer.

In that thread you presented an argument as if you had done the research, you had found sources to support the argument ie.Aquina & Stark, when in fact that all comes from Spencer.

Oh you're so full of crap. This thesis has been on the table for many years and it is one I had always agreed with. Did I invent it? Of course not. Did I say I did? NO. Did anyone think I thought I did? Only if they're among the galactically stupid.

Again, I don't claim to have invented algebre simply by teaching it to my kids. Educators read books and pass along knowledge as they acquire it. To sit there and expect every single thing to be postmarked with a citation and page number, is to be completely out of touch with reality.

The thesis was axiomatic to anyone who wants to read the history and see it for what it is. Spencer's book was simply a response to this axiom as he agreed with it. The same holds true for Thomas Woods, who wrote a book about it three years ago.

And I don't care that you didn't read that article Kevin, that article was based upon the book.

Which brings up another interesting point, you have to rely on the web to verify what books say because like JAK, you 're not inclined to research anything beyond the web.

I also don't care that you used notes...where in that thread do you acknowledge this was not your research your work, where do you acknowledge that you relied upon Spencer?

In the very next post when TD responded to my opening post. Initially I threw outa thesis and when challenged, I provide the relevant scholarship backed with citations. That is precisely what I did. It is painfully obvious to anyone reading that thread that I had already established the fact that I was taking from Stark and Spencer.

[_Scottie]

[I think this is better suited of the off-topic forum]

I thought that as well Scottie. Except if Kevin has presented an argument on this forum and he plagiarized and that can be established it affects his argumentation in this forum. In addition Kevin has written numerous posts of attacks on JAK, which are in this forum and he is deliberately attempting to poison the well and has admitted that. So it does relate to this forum. Added to that that Kevin used the thread set up I believe by Shades discussing JAK's posting style and that is in this forum. So it would be a double standard to move this and yet to have had that thread stay for as long as it has.

[I moved the JAK thread as well.]