Discussion of the ''DCP / plagiarism'' thread

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Everyone here has been begging me to give an example of why I feel Dan has not INTENTIONALLY plagiarized.

In an article entitled “Mea Cupla”, which addressed one of Lemmie’s early examples, he responds and apologizes. I’ll also let Dan’s words speak for themselves:

My critics quite definitely don’t intend to do me good. And most of what they have to say about me — daily, weekly, monthly, year after year — is malicious and false, as well as very often absurd. But on this matter, while they hope to embarrass me (and, in this specific instance, have succeeded in doing so), they provide an unintended service and a reminder. They’re armed with online programs that will enable them to detect verbal resemblances and influences of which I, their target, may be quite unaware. I need to be careful.

Of course, if anyone among these critics ever wants to contact me on this or any other issue, she’s entirely free to do so directly. I’m quite open, forthright, and transparent on just about everything, and I would be in this regard, as well. My email address is daniel_peterson@BYU.edu

The man listed his email address. If you really plan on accusing him of this stuff, why not have the balls to confront him directly? That’s really the last thing I have to say on DCP’s plagiarism. As I said earlier, the chips will fall where they may.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

JP. You're pulling a Pasterson right now. C'mon.

Doc

No. I’m pulling an “[deleted].” Something which he, himself has long established.

ETA. The establishment is that is he IS [deleted], not that he [deleted].

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Jesus. gmafb

- Doc

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Jesus. gmafb

- Doc

I love you too, Doc.

[Guest]

Everyone here has been begging me to give an example of why I feel Dan has not INTENTIONALLY plagiarized.

In an article entitled “Mea Cupla”, which addressed one of Lemmie’s early examples, he responds and apologizes. I’ll also let Dan’s words speak for themselves:

My critics quite definitely don’t intend to do me good. And most of what they have to say about me — daily, weekly, monthly, year after year — is malicious and false, as well as very often absurd. But on this matter, while they hope to embarrass me (and, in this specific instance, have succeeded in doing so), they provide an unintended service and a reminder. They’re armed with online programs that will enable them to detect verbal resemblances and influences of which I, their target, may be quite unaware. I need to be careful.

Of course, if anyone among these critics ever wants to contact me on this or any other issue, she’s entirely free to do so directly. I’m quite open, forthright, and transparent on just about everything, and I would be in this regard, as well. My email address is daniel_peterson@BYU.edu

The man listed his email address. If you really plan on accusing him of this stuff, why not have the balls to confront him directly? That’s really the last thing I have to say on DCP’s plagiarism. As I said earlier, the chips will fall where they may.

And again, you have not addressed the facts of the situation at all. You are concluding he doesn't plagiarize on the basis of a statement where Peterson trumpets his victimhood status and calls his plagiarism "verbal resemblances."

What on earth is a verbal resemblance? You still haven't acknowledged the actual examples of Peterson's plagiarism I posted for you, ostensibly because you have no time, but you had the time to hunt up one of Peterson's many, many Mea Culpas?

Since you now seem to have the time (after having made TWENTY-FIVE posts on this thread in the last 4 days without commenting once on the actual plagiarisms posted), here is a run down Tom gave on Peterson's plagiarism and FOUR of his most recent "mea culpas":

In a recent explanation of his working methods, Dr. Peterson writes:

Others among the “manuscripts” that I’ve cited — notably, the one on science — are really files more than manuscripts proper. That is, they contain some short original passages, but they’re mostly full of notes, quotations, close paraphrases, suggestions for (my own) further reading, specimens of arguments, one-word or one-phrase reminders of topics that I want to treat or of potential challenges that I should address, and so forth.

With regard to these "notes," "close paraphrases," and "specimens of arguments," Lemmie has noted Dr. Peterson's unattributed appropriation of others' research, ideas, arguments, and language in several cases.

Dr. Peterson writes:

A small handful of zealous and industrious critics have discovered that there are unmistakable similarities between some of those notes and certain sources from which I’ve plainly drawn them. Yep. That’s why I call them “notes.” They’re not finished works.

The fact that Dr. Peterson's "notes" on science have drawn from certain sources did not become "plain" until Lemmie pointed it out:

Dr. Peterson's 1 August 2017 post titled "The testimony of Christian Anfinsen" featured "notes" lacking any attribution to T. Dimitrov's work.

Dr. Peterson's 3 October 2017 post titled "Spooky action at a distance" featured notes lacking any attribution to D. Radin's book Entangled Minds. After Lemmie pointed out Dr. Peterson's source, Dr. Peterson added an ungenerous note to the end of his post: "(Drawn, in part, from Dean Radin, Entangled Minds: Extrasensory Experiences in a Quantum Reality [New York: Paraview/Pocket Books, 2006], 72-76].)"

Dr. Peterson's 9 October 2017 post titled "Science has a history, and that is actually significant" featured "some notes that I jotted down several years in one of my incomplete manuscripts" lacking any attribution to a column by C. Krauthammer. After Lemmie pointed out Dr. Peterson's source, Dr. Peterson subsequently added a postscript acknowledging the source of his "very old notes."

Dr. Peterson's 14 November 2017 post titled "Some dispatches from the front lines of my unceasing war against science" featured "[n]otes from a manuscript" lacking any attribution to a book review by A. Buskirk. After Lemmie pointed out Dr. Peterson's source, Dr. Peterson edited his post to describe the notes as "[r]aw and largely unprocessed notes from a manuscript" and later issued a mea culpa of sorts.

Dr. Peterson writes:

When and if the science manuscript (for example) is ever completed for publication, those notes will have been re-ordered, considerably supplemented or overlaid with yet further materials (some from items already read but not yet excerpted, some from books and articles still on my to-read list), and heavily re-written, and very few of the lengthy quotations will survive untrimmed.

However his notes are "re-ordered, considerably supplemented or overlaid with yet further materials" and "heavily re-written," will Dr. Peterson give proper attribution to others' work in the final manuscript?

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Taking Tom’s example, Dan has given his explanation and acknowledged his error. Tom asks a question regarding whether or not Dan will give proper attribution to everyone in his final article. Considering that he has not written the final article, at least to my knowledge, I suppose we will just have to wait and see.

Dan has openly admitted cases of unintentional plagiarism. I am not arguing that. I’m arguing that he hasn’t done it intentionally. He denies it, and I take him at his word, considering that when it has been pointed out to him, he has not hesitated to acknowledge it and apologize. There seems to be more of a situation of writing incompetence rather than intentional plagiarism. I’m not sure if he would see that as better or worse. But it looks like this is something that he needs to seriously address in his writing style.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Also, just for your information, I didn’t just “hunt down” that Mea Cupla article. When Dan and I communicated via email on this issue, he actually drew that particular article to my attention.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Lemmie, you and Doc were begging me to analyze a piece of Dan’s plagiarized material. I have seen no real need to do so because my argument has never been that the plagiarism existed, but that the plagiarism was intentional.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Also, Lemmie, since you and others obviously feel this strongly about this, why not have the guts to email Dan directly? He has invited you to do so on several occasions. He might be able to clarify some things. I have always operated under the guise of if something that someone has done, bothers you, go to the source. Gossiping behind someone’s back has never been my style. The reason I stepped in here to begin with is that Dan is not a poster here and can’t speak for himself in this forum.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Jesus. gmafb

- Doc

I love you too, Doc.

Sorry for my little dig at Everybody Wang Chung. Unfortunately the 2 of us have a volatile history.