DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I just wanted to add that this thread is well on its way to 10,000 views.

The more attention DCP's dishonest and unethical behavior gets, the better. If DCP had a shred of dignity or honor he would have self-reported himself (as required) to the Honor Code Office/Administration.

He's leaving quite the legacy for himself.

[_Lemmie]

Note that Peterson has now added the following to his 10.23.17 blog entry, "What difference does Darwinism make?" again transforming his previously argued 'unintentional' plagiarism into intentional plagiarism:

[These paraphrastic notes are drawn from an essay by Nancy Pearcey titled “”Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears,” which appeared as chapter 4 of Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William Dembski.]
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... kbjbrsB.99

Definition of mosaic plagiarism found in 'paraphrastic' notes, adapted for Peterson's example:

Why [what Peterson is now euphemistically calling "paraphrastic notes", previously published as written by him, are STILL] plagiarism:

This paraphrase is a patchwork composed of pieces in the original author’s language... and pieces in [Peterson's] words, all rearranged into a new pattern, but with none of the borrowed pieces in quotation marks. Thus, even though[Peterson] acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as [Peterson's] own.

https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html

For reference, here's a link to my original post, documenting the plagiarism in the above entry:

viewtopic.php?p=1102029#p1102029

[_I have a question]

Note that Peterson has now added the following to his 10.23.17 blog entry, "What difference does Darwinism make?" again transforming his previously argued 'unintentional' plagiarism into intentional plagiarism:

[These paraphrastic notes are drawn from an essay by Nancy Pearcey titled “”Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears,” which appeared as chapter 4 of Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William Dembski.]
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... kbjbrsB.99

Definition of mosaic plagiarism found in 'paraphrastic' notes, adapted for Peterson's example:

Why [what Peterson is now euphemistically calling "paraphrastic notes", previously published as written by him, are STILL] plagiarism:

This paraphrase is a patchwork composed of pieces in the original author’s language... and pieces in [Peterson's] words, all rearranged into a new pattern, but with none of the borrowed pieces in quotation marks. Thus, even though[Peterson] acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as [Peterson's] own.

https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html

For reference, here's a link to my original post, documenting the plagiarism in the above entry:

viewtopic.php?p=1102029#p1102029

This would be embarrassing for a lay person to be caught doing, for a BYU Professor to be at it...well, Wow, just Wow. You’ve even made it easy for him to correct and he STILL won’t make it right. Truly staggering and utterly rebuts any defence of unintentionality that JP has tried to suggest.

What is wrong with him?

How does he retain any credibility in the classroom or on the staff?

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Malkie:
"Think how nasty DCP was towards Blair Hodges, for example. And Hodges strikes me as someone who actually and sincerely cares about things like academic integrity and scholarly ethics. Will he (or someone like him) look at this and decide to act?"

I suspect that if Blair does decide to act, it will not be an act of revenge for nastiness. I think he's more classy than that.

I completely agree with that. I actually miss Blair posting here. I very much doubt he will act on anything from the thread here. If he even still reads here.

[_Stem]

Actually, it's common practice, for a variety of reasons.

Sure the Light of Christ is in us all; thus making it common practice. I get that. I've said that before, but feeling too lazy to cite it. Guess the devil's working within me now.

[_Tom]

Note that Peterson has now added the following to his 10.23.17 blog entry, "What difference does Darwinism make?" again transforming his previously argued 'unintentional' plagiarism into intentional plagiarism:

[These paraphrastic notes are drawn from an essay by Nancy Pearcey titled “”Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears,” which appeared as chapter 4 of Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William Dembski.]
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... kbjbrsB.99

Definition of mosaic plagiarism found in 'paraphrastic' notes, adapted for Peterson's example:

Why [what Peterson is now euphemistically calling "paraphrastic notes", previously published as written by him, are STILL] plagiarism:

This paraphrase is a patchwork composed of pieces in the original author’s language... and pieces in [Peterson's] words, all rearranged into a new pattern, but with none of the borrowed pieces in quotation marks. Thus, even though[Peterson] acknowledges the source of the material, the underlined phrases are falsely presented as [Peterson's] own.

https://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html

For reference, here's a link to my original post, documenting the plagiarism in the above entry:

viewtopic.php?p=1102029#p1102029

I agree.

Here's a revised template for Dr. Peterson's use:

These [select the most accurate description of the nature of your silently taken notes: rough/ extremely rough/ unbelievably rough/ rough-and-tumble/ chopped/ raw and largely unprocessed / somewhat processed/ largely processed/ diced/ minced/ puréed/ paraphrastic /closely paraphrased / very closely paraphrased/ plagiarized] notes are drawn from a[n] [insert one and only one of the following adjectives: awesome/ banner/ brilliant/ classic/ dope/ dynamite/ estimable/ fabulous/ fantastic/ first-rate/ hype/ incomparable/ incredible/ indispensable/ inestimable/ inimitable/ intriguing/ irreplaceable/ invaluable/ keen/ landmark/ magisterial/ marvelous/ redoubtable/ remarkable/ savage/ splendid/ superb/ terrific/ top-notch/ tremendous/ wonderful] [insert appropriate category of work from which your notes were silently taken, e.g.: essay/ article/ monograph/ book/ tome/ magnum opus] by [insert name of author or authors from whose work your notes were silently taken] titled “[insert title of work from which your notes were silently taken]."

[_Tator]

Dupe Cut Pasterson makes useless attempt to clean up his mess.

https://youtu.be/gpnQNB4Y4rU

[Guest]

The main problem with DCP's engagement with science is that he often cites, and sides with, anti-science religionists ranging from pseudoscientific "experts" with Ph.D.s, to out and out crackpots such as those associated with Ken Ham or the Discovery Institute.

This cadre of anti-evolution young earth creationists, intelligent designers, quantum mechanical mis-interpreters, dowsing adherents, cosmological fine tuners, and other assorted denizens of the anti-science / pseudoscience fringe get more play on Sic et Non than Elvis Presley on payola radio.

The fact that DCP searches out and cites these kinds of wingnut sources is a clear indication that he hasn't got a clue what he is talking about, or that he is intentionally misrepresenting science in order to meet his perceived obligations as an apologist. Unlike religion, science is not whatever one happens to believe. Modern science is what remains as reality whether one decides to believe it or not.

DCP is doing his undiscriminating readers a great disservice. He is either lying to them about objective scientific facts, or he is a pretender completely unqualified to be commenting at all, or both.

Either way, following DCP and Sic et Non on science is about as useful as following Bernie Madoff on personal finance.

I've found that one of his recent newspaper columns, "Defending the Faith: The miracle of Thanksgiving pies," Deseret News, Nov. 23, 2017, parrots cosmic fine-tuning arguments made by others. Peterson has cited sources in some Deseret News columns he's written or co-written (see, e.g., here, here and here), but Peterson does not cite any in his Thanksgiving column.

Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books), 183, 185:

Consider also the strength of gravity. Shortly after the big bang occurred, the matter in the universe was randomly distributed. There were no stars, planets or galaxies—just atoms swirling about in the dark void of space. As the universe expanded, gravity pulled ever so gently on the atoms, gathering them into clumps that eventually became stars and galaxies. But gravity had to have just the right strength—if it was a bit stronger, it would have pulled all the atoms together into one big ball. The big bang—and our future prospects—would have ended quickly in a big crunch. And if gravity were a bit weaker, the rapidly expanding universe would have distributed the atoms so widely they would never have been gathered into stars and galaxies. Without stable stars like our sun, there cannot be solar systems where life can flourish. The strength of gravity has to be exactly as it is for stars to form.

But what do we mean by “exactly”? Well, it turns out that if we change gravity by even a tiny fraction of a percent—enough so that you would be, say, one billionth of a gram heavier or lighter when you get on the bathroom scale—the universe becomes so different that there are no stars, galaxies or planets. And no planets implies no life. . . .

Another initial condition in the finely tuned universe model was the density of the universe. In order to develop in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of this density must have been so great that a change of one part in 10[^]15 (i.e., 0.0000000000001 percent) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded person choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

9 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), pp. 72-73. Specific numbers were taken from appendix A in John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale, Questions of Truth (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).

Peterson:

If, for example, gravity differed even slightly — making you weigh a billionth of a gram more or less than you do — or if the universe’s expansion rate were even slightly slower or faster, or if the overall density of the cosmos varied by as little as 0.0000000000001 percent — roughly the same precision required for a blindfolded man to choose a single predesignated coin from a pile of pennies sufficient to pay off the national debt of the United States — either a “Big Crunch” would shortly have followed the Big Bang or, alternatively, atoms would have scattered so widely that neither galaxies, stars, planets nor apples could have formed.

[_Lemmie]

Back to the topic:

I've found that one of his recent newspaper columns, "Defending the Faith: The miracle of Thanksgiving pies," Deseret News, Nov. 23, 2017, parrots cosmic fine-tuning arguments made by others. Peterson has cited sources in some Deseret News columns he's written or co-written (see, e.g., here, here and here), but Peterson does not cite any in his Thanksgiving column.

Karl W. Giberson and Francis S. Collins, The Language of Science and Faith: Straight Answers to Genuine Questions (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books), 183, 185:

Consider also the strength of gravity. Shortly after the big bang occurred, the matter in the universe was randomly distributed. There were no stars, planets or galaxies—just atoms swirling about in the dark void of space. As the universe expanded, gravity pulled ever so gently on the atoms, gathering them into clumps that eventually became stars and galaxies. But gravity had to have just the right strength—if it was a bit stronger, it would have pulled all the atoms together into one big ball. The big bang—and our future prospects—would have ended quickly in a big crunch. And if gravity were a bit weaker, the rapidly expanding universe would have distributed the atoms so widely they would never have been gathered into stars and galaxies. Without stable stars like our sun, there cannot be solar systems where life can flourish. The strength of gravity has to be exactly as it is for stars to form.

But what do we mean by “exactly”? Well, it turns out that if we change gravity by even a tiny fraction of a percent—enough so that you would be, say, one billionth of a gram heavier or lighter when you get on the bathroom scale—the universe becomes so different that there are no stars, galaxies or planets. And no planets implies no life. . . .

Another initial condition in the finely tuned universe model was the density of the universe. In order to develop in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of this density must have been so great that a change of one part in 10[^]15 (i.e., 0.0000000000001 percent) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded person choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt.

9 Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (New York: Free Press, 2006), pp. 72-73. Specific numbers were taken from appendix A in John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale, Questions of Truth (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009).

Peterson:

If, for example, gravity differed even slightly — making you weigh a billionth of a gram more or less than you do — or if the universe’s expansion rate were even slightly slower or faster, or if the overall density of the cosmos varied by as little as 0.0000000000001 percent — roughly the same precision required for a blindfolded man to choose a single predesignated coin from a pile of pennies sufficient to pay off the national debt of the United States — either a “Big Crunch” would shortly have followed the Big Bang or, alternatively, atoms would have scattered so widely that neither galaxies, stars, planets nor apples could have formed.

What are the odds that both Peterson and the other author would each come up with the same analogy, independently, involving blindfolds, pennies, and the US National Debt? Let's see how he will handle this one.

It is telling that Peterson only corrects his plagiarism when it is discovered by someone else. He knows there are many, many more, is he going to wait until each one is discovered to give credit to all of the authors whose intellectual property he has plagiarized?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Lemmie,

I'm up to now FIVE Deseret News articles where there is undeniable, irrefutable evidence of plagiarism. I've decided not to post them here because I'm genuinely curious if he'll correct his, uh, mistakes OR if DN editors care enough to conduct a review and correct any, uh, mistakes.

- Doc