DCP's ongoing problem with plagiarism

[_Philo Sofee]

Tom your work is stellar! Two thumbs up! Your the detective that the burglar cannot escape from. You sleuth better than Sherlock.

[Guest]

This is utterly unbelievable, but Tom has pointed out to me that Peterson has re-plagiarized a portion of a previously plagiarized blog entry, on the exact one year anniversary of when he first plagiarized it!

this year's version: "Humility in science" 
9 October 2018 By Dan Peterson
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... ience.html

last year's version: "Science has a history, and that is actually significant"
9 October 2017 by Dan Peterson
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... l#_ftnref1

Here is the paragraph from this year, again plagiarized from Charles Krauthammer:

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 margarine.  Eggs may not be bad for us, after all.  Diet fashions seem to change like the seasons.  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.  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.  We used to know that ulcers were caused by stress, or by excess stomach acid.  Now we know that most ulcers are caused by a bacterium known as Helicobacter pylori or by the use of aspirin or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  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.
[1] Source?

And I don't even have to write anything, I will just re-post my exact entry from last year, where I documented his plagiarism from then, which also documents his plagiarism now, based upon the identical paragraphs:

...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....

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.

And here is the mea culpa Peterson wrote the last time he plagiarized Krauthammer:

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).
 

[I highlighted the part that fits Peterson to a T.]

So I wonder what excuse Peterson will have for re-plagiarizing work he already apologized for plagiarizing????

And on the exact one year anniversary, no less. That's some very sloppy work, re-posting your previous plagiarism.

[Guest]

Unbelievable! I'm at a loss for words.

[_Tator]

So I wonder what excuse Peterson will have for re-plagiarizing work he already apologized for plagiarizing????

And on the exact one year anniversary, no less. That's some very sloppy work, re-posting your previous plagiarism.

Maybe he is actually stupid enough to think he has played us in some kind of "I gotcha" scheme.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Don't journalists get fired, or at least reprimanded, for recycling articles?

- Doc

And brazenly plagiarizing?

- Doc

[_DrW]

Perhaps DCP sees it as having already done the crime and done the time (suffered the Lemmie consequences) and so feels he has paid his dues for this bit if text and is now free to serve it up, yet again, to his lumpenmormatariat main audience.

(DCP is the anti-Mormon gift that keeps on giving - the Energizer Bunny of Mormon religious nonsense.)

[_Lemmie]

done the crime and done the time (suffered the Lemmie consequences)

my kids are going to love that!!!!

[_Philo Sofee]

Well he does admit in a recent blog entry he wants to perpetrate a hoax! Perhaps plagiarizing is his version of a hoax? Gadzooks who can tell anymore?

[_Lemmie]

This is truly becoming a bizarre situation. Words fail me. For a second time, Peterson has re-plagiarized yet another of his plagiarized blog entries from last year.

This year's version, posted October 11, 2018, is titled:
"A note on Darwinism and worldviews."

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... views.html

This is identical to the plagiarized blog entry he posted on October 23, 2017, entitled:
"What difference does Darwinism make?"

The last time he posted this identical blog entry, he added the following mea culpa-- but only after he was caught:

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.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... 3585799864

Here is the 2018 version, this time posted without the acknowledgement of its source that he was forced to add last year, after being caught plagiarizing:

Notes from a manuscript that really can’t even be said, right now, to be “in progress.” But it’s there, waiting for me to return:

Why does the public care so much about Darwinism and evolution? Nobody becomes exercised over quantum mechanics, the role of chlorophyll in photosynthesis, or general relativity. It is because Darwinism is not merely a theory in biology but a world view, with profound implications for our understanding of our own nature and for our sense of our relationship to the universe. Whether they can articulate this or not, most people grasp it intuitively. And they are entirely right.

In an essay entitled “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” the famous American philosopher John Dewey declared that Darwinism had given rise to a “new logic to apply to mind and morals and life.”[1]

As a participant in the textbook wars relating to evolution has expressed it, “A naturalistic definition of science has the effect of indoctrinating students into a naturalistic worldview.”[2] And the indoctrination has not remained confined to school curricula. As the 1975 children’s book The Bears’ Nature Guide, featuring the Berenstain Bears, informs its young audience, “Nature . . . is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”[3]

“The Darwinian revolution,” wrote the famous zoologist Ernst Mayr, “was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, but rather the replacement of a worldview, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new worldview in which there was no room for supernatural forces.”[4]

As historian Edward Purcell notes, people working in subject areas far afield from biology soon came to understand that Darwinism implied “a wholly naturalistic and empirically oriented world view” in which theological doctrines were to be viewed as “at worst totally fraudulent and at best merely symbolic of deep human aspirations.”[5]

___________________
[1] John Dewey, “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” in John Dewey, The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy and Other Essays in Contemporary Thought (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1910), 9. [See original.]

[2] Remark cited from personal conversation with John Calvert by Nancy R. Pearcey, “Darwin Meets the Berenstain Bears,” in William A. Dembski, ed., Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2004), 53 (compare 312, note 1).

[3] Stan Berenstain and Jan Berenstain, The Bears’ Nature Guide (New York: Random House, 1975). [See original.]

[4] Ernst Mayr, book review of “Evolution and God,” Nature 248 (22 March 1974): 285. [See original.]

[5] Edward A Purcell, Jr., The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Naturalism and the Problem of Value (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1983), 8 and/or 21. [See original.]

Again, all I have to do is re-post what I posted last year, showing his plagiarism. You'll notice that every passage from Peterson that I identify as plagiarized is identical to this year's re-posted plagiarism.

Additionally, every footnote Peterson gives is lifted directly from Pearcey's footnotes. He has, for a second time, posted Pearcey's full, footnoted research, and called it his own:

Peterson posted a log entry on October 23, 2017, entitled:
What difference does Darwinism make?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... 3585799864

which is lifted almost in its entirety from Pearcey's chapter 4 in the book Uncommon Dissent:
"Darwin meets the Berenstain Bears."

This blog entry has 6 paragraphs, starting with paragraph 1:

From another of those manuscripts, some notes in a fairly raw state:

He starts off easy in paragraph two, taking Pearcey's ideas but adding some words of his own:

Why does the public care so passionately about a theory of biology? Because people sense intuitively that there’s much more at stake than a scientific theory.

and Peterson's version:

Why does the public care so much about Darwinism and evolution? Nobody becomes exercised over quantum mechanics, the role of chlorophyll in photosynthesis, or general relativity. It is because Darwinism is not merely a theory in biology but a world view, with profound implications for our understanding of our own nature and for our sense of our relationship to the universe. Whether they can articulate this or not, most people grasp it intuitively. And they are entirely right.

paragraph 3 to the end, however, are directly and completely plagiarized from Pearcey:

John Dewey penned a famous essay called “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” where he announced that Darwinism had given rise to a “new logic to apply to mind and morals and life.”38

In an essay entitled “The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy,” the famous American philosopher John Dewey declared that Darwinism had given rise to a “new logic to apply to mind and morals and life.”[1]

As one leader in the Ohio controversy put it, “A naturalistic definition of science has the effect of indoctrinating students into a naturalistic worldview.”1

As a participant in the textbook wars relating to evolution has expressed it, “A naturalistic definition of science has the effect of indoctrinating students into a naturalistic worldview.”[2]

In fact, Darwinian naturalism is being targeted to even younger children. A few years ago, I picked up a book for my little boy called The Berenstain Bears’ Nature Guide. In it, the Bear family invites the reader on a nature walk, and after a few pages, we open to a two-page spread, glazed with the light of the rising sun, proclaiming in capital letters: “Nature … is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”23

And the indoctrination has not remained confined to school curricula. As the 1975 children’s book The Bears’ Nature Guide, featuring the Berenstain Bears, informs its young audience, “Nature . . . is all that IS, or WAS, or EVER WILL BE!”[3]

"The Darwinian revolution was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another," the great zoologist Ernst Mayr once
said, "but rather the replacement of a worldview, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new worldview in which there was no room for supernatural forces."34

“The Darwinian revolution,” wrote the famous zoologist Ernst Mayr, “was not merely the replacement of one scientific theory by another, but rather the replacement of a worldview, in which the supernatural was accepted as a normal and relevant explanatory principle, by a new worldview in which there was no room for supernatural forces.” [4]

When Darwin's theory was accepted in biology, says historian Edward Purcell, its broader implication was understood to be a new theory of knowledge generally. People working in fields outside of science—the soc'al sclences, law, and politics—came to see that Darwinism implied "a wholly naturalistic and empirically orientcd world view." In this worldview, theological dogmas became "at worst totally fraudulent and at best merely symbolic of deep human aspirations." 36

As historian Edward Purcell notes, people working in subject areas far afield from biology soon came to understand that Darwinism implied “a wholly naturalistic and empirically oriented world view” in which theological doctrines were to be viewed as “at worst totally fraudulent and at best merely symbolic of deep human aspirations.”[5]

how can this possibly be seen as unintentional plagiarism? This is intentional.

It was plagiarism in 2017, and it continues to be plagiarism in 2018.

Maybe this would be a good time to review the Patheos site terms of service:

By posting, submitting or otherwise exchanging Member Content on or through the Site, you acknowledge, agree and understand that ... (iii) you explicitly represent and warrant that you are the sole owner of such Member Content or have all rights and licenses necessary regarding such Member Content....

https://web.archive.org/web/20171014043 ... e.aspx?p=2

[_Tator]

DCP is just a plain old lazy overpaid hack that can't write a decent speech for a conference or write an original piece of work.

It's really that simple and stupid, he's lazy.