Maksutov wrote:Hey, we can't disappoint Dan. He's counting on us. He needs us to have something to rant about. Otherwise he'd be peddling sad little excuses for scholarship.
It's interesting that in all his persecution postings on his blog, telling his audience how victimised and hated he his, referencing threads and comments on this board, going so far as to suggest he may consider litigation, he has never once referenced the criticism levelled at him for plagiarism. It's the one topic he doesn't rant on about.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
As a scientist, I simply can't imagine even wanting to plagiarize a summary of facts about the universe. What if they got something wrong? Then I'd look like the idiot instead of them.
It is much better to just say, "According to website x, ……" Then if they turn out to be wrong it's on them.
His compulsion to plagiarize really puzzles me. Not to mention, it is supposedly the worst sin of academia and he just commits it so transparently with no shame.
fetchface wrote:As a scientist, I simply can't imagine even wanting to plagiarize a summary of facts about the universe. What if they got something wrong? Then I'd look like the idiot instead of them.
It is much better to just say, "According to website x, ……" Then if they turn out to be wrong it's on them.
His compulsion to plagiarize really puzzles me. Not to mention, it is supposedly the worst sin of academia and he just commits it so transparently with no shame.
Why? It is so easy to cite the source.
Lazy...or he wants to be considered the source. Either way...I think he believes he will redeem himself with his long-awaited (ha!) tome debunking secularism. His failure to cope with Gemli doesn't bode well for that project, but it's not like many people will actually read his book, any more than they did Nibley's.
fetchface wrote:As a scientist, I simply can't imagine even wanting to plagiarize a summary of facts about the universe. What if they got something wrong? Then I'd look like the idiot instead of them. It is much better to just say, "According to website x, ……" Then if they turn out to be wrong it's on them.
Yeah, exactly. I'm also having a hard time guessing how Peterson has come out with this stuff. Whatever his academic honesty issues, he doesn't seem to realize how tricky the stuff he's posting is. I'm pretty sure that planets are molten when they first form, for the same reason that stars heat up before they start fusion. When stuff collides and sticks together by gravity, all that incoming kinetic energy turns into heat. So did radioactivity really re-melt the Earth after it had solidified once? Maybe it did, but it sounds weird to me, so I'd be sure to attribute it to the source if I quoted it. This is not just a bunch of common knowledge. I'm not sure it's even right.
Version 4. The thesaurus mining and re-arranging since version 3 has been bolded.
DCP wrote:Remember that, according to current scientific consensus, the Earth came into being in the same fashion that most if not all other objects in our solar system did, as a solidified cloud of dust particles and gases remaining as “left overs” from the very process that formed the Sun. (They coalesced because of mutual and ever increasing gravitational attraction.)
For maybe half a billion years, the interior of the planet remained solid and (relatively) cool, perhaps at a balmy temperature of approximately 2,000°F. But these conditions couldn’t (and didn’t) last forever. The main components of the Earth’s interior in that epoch, according to currently available evidence and theory, were iron and various silicates — that is, salts combining silicon and oxygen. But there were also small amounts of other elements, including some (notably uranium, thorium, and potassium) that were radioactive.
As millions of years passed, energy released from those elements by slow radioactive decay gradually heated the Earth, melting some of its constituent materials. The iron melted before the silicates could and, because it was heavier, it naturally sank toward the center. In turn, this forced the lighter silicates that its descent displaced to rise up toward the proto-planetary surface.
After many years, that slowly sinking and coalescing iron reached the center of the still-forming planet — and attained stability — at almost 4,000 miles from the surface.
Finally, enough iron accumulated at the Earth’s center to become our planet’s core, more or less as we know it today. Gravitation now kept it in place, because, obviously, to move further would be to move upward. By contrast, the face of the Earth was still turbulent and unstable—suffering (as it were) gigantic earthquakes and even occasional sheer liquid bubbling, like simmering oatmeal. Erupting volcanos pocked the Earth, and flowing lava covered virtually all of it. Moreover, because the Earth’s protective atmosphere hadn’t yet come into existence, solar rays baked its outer surface and meteors frequently bombarded it. But the Earth inevitably began to cool, as everything in the universe is naturally fated to do, and a thin but (again) fairly stable crust of solid rock formed. Of course, that crust wasn’t perfectly smooth. There were depressions (and elevations) in it. These formed natural basins. Meanwhile, water was rising from the interior of the planet through fissures and via volcanic eruptions, and that water collected to form Earth’s primordial seas.
It was in these primeval oceans, most contemporary scientists believe, that the first stirrings of organic life occurred. But all of the processes summarized above had to happen before the Earth was ready for biology to appear.
And then life arose with incredible speed, almost (it now seems) instantly.
I predict that Dan will claim that we're descendants of ancient extraterrestrials. We don't want to call them "aliens" because of politics and copyrights.
And that will be a form of stealing ideas without attribution too, since it's been taught for centuries and forms a foundation for theosophy and UFOlogy and is a frequent subject of science fiction...and of course is total pseudoscience, therefore Mormon-y. This is Dowser Dan the Paranormal Man, remember.
fetchface wrote:As a scientist, I simply can't imagine even wanting to plagiarize a summary of facts about the universe. What if they got something wrong? Then I'd look like the idiot instead of them.
It is much better to just say, "According to website x, ……" Then if they turn out to be wrong it's on them.
His compulsion to plagiarize really puzzles me. Not to mention, it is supposedly the worst sin of academia and he just commits it so transparently with no shame.
Why? It is so easy to cite the source.
Agreed. From the source he used in his 2017 and 2019 postings:
Permissions, Citations, and Copyright
Is the information on the site copyrighted?
Yes—please see our copyright notices.
How do I credit material found on Infoplease in essays and bibliographies?
Click on the "Cite this Page" icon () located at the bottom of every page to learn how to cite the page you are viewing. See Citing Infoplease for more information. https://www.infoplease.com/frequently-a ... rmission30
And in case Peterson missed the point:
Downloading of Intellectual Property:
The FEN Sites contain copyrighted material, trademarks and other proprietary information, including, but not limited to, text, software, photos, video, graphics, music, and sound, portions of which are owned by FEN and portions of which are owned by other parties and licensed to FEN. The entire contents of the FEN Sites are copyrighted as a collective work/compilation. FEN owns copyright in the selection, coordination, arrangement, and enhancement of such content, as well as in the content original to it. No Visitor may modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale, create derivative works, or in any way exploit, any of the content, in whole or in part. Except as otherwise expressly permitted under copyright law, no copying, redistribution, retransmission, publication or commercial exploitation of downloaded material will be permitted without the express written permission of FEN (or the copyright owner(s) if other than or in addition to FEN). In the event of any permitted copying, redistribution or publication of copyrighted material, no changes in or deletion of author attribution, trademark legend, copyright or other proprietary notice shall be made. Visitor acknowledges that he/she does not acquire any ownership rights by downloading copyrighted material. http://www.fen.com/agreeDisclaim.html
[bolding added]
And here is what you see when you hit the 'cite this page' icon:
Please note that almanac articles do not have individual authors. [Infoplease citations follow the MLA style.]
Citing Infoplease Students, you may use our information for your school projects. Please credit (cite) Infoplease as your source.
Infoplease content cannot be used commercially or on the Web without first obtaining our permission.Please complete a permissions request form to inquire about using Infoplease content.
DCP is currently ignoring a commenter asking about the allegation of plagiarism on the 2019 entry he has now thesaurus-adjusted 4 times while the 2017 plagiarized entry remains unchanged, but today he posted this, tagged onto the end of another entry:
DCP wrote:It has been suggested, incidentally, that my notes on science are those of a pretender, and that I’m not really a scientist myself at all. This is wholly untrue.
I read nothing about science, and I never depend upon the research of others. I don’t learn about the cutting edge of science at second hand. The notes I post here are wholly original. When I write about a potentially new species of killer whales, it’s because I myself was braving the harsh winds off the coast of Chile near Cape Horn in order to discover them. When I mention the finding of a fossilized palm frond on the high Tibetan plateau, I’m the scientist who found it. (I spend a great deal of time in and around Tibet, pickaxe at the ready) And when I tell you about a seventh-century BC solar storm? I was there. (In my spare moments, when not in Tibet, I experiment with time travel.)
So yes, I’m a scientist. In fact, my scientific achievements are huge, and many people are saying that I’m the greatest scientist of all time. Probably nobody has ever been more scientific than I am.
I don't think infoplease would consider irony to be an acceptable citation for its work. In fact, they seem rather humorless about stealing intellectual property.
Infoplease content cannot be used commercially or on the Web without first obtaining our permission.
This is Dowser Dan the Paranormal Man, remember.