Is Sic et Non Actually Trying to Impress Me?!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_DrW
_Emeritus
Posts: 7222
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:57 am

Re: Is Sic et Non Actually Trying to Impress Me?!

Post by _DrW »

Maksutov wrote:
DrW wrote:As Lemmie indicates, the absence of even the most basic understanding of science reflected in DCP's cut and paste posts is nothing short of embarrassing. Extremely so.

Best of all in his latest attempt is the "parable" wherein a scientist struggles to climb a great mountain of scientific knowledge. He finally reaches the last ledge before the summit only to be greeted by a creationist waiting on top to lend the scientist a helping hand for the final ascent. Such a characterization is just silly.

As anyone who has had a career in science can tell you, when you feel you have reached the summit, be sure to first turn and look back from where you have come. Take some time to savor the moment, feel good about the climb, and reflect on what you have achieved. Because what you will see most of the time when you turn to look ahead again is another, often higher, mountain.


DrW, I seem to have heard the distressing news that Mormondom's greatest astronomer, John (UranustestifiesofChrist) Pratt has defected to the Snuffer side. Apparently we will have to rely on Brother Lynn Hilton or Brother John Heinerman for the true knowledge of the cosmos. :wink:

Hey Maks,

Not to worry. Surely DCP will keep his readers apprised and up to date with his faithful cherry picking of the best of popular science and pseudoscience by means of his cut and paste blog posts.

Just always be sure to go to the original sources (when DCP bothers to post them) to find out what is actually being reported (or in the case of the pseudoscience, what the crackpots are saying and the believers are believing).
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."

DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Is Sic et Non Actually Trying to Impress Me?!

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Peterson thinks after quoting a few folks of Christian bent that now oh just anyone thinks supernatural forces are at work creating the cosmos?!

Not to be too obtuse here, but... uh... does that anyone mean the likes of Richard Dawkins, cause I sure don't see it in his writings, nor Stuart Kauffman, Michael Martin, Rick Monnier, Vic Stenger (only recently deceased), Quentin Smith, William L. Rowe, J. L. Schellenberg, Matt McCormick, Robert T. Pennock, Lee Smolin, Leonard Susskind, Stephen Hawking, Tim Cox, Michio Kaku, C. Loring Brace, George O. Abell, John Brockman, Jerry A. Coyne, Daniel C. Dennett, Seth Lloyd, Steven Pinker, Leonard Mlodinow, or Simon Singh... woops, dammit man, why can't I just believe what an apologist writes and go with it in good faith? Because they seldom follow good logic (making a generalization from an unbelievably seriously limited specific few Christian thinkers, a no no kind of fallacy only mere amateurs make), rarely cite actual evidence, and continue warping science all out of recognition, to the detriment of all the rest of the world.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Is Sic et Non Actually Trying to Impress Me?!

Post by _Lemmie »

DrW wrote:Hey Maks,

Not to worry. Surely DCP will keep his readers apprised and up to date with his faithful cherry picking of the best of popular science and pseudoscience by means of his cut and paste blog posts.

Just always be sure to go to the original sources (when DCP bothers to post them) to find out what is actually being reported (or in the case of the pseudoscience, what the crackpots are saying and the believers are believing).

Excellent point, DrW. As DCP was wrapping up his 3 part science series, I noticed he posted more "notes from a manuscript". I assumed he meant his own manuscript, which is problematic, as Buskirk published an article containing an uncomfortably similar excerpt in 2005, in a FARMS article entitled "Science, Pseudo-Science, and Religious Belief."

DCP, channeling Buskirk, wrote:Contemporary science often requires that we ignore the evidence provided by our own eyes in favor of abstract theories. How many have ever seen a quark or a muon or even an electron? What evidence do we really, personally, have that the earth orbits the sun? To the human eye, it appears that the sun rises in the morning and sets at night, while the solid earth, terra firma, remains motionless and at rest. What sensory data tells us that the earth revolves annually around the sun? None. Which is why ancient peoples universally held to a geocentric view of the universe. But then along came Copernicus, arguing that, in fact, it is the earth that moves around the sun. Which should take precedence? Theory, or common sense and what we can see with our own eyes? Galileo once wrote expressed his admiration for Copernicus on the grounds that Copernicus let “reason so conquer sense that, in defiance of the latter, the former became the mistress of his mind.”[1] In other words, he admired the fact that Copernicus allow theoretical principles override the data presented by his senses. But the surprising fact is that the weight of the actual evidence both in Copernicus’s time and in Galileo’s, some years later, was against Copernicus’s proposal. It was not until approximately sixty years after Copernicus’s death that the data were on hand to vindicate his heliocentric model of the solar system.

[1] Cited in Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 93.

https://web.archive.org/web/20171115020 ... ience.html


Buskirk, in the original, wrote: In many cases, science now asks us to ignore the evidence of our own eyes in favor of abstract theories. Consider for a moment what evidence you have that the earth goes around the sun. It looks to my eyes like the sun comes up in the morning and goes down at night while the earth is at rest. I have never experienced anything with my own senses that would convince me that the earth revolves around the sun. Should this evidence refute or falsify the Copernican hypothesis in my mind? Should I reject the authority of the learned doctors of science in favor of my own observations? Galileo famously wrote of Copernicus how he admired the fact that Copernicus let "'reason so conquer sense that, in defiance of the latter, the former became the mistress of [his] belief.' "[27] In other words, he admired that Copernicus ignored the sensory evidence and was guided by simplicity, parsimony, and reason. The weight of evidence of the day was against the Copernican hypothesis, and it was not until sixty years after his death that evidence was obtained to confirm the heliocentric model.

[27] Quoted in Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 93.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/publica ... uskirk.pdf


(You'll notice I highlighted the weird phrase "wrote expressed" in DCP's quote. It seems he was switching out 'wrote' for 'expressed', a common technique people use when appropriating other's words to pay lip service to the avoidance of plagiarism, and just forgot to eliminate the 'wrote.')
Last edited by Guest on Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Is Sic et Non Actually Trying to Impress Me?!

Post by _Lemmie »

wow, DCP really does pay close attention here. Since I posted his unfortunate lapse in memory that his notes were actually written by someone else, he has adjusted his blog entry. Prior to the piece in question, it now reads:
DCP, post being caught, wrote:Raw and largely unprocessed notes from a manuscript:
 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... OtR2pkC.99


Here's what it used to be, from the webcache,
DCP originally wrote:Notes from a manuscript:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171115020 ... ience.html


He also added "[see original]" after the original author's footnote, something he does when he appropriates someone else's use of a quotation and their entire exact footnote.


Wouldn't it be easier to just say oops, I accidentally forgot the quotation marks? And the author's name? And the piece in which it was published? And the journal name? And the link??
Last edited by Guest on Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Is Sic et Non Actually Trying to Impress Me?!

Post by _Maksutov »

DCP knows that science and secularism are the real kryptonite for Mormonism. So he will employ every strategy, including the most obvious, fallacious and laughable ones to attack science, because it--and we--are an existential threat to the fraudulent system that he stands upon. Hundreds of years of accomplishments, thousands of dedicated lives, and the fruits of science all around us are to be ignored in favor of magic rocks and burning bosoms.

Imagine DCP looking through Galileo's telescope...
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Dr Exiled
_Emeritus
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Is Sic et Non Actually Trying to Impress Me?!

Post by _Dr Exiled »

Lemmie wrote:wow, DCP really does pay close attention here. Since I posted his unfortunate lapse in memory that his notes were actually written by someone else, he has adjusted his blog entry. Prior to the piece in question, it now reads:
DCP, post being caught, wrote:Raw and largely unprocessed notes from a manuscript:
 
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... OtR2pkC.99

Here's what it used to be, from the webcache,

DCP originally wrote:Notes from a manuscript:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171115020 ... ience.html

He also added "[see original]" after the original author's footnote, something he does when he appropriates someone else's use of a quotation and their entire exact footnote.

Wouldn't it be easier to just say oops, I accidentally forgot the quotation marks? And the author's name? And the piece in which it was published? And the journal name? And the link??

I heard he consulted with Oaks prior to Oaks coming out with how the church never apologizes and doesn't ask for apologies. He is just following the church script.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 
_Doctor CamNC4Me
_Emeritus
Posts: 21663
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 11:02 am

Re: Is Sic et Non Actually Trying to Impress Me?!

Post by _Doctor CamNC4Me »

Can someone who is a little more adept at linking threads do us all a favor and link this thread starting with Lemmie's comments on the thread cataloging Mr. Peterson's history of plagiarism?

- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.

Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Post Reply