tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post2097739314420936494..comments2024-03-17T10:19:02.765-07:00Comments on Tekton Ticker: Depth Review: Stephen Hawking's "The Grand Design," Part 1Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-54901967083341565472011-12-17T17:37:37.209-08:002011-12-17T17:37:37.209-08:00The point is that fair use ISN'T plagiarism, y...The point is that fair use ISN'T plagiarism, you doorknob.<br /><br />As for the rest, since you failed to show a single error by RG in his assessment, you can speak into a pail -- and will from now on. You're a stalker with a sick obsession, Jeffy...and you're banned from now on.J. P Holdinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917892597771877097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-67892118368230203742011-12-17T15:50:37.108-08:002011-12-17T15:50:37.108-08:00Good thing RG has you to step in and rescue him, J...Good thing RG has you to step in and rescue him, JP! I guess that just a little bit of plagiarism is ok by you, as long as it's being done by someone you like and in service against someone you dislike. I will readily grant that this was far from the most important or egregious of RG's antics in this conversation so far, and as you'll note, it was not the point I chimed in to make; but of course, where you are involved, discussions never stay on topic -- they always drift to attempts at character assassination. It's unfortunate that RG has learned this behavior from you, as it won't serve him well in his career, whatever vocation he pursues. <br /><br />But I think the bigger point, and the only one I was originally trying to make, is that it doesn't look good for Christians to take on subjects that are clearly beyond their expertise. Let me give a simple example -- I think it was a bad idea for Timothy Paul Johnson, a pastor, to write a book trying to refutate Ehrman's book. Leave that to a textual critic like Dan Wallace, who is Ehrman's superior in every regard. Same thing here; don't send a history undergrad up against Hawking, send someone like Polkinghorne, eg. That's a point that you probably wouldn't actually disagree with, except that it's inconvenient at this point to grant that I'm right about it.<br /><br />Anyway, having made my point several times, I'll probably sign off unless there's something important that you or RG want me to address. Have a happy Christmas.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14734586120736013744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-78217252311907346382011-12-17T15:16:08.641-08:002011-12-17T15:16:08.641-08:00Actually, Jeffy, your reputation on TWeb as a whi...Actually, Jeffy, your reputation on TWeb as a whiner who is dishonest with the Biblical text in order to get what you want out of it already makes you look enough of a fool, liar, etc.<br /><br />I'm an expert in fair use...he didn't overstep the bounds, or come anywhere close, and to charge "plagiarism" for a description of an everyday word is asinine, especially when what was used amounted to the tiniest portion of the whole source.<br /><br />If you had any sense, you'd have searched for key phrases and found that being used freely online -- often with no reference to Wiki as a source. Actually maybe you did do that, but your record as a liar is such that you'd never admit to it; it has to be discovered and you have to be exposed, and then the victim tears will flow freely from those crocodile eyeballs of yours.<br /><br />Too bad. Like that sorrowful Lazy Agnostic, who you match in every respect as a person, you've been stalking here for a chance to score some vengeance for the drubbing you took at the forum, and you picked one that made you look like a petty, childish troll.J. P Holdinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917892597771877097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-59751978966900088922011-12-17T12:39:48.201-08:002011-12-17T12:39:48.201-08:00It really is remarkable, and sad, how closely in J...It really is remarkable, and sad, how closely in JP's footsteps you have chosen to follow. You exhibit the same lack of intellectual honesty, the same obstinate insistence on riding the Titanic into the depths of the north Atlantic rather than concede even the slightest inch of ground.<br /><br />Paraphrasing can still be considered plagiarism. It's not enough to merely add a word here or subtract a word there -- plagiarism is also the failure to acknowledge your source, which you still have yet to do three posts in.<br /><br />Here's a link to a site that I found that illustrates this with an example: https://www.indiana.edu/~istd/example1paraphrasing.html <br />I'm sure you could find examples of the same thing in any university's academic honesty policy, that was just the first that I happened upon. I think you know perfectly well that if you submitted the paragraph in question in a paper to one of your college courses, you would very likely face academic discipline for it.<br /><br />Now, to be fair, we're talking about a comment in a blog post. The very easy thing to do would have been to say from the beginning, "yeah, I got that from [insert source here], probably should have cited that, my bad." No big deal. But the fact that you won't even make this simple admission makes your attempts to paint me as the fool, idiot, liar, Scotch drinker, etc, come across as terribly silly. <br /><br />I assume you are not a dishonest person in real life, I think you have just adopted terrible rhetorical habits from too much time spent watching JP and in the TWeb forums. And I think that's a shame, because Christianity urgently needs bright young thinkers who are vigorous and enthusiastic, which you clearly are.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14734586120736013744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-66689656982404725432011-12-17T08:52:48.888-08:002011-12-17T08:52:48.888-08:00"I will at least give you credit for identify..."I will at least give you credit for identifying yourself as a plagiarist."<br />It seems as if you are using a different, i.e. wrong, definition of plagiarise than the rest of the English speaking world. I'll give you a hint, paraphrasing =/= plagiarism.<br /><br />From the page you cite:<br />"In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains."<br /><br />What I said:<br />"In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet certain basic requirements regarding the empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application."<br /><br />Kind of odd how they aren't verbatim identical. Are you always this incoherent, or do you drink a load of Scotch each time prior to posting?Rational Gazehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619088305860471429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-64983406552236441972011-12-17T06:06:16.851-08:002011-12-17T06:06:16.851-08:00Whatever that was supposed to prove. Not that it m...Whatever that was supposed to prove. Not that it matters -- that's just one of a few dozen cites, and it's pretty clear by now that Geisler's co-authors are responsible for that.<br /><br />You're still as incoherent as usual. No surprise.J. P Holdinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917892597771877097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-43197880865334418072011-12-16T14:23:01.970-08:002011-12-16T14:23:01.970-08:00"Quite true. And you also referred to his ath..."Quite true. And you also referred to his atheistic overlords -- not a bad description, given that in the past he's been quoted by Loftus favorably."<br /><br />Come come now, JP, just a few posts back you were telling us that "low rent intellectual atheists" were an acceptable source authority to appeal to for certain arguments. Of course, not that much longer ago you were also referencing a citation of your website by N. Geisler as evidence that your ministry should be taken seriously.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14734586120736013744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-88522498137216553602011-12-16T14:15:39.964-08:002011-12-16T14:15:39.964-08:00"Where did I do that[copying and pasting fro..."Where did I do that[copying and pasting from wikipedia]? Oh, that's right, I didn't. Please try again, dum-dum. I did on the other hand utilise a definition of theory gleaned from the internet, and incorporated it into my reply."<br /><br />From this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory :<br /><br />"In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet basic requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains."<br /><br />Perhaps you found this same snippet at a different website. Regardless, using words that are not your own without placing them in quotation marks and identifying the source is generally considered plagiarism. I must admit that calling someone a "dum dum" for incorrectly identifying the website that you plagiarised from is a novel rhetorical strategy. I will at least give you credit for identifying yourself as a plagiarist.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14734586120736013744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-34547242419128242302011-12-16T06:28:47.452-08:002011-12-16T06:28:47.452-08:00>>I said you were a sycophantic automaton. G...>>I said you were a sycophantic automaton. Granted, the two are often the same thing, but there is a difference. <br /><br />Quite true. And you also referred to his atheistic overlords -- not a bad description, given that in the past he's been quoted by Loftus favorably. And it doesn't faze him in the least.<br /><br />Enjoy -- he's all yours from here.J. P Holdinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917892597771877097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-21789133452879757612011-12-16T05:13:49.032-08:002011-12-16T05:13:49.032-08:00"Copying and pasting from wikipedia as a sour..."Copying and pasting from wikipedia as a source? Tut tut, JP will not be best pleased with you."<br />Where did I do that? Oh, that's right, I didn't. Please try again, dum-dum. I did on the other hand utilise a definition of theory gleaned from the internet, and incorporated it into my reply.<br /><br />"As a professional scientist with a Ph.D. from a well-known university..."<br />Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. <br /><br />"It's an explanatory framework that fits together observations from multiple experiments and that makes predictions about the results of future experiments..."<br />And this contradicts what I said... how? It seems as if you have a hard time understanding logic in addition to science, considering what I said and what you said are not mutually incompatible. <br /><br />Speculative or conjectural explanations are called hypotheses. Well-tested and corroborated explanations are called theories. Is that simple enough for you to understand?<br /><br />"You are leaping to conclusions -- another common JP behavior. I am a Christian..."<br />Where did I say that YOU were an atheist? I said you were a sycophantic automaton. Granted, the two are often the same thing, but there is a difference. <br /><br />"...and while I don't by any means put Hawking on a pedestal, he is a credentialed and widely respected scientist who sits in the same chair that Isaac Newton once held, for goodness' sake..."<br />And? Someone with a PhD in a field totally unrelated to philosophy and history has no more right to be taken seriously when they talk on those subjects than a random person on the internet. <br /><br />"Would you take very seriously an atheist with a high school degree and some college coursework in psychology or fine art or English..."<br />Firstly: a high-school "degree" =/= a Bachelor's Degree. I am curious as to what a "high-school degree" actually is, since no such qualification currently exists. The only qualification you receive from high school are GCSEs, unless are referring to A-levels, which are technically college level since they are equivalent to National BTEC Diplomas. <br /><br />Secondly, no, I wouldn't dismiss it because it was written by someone with a "high school degree" since that would an ad hominem. It would depend on their arguments, although if the were scornful and derisive, then it would presumably be nothing by emotion packed drivel. <br /><br />"Put it a different way; you have to earn the right to be derisive. The author of the post is nowhere close to having earned that right."<br />I haven't been scornful or derisive. Learn to read, and stop reading things into the text that aren't there. <br /><br />"But my complaint isn't really with the author of the post, but rather with JP..."<br />My complaint is that you like to whine incessantly about ultimately trivial and meaningless things. <br /><br />"...and the way that he has, directly and indirectly, inculcated a mindset in younger believers that leads to blog posts like this one. Or comments like yours, for that matter."<br />I am going to go with option c: you're an idiot who can't stand to see people disagree with their quaint though ludicrous notions about how the world works.Rational Gazehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619088305860471429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-74339427642810889402011-12-15T18:51:32.594-08:002011-12-15T18:51:32.594-08:00You? A PhD? In what, game design? Or whining?You? A PhD? In what, game design? Or whining?J. P Holdinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917892597771877097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-60090776564020927912011-12-15T18:20:37.612-08:002011-12-15T18:20:37.612-08:00Oops, it just occurred to me, RG, that you yoursel...Oops, it just occurred to me, RG, that you yourself might be the author of this blog post? If so, I apologize for any confusion created in my response by my referring to you and the author as separate individuals.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14734586120736013744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-78213956578438501302011-12-15T18:12:03.773-08:002011-12-15T18:12:03.773-08:00Copying and pasting from wikipedia as a source? T...Copying and pasting from wikipedia as a source? Tut tut, JP will not be best pleased with you.<br /><br />"In other words, you have no understanding of basic scientific concepts, or how science actually works."<br /><br />As a professional scientist with a Ph.D. from a well-known university, yes, I have a perfectly good understanding of how science works.<br /><br />A theory is not just a hypothesis that has stood the test of time and observation, nor is it something that sort of sits between a hypothesis and a law, which are what the author of the blog post essentially said. It's an explanatory framework that fits together observations from multiple experiments and that makes predictions about the results of future experiments. It is this combination of explanatory power and fecundity that make a theory different from a hypothesis, and not merely that one exceeds a critical mass of observations and the other does not. <br /><br /><br />"Ahh, the irony. Nothing like a sycophantic automaton come to the rescue of their atheistic overlords."<br /><br />You are leaping to conclusions -- another common JP behavior. I am a Christian, and while I don't by any means put Hawking on a pedestal, he is a credentialed and widely respected scientist who sits in the same chair that Isaac Newton once held, for goodness' sake -- they don't give that out to just any Tom, Dick, or Harry. I can't tell exactly what level of educational achievement the author of the blog post has attained, but it sounds from what he has indicated that he (a) does not yet have a bachelor's degree and (b) is taking his degree in history, not science. Would you take very seriously an atheist with a high school degree and some college coursework in psychology or fine art or English, who wrote a scornful and derisive screed claiming that Bruce Malina's or Mike Licona's work was complete "bunkum"? <br /><br />Put it a different way; you have to earn the right to be derisive. The author of the post is nowhere close to having earned that right.<br /><br />But my complaint isn't really with the author of the post, but rather with JP, and the way that he has, directly and indirectly, inculcated a mindset in younger believers that leads to blog posts like this one. Or comments like yours, for that matter.<br /><br /> There is no god but science, and Richard Dawkins is its prophet! In nomime Dawkins, et scientia, et Stephen Hawking, etc. If Hawking is such a luminary, then how does he manage to be so self-contradictory? Also, why is his knowledge of history so poor? Oh well, don't worry yourself about it. Science works in mysterious ways after all.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14734586120736013744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-41639580392365298142011-12-15T14:50:15.524-08:002011-12-15T14:50:15.524-08:00"the lack of understanding of basic scientifi..."the lack of understanding of basic scientific concepts such as "theory" that he exhibits would certainly cause his evaluation of Hawking's work as bunkum and slapdash to fall flat"<br />In other words, you have no understanding of basic scientific concepts, or how science actually works. In scientific usage, the term "theory" is reserved for explanations of phenomena which meet certain basic requirements regarding the empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application. <br /><br />This is different from a hypothesis, which is simply a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon that makes predictions, is parsimonious, is testable, and is falsifiable, and is different from a working hypothesis which is a hypothesis that is provisionally accepted on the basis of data derived from observation and testability, and serves as a basis for further research to try and form a tenable theory. <br /><br />"But taking it upon oneself to try to pile scorn on a luminary like Hawking when one clearly doesn't have the arrows in one's quiver to pull it off?"<br />Ahh, the irony. Nothing like a sycophantic automaton come to the rescue of their atheistic overlords. There is no god but science, and Richard Dawkins is its prophet! In nomime Dawkins, et scientia, et Stephen Hawking, etc. If Hawking is such a luminary, then how does he manage to be so self-contradictory? Also, why is his knowledge of history so poor? Oh well, don't worry yourself about it. Science works in mysterious ways after all.Rational Gazehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619088305860471429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-4581980371627357222011-12-15T13:38:37.688-08:002011-12-15T13:38:37.688-08:00Still whining?
I'll let Dan take care of you....Still whining?<br /><br />I'll let Dan take care of you.J. P Holdinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09917892597771877097noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3010300921036003176.post-75256754632932512632011-12-15T03:11:52.165-08:002011-12-15T03:11:52.165-08:00You know JP, you complain about people who critici...You know JP, you complain about people who criticize your abrasive rhetoric, but this post is a great example of what those people see as the probable outcome of such methods -- a generation of young people who will feel emboldened to criticize people like Hawking for "decid[ing] to dabble in areas outside of their expertise" without any sense of irony. You say that the purpose of such rhetoric is to pile shame and ridicule on the recipient so that he loses credibility in the eyes of the audience. This young man has embraced your method wholeheartedly, but were he to attempt to introduce this piece into any serious discussion in a university classroom, a lecture, an online forum, etc, the lack of understanding of basic scientific concepts such as "theory" that he exhibits would certainly cause his evaluation of Hawking's work as bunkum and slapdash to fall flat; there would be only one individual acquiring shame in that transaction, and it wouldn't be Hawking.<br /><br />I think it's great that this young man is reading Hawking critically, questioning his assumptions and assertions, trying to learn more about science -- these are all good things that Christians should be encouraged to do. But taking it upon oneself to try to pile scorn on a luminary like Hawking when one clearly doesn't have the arrows in one's quiver to pull it off? That's a terrible idea, and if you have any sense of introspection (I know that you don't), I would think that you would question whether this is the fruit you really desire your rhetorical methods to bear.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14734586120736013744noreply@blogger.com