4 ms·

I can agree with this being extremely problematic in a political sense - it's horribly wrong to rip someone off, even more so by robbing them during wartime. Qu

I can agree with this being extremely problematic in a political sense - it's horribly wrong to rip someone off, even more so by robbing them during wartime. Quoting such stolen material is a kind of passive support and should not be tolerated. BUT - how does that affect it from a purely scientific perspective? Is the quoted stolen material also incorrect? Because it would be equally bad, IMHO, to ignore an important and correct scientific finding just because it was produced in an unacceptable way. If I exaggerate a bit, it's similar to someone experimenting on babies to discover a cure for AIDS - sure, they're a terrible person and should not receive praise/compensation for their discovery, their actions should be condemned. But should we also throw away the discovered cure?

williamjennings 11y ago
It is not simply problematic in a political sense, it is is of ethical and ontological significance. The misdeed of "ripping someone off" is only rectified when society recognizes the true ownership had by the victim and rejects the title had by the perpetrator. Quotation and Citation of plagiarized material demonstrates misunderstanding of the subject because it is a mistake with regards to the ontology of an idea. But - the technical perspective is different from the scientific perspective. One writer may be technically correct in his or her own jargon, but the words do not merit publication because they are not comprehensible or reproducible. The quoted stolen material is technically and scientifically incorrect because discovery is the induction of titles by origin. The reason that we have many things named after people is so we can easily check the history of how, when, where, and why they were discovered. Findings are made unacceptable when they are produced in an unscientific way. Mochizuki is scientifically and technically incorrect because his citations are unacceptable and inaccurate. Your hyperbole about "throwing away the cure" does not apply because this is a situation which involves at least two competing people. As a better simile, imagine that two scientists are hoping to cure aids. One scientist decides to study how white blood cells kill viruses, and why the human immunodeficiency virus surpasses host defenses. The other scientist decides to directly experiment with a variety of chemicals on babies and refugees. Even if both scientists succeed, only the first scientist deserves credit because that work is dignified and reproducible. Those findings are a result which others can build upon and replicate. The second scientist deserves no credit because that work is unethical and irreproducible. Those findings are a result which others cannot build upon nor reproduce. That way, as a society we reward the scientist whose work is more valuable and less expensive to undertake.

williamjennings 11y ago

It is not simply problematic in a political sense, it is is of ethical and ontological significance. The misdeed of "ripping someone off" is only rectified when society recognizes the true ownership had by the victim and rejects the title had by the perpetrator. Quotation and Citation of plagiarized material demonstrates misunderstanding of the subject because it is a mistake with regards to the ontology of an idea. But - the technical perspective is different from the scientific perspective. One writer may be technically correct in his or her own jargon, but the words do not merit publication because they are not comprehensible or reproducible. The quoted stolen material is technically and scientifically incorrect because discovery is the induction of titles by origin. The reason that we have many things named after people is so we can easily check the history of how, when, where, and why they were discovered. Findings are made unacceptable when they are produced in an unscientific way. Mochizuki is scientifically and technically incorrect because his citations are unacceptable and inaccurate. Your hyperbole about "throwing away the cure" does not apply because this is a situation which involves at least two competing people. As a better simile, imagine that two scientists are hoping to cure aids. One scientist decides to study how white blood cells kill viruses, and why the human immunodeficiency virus surpasses host defenses. The other scientist decides to directly experiment with a variety of chemicals on babies and refugees. Even if both scientists succeed, only the first scientist deserves credit because that work is dignified and reproducible. Those findings are a result which others can build upon and replicate. The second scientist deserves no credit because that work is unethical and irreproducible. Those findings are a result which others cannot build upon nor reproduce. That way, as a society we reward the scientist whose work is more valuable and less expensive to undertake.