Playing devil's advocate, I don't think that there is any relationship
between plagiarism and general knowledge, in part, because
the situations where plagiarism is most important, namely specialized
knowledge areas from the sciences to the humanities to the arts
and so on, don't constitute general knowledge (e.g., how does the
Welch t-test differ from the Students [actually Fisher] t-test?).
This should be common knowledge among psychologists, right?
What psychologist worth his/her salt would not know this? ;-)
The construct of "general knowledge" you describe below assumes
a common sociocultural experience among all individuals along with
a uniform educational system that makes sure that certain "propositions"
(i.e., assertions that can be factual, "alternate facts", cultural
beliefs,
and so on). To take a ridiculous example, in the original movie
"The Planet of the Apes", Charlton Heston's character is brought before
a board of judicial apes where he is examined on "commonly known"
aspects of ape religion and culture. To the apes, since all apes should
know these things, it is almost axiomatic that all intelligent beings
would
also know these things. But "Taylor" has no idea what the correct
answers are to the questions he is being asked because he has no
experience with ape culture -- but to the apes this lack of knowledge
is evidence that "Taylor" is a mental defective because he lacks
knowledge that all apes would be able to answer. Of course, this
is an example from fiction but it does make the point that it is absurd
to assume that "everyone" in a society has the same knowledge.
More practically, conflicts between different belief systems
(e.g., religion vs science, Marxist vs capitalism, Trumpism vs
rationality, etc.)
make very different assumptions about the nature of reality which
results in very different funds of knowledge and what constitutes
valid knowledge. Billionaires that don't believe in global warming
or climate change probably don't care or believe the science
that support those positions -- they can "buy" their own scientists
to provide their own "alternative facts" to "falsify" the claims of
mainstream climate scientists. A somewhat more dramatic
example of the clash of beliefs, remember that in the 1950s
Sir Ronald Fisher argued in favor of the Tobacco companies
because he rightly said that there was only a correlation between
cigarette smoking and various illnesses like cancer -- public
health experts argued that cigarette smoking caused the illness
but as Fisher pointed out, the correlation does not arise from
controlled experimentation with humans, that correlation could
be interpreted as showing that people who would go on to get
cancer, heart disease, lung disease, etc., was drawn to smoking
because, perhaps, it provided some benefit from a subjective
perspective. Of course, Fisher is correct on this point and one
has to remember that the proper experimentation (i.e.,
random assignment of people to smoking and non-smoking
conditions lasting decades) has never been done and, for
ethical reasons, can never be done. Nonetheless, drawing
upon evidence from a variety of sources, it is a pretty good
bet that smoking is bad for a person (people in their 90s
who have smoked everyday of their adult life notwithstanding).
But the Tobacco companies can still claim that there is no
experimental evidence with humans that demonstrates a
causal relationship between smoking and physical illness.
People working for tobacco companies or have their wealth
in tobacco company stock probably comfort themselves
with that last statement.
So, what is "general knowledge"? This is really hard to
know unless we survey for it (and don't be surprised about
what people don't know). However, in certain areas, people
who participate in the activities of that area, certain conventions
may be put forth as knowledge that everyone in that area
should have. Ph.D. psychologists are presumed to know
APA style, basic research design, basic statistical analysis,
and so on. If they don't have knowledge in these areas, their
education may be deemed deficient. However, other types
of knowledge, such as Freudian theory, may be considered
optional or, in the extreme, represents a false explanation
of mental illness and human behavior and should not be taught
(it is only historical accident and the role of Freudian theory
in pop culture that has resulted in a fair number of people
having some basic ideas of Freudian theory -- it would be
a mistake to assume that everyone has this knowledge).
And let's not forget that a lot of people "know" some really
dumb things, like that people only us 10% of their brains
(see the Neuromyths thread from earlier this week). General
knowledge of this sort is just "fake knowledge".
And remember, if you think that you know something that is common
knowledge but cannot identify a source for it -- like where did
Freud refer to the mind as being like an iceberg -- perhaps one
should question that "common knowledge". Scholarship is
the cure for "common knowledge" and "common fake knowledge".
One should know the sources for the claims that one makes.
Not being able to provide a source is a flag that perhaps one
does not really know what one is talking about.
-Mike Palij
New York University
[email protected]
P.S. Of course, we are only discussing inductive and abductive
reasoning. With deductive reasoning, once the premises and rules
are known, one can demonstrate the basis for one's knowledge
which everyone should be able to do, like Euclid did with geometry. ;-)
---------- Original Message ----------
On Fri, 01 Sep 2017 06:38:27 -0700, Dap Louw wrote:
I have always struggled to determine where to draw the line between
plagiarism
and general knowledge. The general view in South Africa is that you do
not
have to use a reference if the information has become general knowledge.
In
other words, According to Freud the psyche consists of the id, ego and
superego or Watson was an American psychologist does not need a
reference.
However, it often gets tricky. Allow me to use a pretty naive example
(my
apologies):
* Columbus arrived in America in 1492. I assume every American knows
this,
but probably less than 0,001% of South Africans do. Does it mean that
South
Africans have to use a reference but not Americans? My family and I
spent some
time in the US and I therefore knew it. Am I excluded?
* Columbus arrived in America in 1492 and more specifically on 12
October. Is
this general kowledge in the US? If so, what about:
* Columbus arrived in America in 1492 and more specifically on 12
October at
14:00 (fictitious).
* Columbus arrived in America in 1492 and more specifically on 12
October at
14:00 and saw a three dead whales floating in the sea (fictitious)
When do we start using references in these cases? I assume very few
Americans
would know about the whales, but what about American history lecturers
who see
this as general knowledge among themselves?
In South Africa we have a system of external examiners for thesis and
dissertations. In most cases at least one (sometimes all) of them must
be from
an international university. They see the thesis/dissertation for the
first
time when they receive it. In many cases these external examiners focus
more
on correct referencing, list of references and other technical aspects,
rather
than the content, often postponing the students’ graduation. Not to
mention
the obsession (fetish?) with the different academic systems of reference
(Harvard, APA, Oxford, Vancouver, MLA, etc) --- of which there are a few
thousand.
Please say you understand my frustration! ☺
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=51312
or send a blank email to
leave-51312-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
