Alan Dershowitz, Plagiarist

Cain, I hope you don't seriously believe that I'd spend time reading the dialogues of those two idiots...

However, in your opening post your were referring to Cockburn's allegations and not to Goodman's program and the title of the thread was about Cockburn's allegations, therefore is was misleading. Period.
 
Cleopatra said:
Cain, I hope you don't seriously believe that I'd spend time reading the dialogues of those two idiots...

However, in your opening post your were referring to Cockburn's allegations and not to Goodman's program and the title of the thread was about Cockburn's allegations, therefore is was misleading. Period.
Click to expand...

I didn't read all of the dialogue, but enough to see who made more sense, and it was definitely Finkelstein. Dershowitz just blustered, dodged and rambled, to try to avoid talking about the points that Finkelstein was making. And no wonder, Finkelstein had him cold on basic questions of accuracy and plagiarism.
 
I think Dershowitz is a pompous self serving jerk.

It is because of this opinion that I am skeptical of my view of information that is critical of him, sort of a reverse bias if you will.

I read through the interview, perhaps a little too happily, trying to find more evidence to support my preconceived notions of Dershowitz.

I didn't find that evidence. Yes it seems that Dershowitz lifted some arguments and facts from Peters without proper attribution. Finkelstein does a nice job of providing evidence for this in his comparison of the Dershowitz and Peters writings.

But Finkelsteing doesn't provide much evidence for the plagiarism in the interview, he doesn't answer Dershowitz's contention that merely using the same quotes as somebody else isn't plagiarism and he is the one that keeps the interview derailed before much can be discussed of substance concerning Dershowitz's claims in his book.

The only substantive issue that was discussed, was discussed in such a confused way that it was difficult to follow exactly what Finkelstein's point was. Apparently, if I got it right, an Israeli historian had stated that 2,000 to 3,000 arab palestinians had left their homes at the time of the founding of Israel. Dershowitz, I guess, quoted this guy. Finkelsteing says the actual number is 200,000 to 300,000.

My basic thought here is that the evidence provided in the links doesn't support the notion that Dershowitz's book is substantially wrong. As people may know, I tend to believe that the US has gone too far with its support of Israel and is actually partially responsible for the continued problems because of its Israeli aid which is used to subsidize the disputed settlements and because of its unwillingness to take a stand against the excesses of the Sharon government. I just don't think I found any evidence to support those views here.
 
If you read the first link, Davefoc, the examples given are pretty compelling, and they aren't just quotes of quotes. However, the fact that the quotes of quotes are so similar is also indicitive. Why does he happen to quote the same things?
 
AUP, I agree that the evidence that Dershowitz lifted argument, verbiage and quotes from the Peters book is proven assuming only that the information in the link is true.

The more important issue to me was whether the substance of what he wrote in his book was true. For whatever reason, Finkelstein seemed to avoid discussing that.
 
davefoc said:
AUP, I agree that the evidence that Dershowitz lifted argument, verbiage and quotes from the Peters book is proven assuming only that the information in the link is true.

The more important issue to me was whether the substance of what he wrote in his book was true. For whatever reason, Finkelstein seemed to avoid discussing that.
Click to expand...

In the interview, Finkelstein points out two things.

The lifting was done form a book he claimed to have trashed. That is, the book was worthless and full of errors.

The guy has committed a fraud by doing so. That is, he is holds a very prestigous position at a major university, but he publishes a book that is worthless because of the methods used to create it. A person holding the 'chair' he does should be publishing using high, academically respected methods. That is what Finkelstein was arguing. Which is what infuriated Dershowitz, and led to all the bluster and padding in the interview, because he knew he had been found out.

Finkelstein himself has been sacked from his college job, because, he claims, he was too controversial. Not for any academic errors.
 
What do you call that logical fallacy where you attack the messenger but not the message?

Maybe I don’t understand this plagiarizing thing as well as I should, but if two researchers doing similar research quote the same sources, wouldn’t you expect the quotes to be the same? Is there some rule that if one researcher uses a source, that other researchers can’t use that same source?

If Dershowitz plagiarized Peters, shouldn’t it be up to Peters to complain about it? She’s still alive, has anyone found her opinion on the issue?

Isn’t the whole plagiarizing issue a distraction from the actual thesis of Dershowitz’s work? If his thesis is correct, isn’t that the more important issue?
 
a_unique_person said:


Finkelstein himself has been sacked from his college job, because, he claims, he was too controversial. Not for any academic errors.
Click to expand...

At least this is what he claims...

What does his mother say about this by the way?
 
Mycroft, I kind of agree, but the use of the Peters material without attribution seems egregious.

Did you check this link out?
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id141.htm

As I stated above, I think Dershowitz is a pompous self serving jerk. It does surprise me though that he is a plagiarist as well.

Still, we agree that the interesting question is, "regardless of the plagiarism issue were some sections of his book significantly wrong?". I don't know the answer to that but Finkelstein saying that a book that Dershowitz used as a source has been discredited as a fraud doesn't convince me. Was everything in the book wrong. Maybe Dershowitz used the sections that were right.
 
The most widely credited refutation of Peters' book appeared in the NYRB: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/5249

The book initially received postive reviews in the United States (unsurprisingly), but was dismissed in England and Europe as well as Israel. Fast-forward a couple years and intellectuals in the United States have mostly disavowed the book.

Look, I'm sure Finkelstein has no problem answering the substance Dershowitz's specific claims, and I welcome an open debate in this regard. But that's nothing new. It's the same back and forth. Norman's discovery that Dershowitz looted material from Peters' book without properly crediting is a more interesting, novel and important discussion at the moment.

Even when bloggers post links -- and there are NO formal standards for blogging -- they say the URL was discovered via [insert other blogger's name]. If 40 or so of your sources are identical to another author's, then minimum standards of scholarship and intellectual honest requires that you inform your readers. The question is simple: Would a Harvard student be allowed to get away with this? I think not.
 
davefoc said:
Here's a link very critical of the Peters book.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2140

The problem is that even if there is a general concensus that the book was a propaganda piece with wrong information it doesn't necessarily follow that the sections which Dershowitz used were necessarily ones that were wrong.
Click to expand...

From the first link, he is guilty of plagiarism. There is no doubt of that.

Is there anything left of Peter's book. Who wants to go out an buy it and check all the references. Cleopatra?
 
davefoc said:
Still, we agree that the interesting question is, "regardless of the plagiarism issue were some sections of his book significantly wrong?". I don't know the answer to that but Finkelstein saying that a book that Dershowitz used as a source has been discredited as a fraud doesn't convince me. Was everything in the book wrong. Maybe Dershowitz used the sections that were right.
Click to expand...

I havn't read the Peters book, but it's on my reading list. My understanding, through readings of various reviews, is that the book has been criticized for sloppy research and format, but that its central thesis has never been refuted.

I agree. Saying that her conclusions were wrong isn't the same as saying that her data is wrong, and saying that some of her data was wrong isn't the same as saying that all her data was wrong. Even if we agree that the Peters book is wrong (and I'm not convinced yet) that doesn't mean another researcher couldn't come later and pick out the good parts and create a whole new and solid thesis from it.

I'll have to add the Dershowitz book to my reading list as well.
 
a_unique_person said:


Is there anything left of Peter's book. Who wants to go out an buy it and check all the references. Cleopatra?
Click to expand...

You must be joking Unique :) Of course you are. You know that I am not interested in fanatic idiots of both sides of this conflict.
 
To answer my own question to Cleopatra - namely
Do you answer questions put to you?
Click to expand...

The answer appears to be 'No. I don't.'

One might ask why she asks other people questions when she won't answer questions herself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom