Former Act Party leader Jamie Whyte has defended himself against accusations of “self-plagiarism” after it emerged an opinion piece he wrote on poverty in New Zealand was largely the same as one he penned in Britain a decade ago.
The piece, which claimed “there is no poverty in New Zealand”, was published in the New Zealand Herald today.
However, canny readers spotted many similarities between the piece and a work Dr Whyte published in the UK for the Times newspaper in April 2005.
One reader complained that the piece was “about Britain, with the countries reworked … This is the same article he had published about the UK.”
On Twitter, user @LI — politico posted: “Jamie Whyte 2005 v 2016. He literally copied a previous thing he wrote about Britain.”
Political commentator Giovanni Tiso accused the former politician of “self-plagiarism”.“And by the way, in case you’re confused, self-plagiarism really isn’t okay. As an academic, Whyte would have had this hammered into him,” Tiso wrote on Twitter.
Dr Whyte’s piece begins: “There is no poverty in New Zealand. Misery, depravity, hopelessness, yes; but no poverty.
“The poorest in New Zealand are the unemployed. They receive free medical care, free education for their children and enough cash to pay for basic food, clothing and (subsidised) housing. Most have televisions, refrigerators and ovens. Many even own cars. That isn’t poverty.”
The column he wrote for the Times — headlined “The Only Poverty is in The Head” — starts almost identically, with the word “Britain” instead of “New Zealand”, and a slight variance in what those in poverty receive from the Government.
His excuse is really lame.
“It is indeed a minor adaptation of an article previously published,” he said. “That previous article in the Times was a minor adaptation of the content of a book that I’ve written. They [the Times] published it knowing that, so I’m completely happy to admit the fact. I just don’t see a problem with it.”
You can see however that the Herald were more than slightly miffed because of this finish to the article:
Dr Whyte voluntarily submitted the article to the Herald, and was not paid to do so.
Dr Whyte did not inform the Herald the article had been previously published.
The Herald accepted the article in good faith. It would not have appeared had the newspaper known the background.
I bet this is the last that we will hear of Mr Whyte. At least as far as the Herald is concerned.
... 
Stretched media organisation desperate for content accepts article by failed leader of morally-bereft failed political party. What could possibly go wrong?
SPOT ON SASHA!
Quite a few of the herald articles are just repeats of articles posted elsewhere, I don’t see a problem.
The point still is, the poverty measure is a shit one and does the poverty cause more harm than good.
Nah, the point still is, because you deny the problem, you’ll attack any measure used, and therefore your witless and self-serving narrative is the problem – the reason politicians refuse to address inequality and poverty is hate speech.
BM thinks jokes about ‘gay rape’ are funny, so he probably doesn’t notice hate speech either.
Doesn’t bm also deny climate change?
@BM “Quite a few of the herald articles are just repeats of articles posted elsewhere, I don’t see a problem.”
The problem, for the Herald, is that they (the Herald’s editors) decide when they are syndicating content from elsewhere (and pay accordingly). It’s not a decision for Whyte.
…….. agree with your first point
The issue for the Herald is that they did not know, and subsequently did not let their readers know that the content was recycled from a Times article, which was in turn recycled from his book.
And that’s not even addressing the other issue; the original is explicitly about the UK, and this about NZ – but NO additional research has been done to bridge differences in conditions between them.
So NZ = UK in Whyte world.
And then, there is the less severe issue of giving a national platform to someone who is completely disconnected from reality writing propaganda that serves to malign and demonise the poor.
Free article, if they’re going to be that precious maybe they should pay for all their articles instead of relying on freebies to fill out their website.
There was a bit at the bottom of the article stating who Whyte was.
Any way it’s just his opinion, big deal.
You know he’s an academic right?
Pretty sure being a libertarian trumps that by a mile.
Sure, but that is beside the point.
Academics rely on their reputation for integrity, ethics and the quality of work they publish.
In not only plagiarising himself, but passing of a piece written describing his take on the situation in the UK as one written for NZ makes him a lazy academic who is happy to engage in fraud.
I.e. He’s devalued his worth as a propagandist.
I’m not sure if academia is that pure, but you may have a point.
“You know he’s an academic right?”
In a neo-liberal world where academia is just another commodified product to be bought and sold to the highest bidder.
He claims to be an academic for sure, it’s just that the label has been re-interpreted, normalised, and pushed so hard that the masses swallow it all.
Christ … I even saw something on here the other day from a poster/commenter who I hold in high regard, but who suggested John Key was ‘intelligent’.
An amoeba that’s equipped with basic animal cunning such as that of a shithouse rat and survival instinct taking advantage of the nearest drainpipe is now classed as being intelligent. All that rat needs is an enterage of worshipping followers – many of whom have a job title of ‘journalists’ and a media platform that provides some sort of regular means of disseminating their wisdom, and Hey Presto …. John Key and Jamie Whyte (among others) can become G O D.
The John Key intelligent thing was likely me. I don’t see how he can have done all the things he has solely due to luck, though certainly he has been lucky.
The academic thing is funny.
Libertarian’s rail against academics in their ivory towers disconnected from reality pontificating on bollocks.
It all makes perfect sense when you realise that the only academic most libertarians on NZ are likely to know is Jamie Whyte.
Don’t think it was you – maybe it was..
“I don’t see how he can have done all the things he has solely due to luck, though certainly he has been lucky”
…… unless you are familiar with the culture of ‘old boy networks’, the banking sector (Nik Leeson??), arrogant holier than thou arseholes with a sense of self entitlement ….. etc (sociopaths in other words)
Just place John Key next to Maurice Williamson you’ll see what I mean.
Although to be fair most people look pretty sharp next to Mr Williamson.
Congrats BM. Writing like a trained troll/apologist. Well done !
Hi BM. While you are correct about the Herald and the poverty measure, and while I may agree with much of what Whyte has written in his article, I will no longer take him seriously. To not disclose the similarities with his earlier piece is bad enough, but to conflate the UK and NZ so closely without declaring his evidence is inexcusable.
Such a balanced appraisal. Next thing is you’ll be taken seriously.
” I don’t see a problem.”
I have noticed you have no problems with any shit written by the right.
The “philosophy” Mr. Whyte parrots was invented in toto by other people. Everything Whyte spouts is “borrowed”. Then again, propaganda has no value if no-one repeats it.
Greg Presland did a good article in the NZHerald recently on how poor our legal protection of trees is.
He should write more for them – they clearly need the talent.
Can I just correct the information in the Herald? LI_Politico was the one who discovered this lazy piece of self plagiarism by Jamie Whyte and should have been given the credit. She is one of the smartest people on twitter IMO.
“Giovanni Tiso @gtiso 11h11 hours ago
(I note the Herald article lists me as a “political commentator”, which is nice but my Twitter bio is there for a reason damnit.)
Lamia @LI_politico 3h3 hours ago
.@gtiso whereas I’m just a “Twitter user” whose content they used for the story but couldn’t bother getting a name.
Lamia
@LI_politico
@gtiso Also canny readers? It was basically one person. Others RTed. Do they know how Twitter works? Oh wait…. ” 🙄
Nice one Karen. The Herald even gets it wrong when they’re doing the right thing.
Actual tweet:
“The Wellington twitterati checked out the background”
actually, you’ll find that the person who exposed this was @LI_politico, who currently lives in the US. and who, the day before was part of the group being called “c*nts” by one prof jarrod gilbert for daring to critique another article in the same publication. hence why the herald failed to give her the credit she is due, but we shouldn’t be making that mistake here.
Was Gilbert reponding the story Kirsty Johnson leaving twitter due to “discussion” about her article about head boy / father?
Russell Brown covers it in 5 (or 6) tweets starting here:
https://twitter.com/publicaddress/status/684645662441353216
https://twitter.com/publicaddress/status/684645670968426496
https://twitter.com/publicaddress/status/684645683341570048
https://twitter.com/publicaddress/status/684645698415923201
https://twitter.com/publicaddress/status/684646803979948032
https://twitter.com/publicaddress/status/684648265522884610
I follow her and regard her as an honorary member of the Wellington twitterati. All ups to her for the discovery.
Given that David Cameron used exactly the same “the country is on the verge of something great” before the last election the same as John Key did before ours it seems plagarism is rife in politics
That line is from Lynton Crosby, who provided (considerable?) campaign support for both National’s and the Conservative’s election campaigns.
David Cameron was so stupid as to give Crosby knighthood just recently, making his corruption clear.
Can someone explain to me the difference between this opinion piece from Dr Whyte, which is just a variant on a a book he wrote, and Corbyn’s speech to the Labour Party Conference where he used material from a script that has been hanging around the British Labour Party for decades?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/29/jeremy-corbyn-speech-row-over-originality-conference-labour
I couldn’t see anything wrong with ideas that were passed on to him by the original author of the speech, and thought anyone complaining about it was being extremely precious.
Whyte could only be in the wrong if he had told the Herald that all the material had been written specifically for them and charged them for it on that basis.
In the same way Corbyn’s provider would only be in the wrong if he had passed to Corbyn something written by someone else and had not attributed it to the real author. He didn’t of course. He provided material he had written himself.
I commented on this, on this blog in fact, at the time
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-01102015/#comment-1077161
The only thing I could see wrong with it is that Corbyn, or his advisers denied that he had received the material from someone else and basically claimed it was all his own work.
Whyte certainly hasn’t offended in that way. He openly says that it is a variant of a book and article he has previously published. After all, if the facts are much the same why should the analysis of the problem be any different?
One is a private citizen getting an opinion piece published by an independent newspaper.
The other is a member of a party giving a speech to that party’s conference.
They’re not really the same thing at all. It’s up to the Labour party what they do about anything wrong that Corbyn might have done. Just as it is up to the Herald to do what they like with Whyte’s article – which they have done, by printing the retraction.
The problem I see with Whyte’s piece is that he essentially took a piece he wrote about Britain and applied it directly to NZ without doing any research about what’s happening in NZ. Of course, it was wrong about Britain too.
I am very tempted to enquire what research have you done, and can reference immediately without having to do Google searches, to justify your statement that “Of course, it was wrong about Britain too”.
I could also ask how you can possibly KNOW that he has “applied it directly to NZ without doing any research about what’s happening in NZ”.
I certainly can’t see anything in what he has written or said that justifies your claim.
It was wrong about Britain as well because it used the same incorrect method to determine poverty. It’s obvious that he uses his bias to determine what poverty is rather than the facts of poverty’s effects upon people.
He either has to deny the existence of poverty or accept that his ideology is the problem. He’s chosen the former action.
All he is proposing, in fact that the method used to define poverty is an arbitrary one that he thinks is irrelevant.
You are entitled to have your own view on the subject but calling him wrong is simply a prejudice of your own.
The World Bank uses, as a global poverty line, a figure of $1.90/day. On that number it is certainly very difficult to accept that any child in New Zealand lives in poverty.
Dr Whyte is quite entitled to complain about what he regards as a meaningless definition. It doesn’t matter whether you like it or not. You can only argue for your own preference rather than describe his simply as “wrong”.
Have you tried living on $14 per week in NZ?
Food Cost Survey
It’s not a particularly good measure. In fact, I’ve always considered it to be total bollocks.
I don’t like the income measure either which is why we should be looking at effects such as children going to school hungry, if people have enough time/energy to socialise, if they have access to the tools needed to effectively operate in society (I believe that the internet is now a necessity) and if they have access to enough resources and support to realise their ideas. It’d take a lot of work to get this measure of poverty right but I also think that it would put at least 80% of our population into poverty and probably closer to 90%.
That’s how fucked up our society has become.
Facts about poverty in New Zealand
Putting it up as a reference point.
Fact 8: None of the above are universally true.
And the RWNJ wanders in to deny reality.
Which aren’t true?
Rubbish phobic ‘6. Making life hell on a benefit does not reduce poverty’ is true universally
DTB
Covers the basic situation well.
Dr Whyte’s piece begins: “There is no poverty in New Zealand. Misery, depravity, hopelessness, yes; but no poverty.
“The poorest in New Zealand are the unemployed. They receive free medical care, free education for their children and enough cash to pay for basic food, clothing and (subsidised) housing. Most have televisions, refrigerators and ovens. Many even own cars. That isn’t poverty.”
Wrong Whyte go to the bottom of the class and have your bottom whipped.
1 The poor do not receive free medical care.
2 The poor do not receive free education.
3 The poor do not receive enough cash so they can pay for basic food and clothing
and (subsidised) housing.
4 True that people living in a modern society may have modern equipment, televisions can be bought second hand or on hire purchase and provide cheap entertainment also advertising platforms for the merchant class, refrigerators are the modern versions of pantries, necessities where stored perishable food is good and safe, ovens are used everywhere in the world to cook food so that the body can process it.
versions of pantries, necessities where stored perishable food is good and safe, ovens are used everywhere in the world to cook food so that the body can process it. Raw food isn’t for everyone, and dried goods need to be soaked and cooked before eating.
Older ovens used to be run on wood and coal, and the environment considerations plug for electricity rather than fires being lit all around the country.
(One august broadcaster I heard once, queried why women needed vacuum cleaners. Old technology which had become cheap and universal, performing a useful purpose was regarded as a luxury by him.)
The class divisions are very apparent now as in Dr Whyte’s dissertation on the lucky beneficiaries being spoiled by a beneficent state when they should be living at the meanest level as their lot. The wealthy are so greedy that they won’t give any concern to their almost total usurption of the wealth being created in NZ and the sad effects of their behaviour until people are scratching in the dirt. Dr Whyte is one of the vicious Class Mafia who are happy to continue in their lives while they are in the ascendant and able to siphon off the benefits from the state creating the conditions that enable them to build their wealth and position, despite others suffering around them.
And the wealthy cry poverty for themselves and unfairness when expected to pay reasonable taxes from the piece of NZ prosperity they have managed to lasoo. They pay reluctantly out of their excess discretionary income while the poor pay a large percentage out of what should be disposable income through GST at 15%% on almost everything they need. And the government takes a percentage of interest on all small savings they manage to accumulate in the bank – even when it is 1 cent it is whisked away. Then they berate ordinary people for not saving. And all the time the Treasury can tell them that if people do save the economy will slow down so much that the whole ponzi scheme will collapse. That’s why we have the incremental cuts to government spending, followed by a decrease in taxes, then the same again. See saw downwards and where is the bottom – what misery will we have to be in to stir the interest or conscience of the wealthy.
I swear in the not to distant future Liberatrianism will be classified as a mental health disorder….
Big blip in his little matrix
IT IS VERY CLEAR JAMIE WHYTE DOES NOT LIVE DOWN MY STREETS, WHERE WORK HAS DISSAPPEARED, PEOPLE ARE IN RUN-DOWN STATE HOUSING, SURROUNDED BY OTHER MORE RUNDOWN EMPTY STATE HOUSING, TRYING TO BRING UP FAMILIES ON BENEFITS THAT ARE ABOUT AS MUCH AS A 40 HR WEEK WUD PAY! THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE WORKERS GET STATE BENEFITS OF FAMILY TAX CREDITS!!! DISCRIMINATION IF EVER THERE WAS!!!. AM DISABLED, NO FAULT OF MY OWN, ON ASSISTED LIVING ALLOWANCE. WHERE IS JAMIE WHYTE WHEN I NEED TO GET THE GROCERIES HOME??? I KNOW HE WUD CRAP HIS TROUSERS WALKING THRU HERE IN DAYLIGHT. THE CARNAGE SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENT POLICIES THAT LEAVE EVEN THOSE WITH FAIRLY GOOD JOBS, TRAPPED ON WELFARE DEPENDANCE OF FAMILY TAX CREDITS, IS WIDESPREAD. HE WROTE THE SAME DRIBBLE 10 YRS AGO ABOUT BRITAIN! HE WAS WRONG THEN, AND HE IS WRONG NOW! I HOPE WE ARE NOT PAYING HIM ANY BENEFITS FROM PUBLIC COFFERS TO REPRESENT RATS IN OUR PARLAIMENT…AND HEAVEN KNOWS, WE HAVE ENOUGH OF THEM! I AM NOT POVERTY-STRICKEN, AS IN 3RD WORLD COUNTRY. I AM LIVING FRUGALLY AND VERY TIGHT. BUT I WORKED AND CONTRIBUTED FOR 44 YRS OF DAMMED HARD WORK, PAYING TAXES,( IN 1980’S 49% ON OVERTIME I MIGHT ADD) A DAMMED SIGHT HIGHER % RATE THAN JAMIE WHYTE EVER WILL PAY! AND SOMEBODY ADDRESSED THIS HUCKSTER AS DOCTOR WHYTE? I HAVE EARNED THE EQUIVELANT OF 3 DEGREES, IN THE DAYS WHEN THEY WERE,’CERTIFICATES’, I LEARNED 3 TRADES, AND IN MY LATER YEARS, I AM VOLUNTEERING. I CONTRIBUTE BACK TO THE NATION THAT MADE ME WHAT I AM. NO SHAME IN THAT AT ALL. IT MAY COUNT FOR NOTHING WITH THIS HUCKSTER, BUT HE SHOULD REFLECT FOR A MOMENT ON WHAT HAPPENS THE DAY HE LOSES HIS EYES, OR LEGS, OR ABILITY TO THINK CLEARLY, AS HE WILL DO IN 1 OR MORE OF THOSE AREAS IN HIS LIFE, HOW HE INTENDS TO SURVIVE. THE LEGACY OF ‘MARKET FORCES’ IS FOOD BANKS, DISGRACEFUL HOUSING, AND MANY THOUSANDS OF LIVES CRUSHED AND DEPRESSED ACCROSS NEW ZEALAND. THANK YOU JOHN KEY AND PREVIOUS GYPSIES, TRAMPS, AND THEIVES!!!
[Stop shouting … turn your caps off – MS]
JAMIE WHYTE IS A FOOL! SOME CALL HIM DOCTOR WHYTE.. BUT HE IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE DO HAVE POVERTY IN THIS NATION. HIS IGNORANCE!
These threads will become a lot more interesting to read if everyone does not feed trolls like acrophobic
Colour me surprised ! Granny recycles dog whistle piece by rent a rant opportunist when such contributors as dita di boni, calder and rudman who produced content counter to the national party lines are gone.
Dont miss drinnan though, arrogant when wrong as he would recycle press releases without fact checking. Produced the odd good piece but just not good enough for a senior journo across a fertile segment.
yet Roughan still has a job ..
My dictionary shows the meaning of “plagiarism” to be -“the act of copying ANOTHER’S work and pretending it is one’s own.
Dr Whyte has not done this. The nonsensical attempt to create a new crime “self-plagiarism” plumbs the depths in attempting to cast on Dr Whyte’s writing.
Most of the criticism heaped upon him read as just feeble attempts [unsuccessful] to find something – anything – to weaken the strength of this accurate summation.
I have still to read any intelligent explanatory comments which show that the survey was a valid and reliable way to assess poverty. The majority of the comments are merely feeble and unsuccessful disparaging ones which fail to make any contribution.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=self+plagiarism
Interesting post …… unsurprising and mildly amusing.
It’s reminiscent of various consultancies and a number of highly paid ‘consultants’ who are commissioned at various times to do investigations and provide reports (usually under the guise of somehoe being ‘independent’, and therefore of value).
They could be a Rebstock at one end of the scale, to a Pike River enquiry at the other,
Generally …. bullshit dressed up in an Armani suite.
It’s the era of the ‘template’.
Often even the layout and formatting is the same.
It’s interesting WHEN it all began, and from my experience it started in the 80’s and is just one facet of the neo-liberal disciples.
The ‘template’ allows the ideology to be followed and maintained whilst allowing its authors to pass themselves off as being somehow intelligent and authoritative.
In reality, they’re probably guilty of being the world’s worst plagiarists, unimaginative, hypocritical, and basically just bullshit artists of the first order. Never mind tho’ – it allows large invoices to be submitted (with GST).
Jamie Fucking Whyte eh?
More fool anyone that give the guy any credibility.
Basically just a well-spoken used car salesman and another legend in his own mind.
“And by the way, in case you’re confused, self-plagiarism really isn’t okay. As an academic, Whyte would have had this hammered into him,” Tiso wrote on Twitter.
Er, what? At which institutions do academics have “hammered into them” that they can’t produce two similar opinion pieces from the same body of work? At any New Zealand university, you’d get a pat on the back for your efforts at raising your profile.
Just so we’re clear, publishing the same article in two different academic journals certainly would be frowned upon. Opinion pieces in newspapers, though? The more the better – regardless of the opinion’s merits.
I am also not aware of academic institutions “hammering” warnings about self-plagiarism into students (and staff). However, they are very concerned about copyright & ownership, which is potential issue with self-plagiarism. The other issue with self-plagiarism is pretending that something is original when it isn’t; this is more of an ethical issue and also a bit if a grey area.
You seem to be confusing self-promotion, self-citation, and self-plagiarism; the first two are indeed regarded as positive and necessary to get ahead in the academic world.
Articles in newspapers should mention it if they have appeared elsewhere. The NZH does this, as far as I know. For example, at the end of What spiders, gum and haemorrhoids have in common.
You seem to be confusing self-promotion, self-citation, and self-plagiarism;
The people quacking on about self-plagiarism are doing that. It’s an opinion piece, not published research. The term “opinion piece” should give a hint that it’s an expression of opinion, not a publication of research findings. An opinion can be expressed as many times as the owner of said opinion feels like expressing it.
Articles in newspapers should mention it if they have appeared elsewhere.
And Whyte didn’t mention to the Herald that he’d largely recycled an earlier opinion piece, and it looks like the editor wasn’t chuffed to find out. File under “big whoop.”
Apologies. I thought that you also subscribed to some of these opinions.
As I said, it is a grey area when repeating (parts of) your own work without proper citation even when this is just ‘an opinion’ or an idea; ideas and opinions are very important in academic works and it is certainly not all just about “research findings” in a very strict sense of the word.
I have a dark suspicion that Dr Whyte wasn’t quite so stupid and that he may have deliberately left out a piece of information to be found out later, i.e. it was no ‘accident’.
I think his views on this are disingenuous. Yes, percentage of median after-housing income is an arbitrary measure and has some problems. However, instead of suggesting a better one he leaps to the conclusion “therefore poverty doesn’t exist in NZ,” which as a philosopher he must be aware is an egregious non sequitur. So he has to know it’s bullshit, but the dim bulbs at Kiwiblog are lapping it up and that’s presumably the whole point of the exercise.
Yep, I’m more concerned with Whyte’s intellectual dishonesty than any self plagiarism.
What he might have written if he didn’t hate the poor.
http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/2014/05/has-stacey-a-chance/
Thanks Ross, I will read the link later.
Self-plagiarism is considered a form of intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, I think Dr Whyte was deliberately disingenuous.
No, the poverty line is/was not an arbitrary measure or at least not entirely arbitrary; this is the crux of the matter. If it had been defined at 49.7% or 48.3% of national median income it would lose a lot of its arbitrariness, wouldn’t it? It would, however, create an illusion of (unrealistic) precision. Academics, policy makers, politicians, journalists, and just about everybody else like and prefer nice rounded numbers (retailers are the exception).
Yes, there are problems with any single percentage of median income to measure poverty; it’s a much more complex problem than can be captured by one measure or index.
Indeed, because it is not a very good single measure of true & real poverty, because it does not get updated regularly (AFAIK), and because it has an appearance of arbitrariness it has become too easy to attack by RWNJs such as Dr Whyte.
Lastly, I would struggle to come up with a single effective measure of poverty but then again I am just another person who comments on TS.
The fact he is repeating his verbiage (several times) is a clear indication he is spouting his right wing dogma NOT an opinion.
He is a fraud and his employers at the Herald should seriously reconsider his role as an “Opinion” columnist.
At the very least it shows that Jamie Whyte’s thinking on this issue has not changed at all in 10 years.
He has not learned anything new, not developed any new insights and not added any new aspects to his understanding of poverty in the UK or NZ. Or probably anywhere else.
A bit stale and lazy at best.
Why should that be a problem?
I learned about General Relativity about 40 years ago.
I’ve never found anything about it that was wrong, so I’ve never stopped accepting the accuracy of the theory. Does that make me stale or lazy?
Should I have simply said “It is wrong” and stopped accepting it?
Your example of General Relativity is one of the worst ones you could have picked. It remains at the core of some of the most active areas of scientific research. In fact, last year it was the centennial of GR and it shouldn’t be too hard to find out more about the current status of GR – you can also go directly to Wikipedia 😉
I suggest that you read what I said a little more accurately.
Where did I ever say that I had decided it was irrelevant to science, or no longer of any current interest, or that nothing further was happening in the area?
I just stated that the core of the theory had not become obsolete or been proved wrong and it was still therefore accurate.
Please keep up..
bullshit al – “I just stated that the core of the theory had not become obsolete or been proved wrong and it was still therefore accurate.” is wrong – this is what you said, “I’ve never found anything about it that was wrong, so I’ve never stopped accepting the accuracy of the theory.” Do you SEE the difffffff?
“I’ve never found anything about it that was wrong, so I’ve never stopped accepting the accuracy of the theory.” is quite different to “I just stated that the core of the theory had not become obsolete or been proved wrong and it was still therefore accurate.”
the above example is typical of your sloppy work btw
I am quite unable to understand what you are trying to say. I am merely trying to put it in different words as he clearly didn’t understand the original exposition.
Logic has never been your strong suit though, has it Marty?
What does “diffffff” mean by the way. Are you one of those unfortunate people who lisps?
ok I’ll try and help you out.
Lara made some very good points and you said, “Why should that be a problem?” and then you gave general relativity as an example of why you think it is not a problem that whyte hasn’t changed his thinking in 10 years.
Incognito pointed out the error
You continued and rearranged the ‘goalpost’ so that your original assertion was able to be squeezed (perhaps) into the set ‘true’.
me – I’m just trying to lighten the whole thing up with irreverent observations.
Plenty of scientific theories remain essentially unchanged over decades. And there’s no problem with that. We do however build on our understanding of them and build on the evidence that supports them.
Whyte hasn’t even done that.
Jamie who..?
Oliver, old chap. Jamie Oliver. You will learn many useful things if you heed his words.
A great deal more useful than anything you learn on this blog I suspect.
And yet here you are, imparting your wisdom. Go figure.
“The poorest in New Zealand are the unemployed. They receive free medical care, free education for their children and enough cash to pay for basic food, clothing and (subsidised) housing”
as someone in todays NZ Herald pointed out, were ACT in a position of significant power in Government, they would take away the free education, healthcare and subsidised housing. Then ‘relative’ poverty would become absolute poverty.
Nothin is free, user pays get it ,one way or the other
Subsistence is not freedom
Low wages are not growth or a sustainable future
Over valued house are not value for money
Roads and cars are not transportation they are destruction of the planet
The space program wont stop humans destroying the earth
Only stopping that which consumes the resources of the planet without sustainability and that in which we create uncontrolled polluted disasters by design or accident will begin to reverse the carnage of civilisation, what a price to pay just to be civilised .
Total hypocrisy might be the best way the human races management of this planet
Jamie Whyte’s a philosopher, yeah, god help us all
NZ changes Jamie Whyte doesnt ,snow blindness
Well, at least he covered his major screw-up pretty nicely by stating that he just doesn’t see a problem with it. I bet when he first published this “minor adaptation”, he thought people would have forgotten what was written a decade ago. Sadly, when it comes to serious write-ups concerning lives, finance, and social issues, people never forget.