Wikipedia, Skeptical Inquirer, and AI on Robert A. Baker plagiarism accusations

 The Wikipedia entry for University of Kentucky psychologist and skeptic Robert A. Baker recently (December 2023) restored a section on plagiarism accusations against him, which originated in a 1994 letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer from Jody Hey and were compounded by further accusations by Terence Hines and by me the same year. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia entry currently leaves the debate the same way the Skeptical Inquirer did in 1995, giving Baker the final word with a transparently false explanation.  Here's how the Wikipedia entry currently presents the issue:

Readers of Skeptical Inquirer, noticed in 1994 similarities between one of Baker's articles and William Grey's article Philosophy and the Paranormal, Part 2. After discovering this, Baker wrote to Grey apologizing for "forgetting both the direct quotation and the reference citation", he claims that it was an oversight. Grey publicly accepted Baker's apology in the Skeptical Inquirer.^[20] In the following year, author Terence Hines accused Baker of unattributed quotations from an article by Melvin Harris and from his own book Pseudoscience and the Paranormal.^[21] Baker responded in Skeptical Inquirer. stating that he used Melvin Harris' book Investigating the Unexplained as a source, rather than the article or Hines' book, and that he gave Harris credit but forgot the quotation marks.^[22]

This description is faulty in that it omits most of the evidence and is inconsistent with it. The most detailed account can be found in my 1994 report given to leaders at the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP, now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry or CSI) and subsequently published in 1995 to Usenet and its update. I've also assembled a chronology of events that led to my involvement and included legal threats from Baker, which I've now updated to include a letter from Paul Kurtz in his role as head of Prometheus Books noting that Baker's book Hidden Memories had been withdrawn from publication. While I've not exhaustively searched Baker's work, I found fairly consistent plagiarism in his books for Prometheus and his book reviews for Skeptical Inquirer throughout his career as a skeptic.

The rest of this post will first show that Baker's claim to have used Harris as a source, but not Hines, is false--there is clear evidence that Baker plagiarized Hines, whose book he did not cite (and his text matches Harris's article rather than the book where they differ). Second, it will show the heaviest section of plagiarism I identified in another Baker book, They Call It Hypnosis (1990, Prometheus Books). Finally, it will show that Baker's institution defined research misconduct in a way that includes what he did, and that Baker's own writing shows that he understood this to be misconduct.

The exchange between Hines and Baker in the pages of the July/August 1995 Skeptical Inquirer (pp. 44-46) focuses on a passage on p. 157 in chapter 4 of Baker's book, Hidden Memories: Voices and Visions from Within (1992, Prometheus Books) and its resemblance to a passage on p. 74 in Hines' book, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (1988, Prometheus Books) where he quotes from p. 23 of an article by Melvin Harris, "Are 'Past-Life' Regressions Evidence of Reincarnation?", Free Inquiry, Fall 1986, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 18-23 (quotation marks as given in Hines):

"...every single piece of information given by Jane Evans can be traced to de Wohl's fictional account. She uses his fictional sequences in exactly the same order and even speaks of his fictional characters, such as Curio and Valerius, as if they had been real."

Hines notes that Baker uses nearly the same words in the same sequence, without quotation marks or references, on p. 157 of Hidden Memories:

Every single piece of information given by Mrs. Evans could be traced to De Wohl's book, and Mrs. Evans used his fictional sequences in exactly the same order as he had, and even spoke of De Wohl's fictional characters, Curio and Valerius, as if they had been real.

Here is how Harris makes the same statement on p. 162 of his book, Investigating the Unexplained (1986, Prometheus Books), which Baker claims is his source (italics in original):

In the same way every single piece of information given out by Jane Evans can be traced to De Wohl's fictional account. She uses his fictional sequences in exactly the same order and even speaks of his fictional characters--such as Curio and Valerius--as if they were real people.

Harris's article (p. 23):

In the same way, every single piece of information given by Jane Evans can be traced to De Wohl's fictional account. She uses his fictional sequences in exactly the same order and even speaks of his fictional characters, such as Curio and Valerius, as if they were real people. 

Baker's wording omits the "out" in the first sentence, uses commas instead of hyphens, and doesn't use the italicization, all matching the article rather than the book.

Baker cites neither Harris nor Hines in the notes for chapter 4 of his book. He does mention Melvin Harris twice on the page with no citation and no attributed quotations, including once in the same paragraph as the above quotations. Baker's discussion of other cases earlier in the chapter differs from Hines and Harris--all three discuss Bridey Murphy, but Baker's case is more extensive than Harris or Hines. I suspect his sources may be identifiable from the other references he gives at the end of the book for the chapter.

But when it comes to Baker's discussion of Jane Evans, he engaged in more plagiarism of Hines, as can be seen by comparing his text to Hines and to Harris's article and book. Harris discusses the case extensively on pp. 155-163 of his book, while Hines' and Baker's discussions are each less than two pages long.

Here is what Baker writes (pp. 156-157), with exact word matches with Hines highlighted in yellow, and with Harris' article in orange (and I found no matches to Harris's book which did not also match the article):

The second, and by far the most [Harris: much more] impressive, was the case of a Welsh housewife named Jane Evans, who described six past lives that were remarkable for the tremendous amount of accurate historical detail [Harris: amount of detail] they contained. In one of the lives she was a maid in the house of a wealthy [Baker, p. 157:] and powerful merchant in fifteenth-century France. Mrs. Evans described accurately the house and all of its furnishings in great detail, as well as the members of the merchant's family. She made one very significant error in her account, however. She said the merchant was unmarried [Hines: not married] and had no children. In truth he was married and had five children, circumstances no maid would be unaware of. The same failure to mention wife and children turned up in a novel that had been written about the merchant, titled The Moneyman by Thomas B. Costain (1948). According to Melvin Harris, who investigated the case, the evidence is overwhelming that this book was the source of all of Mrs. Evan's [sic; Hines: basis for Evans's] "memories" of her life in fifteenth-century France.

   In another life that she reported, Mrs. Evans was a woman named Livonia, who lived during the Roman occupation of Britain. Her account [Hines: knowledge] of the historical facts of this [Hines: that] period was so accurate that authorities [Harris: authority] on Roman Britain were astounded. Again, however, there were a few factual errors. Her knowledge [Hines: information] of the period was traced to the 1947 best-selling novel The Living Wood by Louis De Wohl. Every single piece of information given by Mrs. Evans could be traced to De Wohl's book, and Mrs. Evans used [Hines, Harris: she uses] his fictional sequences in exactly the same order as he had, and even spoke [Hines, Harris: speaks] of De Wohl's [Hines, Harris: his] fictional characters, Curio and Valerius, as if they had been [Hines, Harris: were] real. The historical errors in Mrs. Evan's [sic] account were also found in the book. As Harris clearly demonstrated, Mrs. Evans had [Harris: had] the ability to store vivid stories in her subconscious and then creatively combine and edit them to the point that [Harris: where] she herself became [Harris: becomes] a [Harris: one of the] character in the story [Harris: involved].

This last sentence is another in which Baker follows Harris's article more closely than his book, which suggests Baker used the article in addition to Hines (who doesn't quote this sentence).  Harris's book (p. 161) says "... Jane Evans has the ability to subconsciously store vivid accounts and combine and edit these creatively--to the point where she becomes one of the characters involved." The article (p. 22) says "...Jane Evans has the ability to store vivid tories in her subconscious and creatively combine and edit them to the point where she becomes one of the characters involved."

Overall, Baker follows Hines more closely than Harris, and when there are discrepancies between Harris's article and book, Baker follows the article.  While Harris names the maid (Alison), neither Hines nor Baker do. In structure, after introducing the maid, Hines and Baker mention Evans' description of the house and furnishings, but Harris only mentions that after describing Evans' "inside-knowledge of the intrigues surrounding the King's mistress, Agnes Sorel," which Hines and Baker omit. The sentences from Hines and Baker that immediately follow the house and furnishings differ slightly in wording but are strikingly similar:

Hines (p. 73): "Evans' account of her life in Coeur's house contains one most puzzling, and significant error. She says he was not married and had no children. But he was married and had five children--not the sort of thing the maid would be likely to overlook."

Baker (p. 157): "She made one very significant error in her acccount, however. She said the merchant was unmarried and had no children. In truth he was married and had five children, circumstances no maid would be unaware of."

Harris, by contrast, is quite different (p. 22): "In particular, the novel very neatly answers an important question raised by Iverson and other commentators: Why doesn't Alison know that her master is married? As Iverson puts it: 'How is it that this girl can know Coeur had an Egyption bodyslave and not be aware that he was married with five children?--a published fact in every historical account of Coeur's life?...If the explanation for the entire regression is a reading of history books in the twentieth century, then I cannot explain how Bloxham's subject would not know of the marriage.'"

For completeness, here's Harris's book, which differs very slightly (p. 158): "In particular, the novel very neatly answers an important question raised by Iverson and other commentators--a question prompted by the curious fact that Alison does not know that her master is married! As Iverson puts it: 'How is it that this girl can know Coeur had an Egyptian bodyslave and not be aware that he was married with five children?--a fact published in every historical account of Coeur's life? ... If the explanation for the entire regression is a reading of history books in the twentieth century, then I cannot explain how Bloxham's subject would not know of the marriage.'"

In short, Baker plagiarized Hines and Harris, and his explanation is not consistent with the facts, with the truth revealed in much the same way as the truth was revealed about Evans' stories being sourced from fiction.

Next, we turn to Baker's They Call It Hypnosis, where Baker repeatedly plagiarized sources word-for-word without quotation marks, sometimes referencing them in the chapters where used, sometimes not referencing them in the chapter, and sometimes not referencing them at all (see my full report for more examples of each). In these examples, Baker lifts from work by Nicholas P. Spanos, by Spanos and co-author John F. Chaves, and by Irving Kirsch and James R. Council, with his only original contributions being some introductory or connecting phrases and substitution of synonyms. Here is what appears on pp. 129-131 of They Call It Hypnosis, part of chapter three titled "Hypnosis: Recent and Contemporary Views," with highlights indicating word-for-word plagiarism from the sources used:

     [Baker, p. 129] Overall, Spanos's position on hypnosis is very clear. He argues that, despite widespread belief to the contrary, hypnotic procedures do not greatly augment responsiveness to suggestions. Nonhypnotic control subjects who have been encouraged to do their best respond just as well as hypnotic subjects to suggestions for pain reduction, amnesia, age regression, hallucination, limb rigidity, etc. Hypnotic procedures, he says, are no more effective than nonhypnotic relaxation procedures at reducing [Spanos: lowering] blood pressure and muscle tension or affecting [Spanos: effecting] other behavioral, physiological, or verbal report indicators of relaxation. Hypnotic procedures are no more effective than various nonhypnotic procedures at enhancing imagery vividness or at facilitating therapeutic change for such problems as chronic pain, phobic response, cigarette smoking, etc. The available scientific evidence that Spanos and his collaborators have compiled fails to support the notion that hypnotic procedures bring about unique or highly unusual states of consciousness or that these procedures facilitate responsiveness to suggestion to any greater extent than nonhypnotic procedures that enhance positive motivation and expectation. [Spanos, p. 175]

     Spanos also notes that hypnotic suggestions do not directly instruct the subject to do anything. Instead, they [Spanos: suggestions] are usually phrased in the passive voice and imply that something is happening; for example [Spanos: e.g.], "Your arm is rising," instead of "Raise your arm." The [Spanos: This] passive phrasing communicates the idea that the suggested effects are occurring [Spanos: happening] automatically. In other words, the hypnotic suggestions are really tacit requests to the subject to become [Baker, p. 130 begins:] involved in a make-believe activity. Good hypnotic subjects understand this [Spanos: the implications of these tacit requests] and use their imaginative abilities and acting skills to become absorbed in the make-believe activities [Spanos: scenarios]. Spanos notes that the method actor who throws himself into the role is the analogue of the good hypnotic subject who throws himself [Spanos: themselves] into generating the experiences relevant to his [Spanos: their] role as someone who is hypnotized and responsive to suggestions. [Spanos, pp. 175-176]

     Spanos and his collaborators have looked closely at hypnotic age regression and have demonstrated that regressed subjects do not, in any real sense, take on the cognitive, perceptual, or emotional characteristics of actual children. Instead of behaving like real children, age regressed subjects behave the way they believe children behave. To the extent that their expectations about how children behave are inaccurate, their age regression performances also are off the mark. Simply put, age regression suggestions are invitations to become involved in the [Spanos: this] make-believe game of being a child again. People who accept the invitation do not, in any literal sense, revert psychologically to childhood. Instead, they use whatever they know about real children, whatever they remember from their own childhood, to temporarily become absorbed in the fantasy of being a child again. [Spanos, p. 176]

     Just as subjects can be given suggestions for age regression, amnesia, or pain reduction, Spanos says they can also be led to believe that they possess "hidden selves." When Hilgard's good hypnotic subjects were told [Spanos: informed] that they possessed hidden selves they normally were unaware of--but to which the experimenter could talk when he gave [Spanos: by giving] the proper [Spanos: appropriate] signals--many of them [Spanos: these subjects], when the signals were given [Spanos: they received], acted [Spanos: behaved] as if they did have alternate egos [Spanos: possessed secondary selves]. Hilgard interpreted this as indicating [Spanos: interpret such findings to mean] that good hypnotic subjects carry around unconscious hidden selves with certain intrinsic, unsuggested characteristics. Spanos counters this by pointing out that the evidence shows these [Spanos: indicates instead that] so-called hidden selves are neither intrinsic to hypnotic procedures nor unsuggested. On the contrary, hidden self-performances--like other suggested responses--appear to reflect attempts by motivated and imaginative subjects to create the experiences and role-play the behaviors [Spanos: role behaviors] called for by the instructions they are given. By the experimenter varying these [Spanos: such] instructions, the subjects can be easily led to develop hidden selves with whatever characteristics the experimenters desire [Spanos: wish]. Depending upon the instructions given, good hypnotic subjects will act out [Spanos: enact] hidden selves reporting [Spanos: that report] very high levels of pain, very low levels of pain, or both high and low levels of pain in succession. Subjects can also be led to act as if they possess hidden selves that can remember concrete but not abstract words, or the opposite; or they can report seeing [Spanos: that see] stimuli accurately, seeing them [Spanos: see stimuli] in reverse, or not seeing them [Spanos: don't see stimuli] at all; as the experimenter wishes. In short, the subjects are [Spanos: subject is] acting out a fantasy which is initiated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. Then the fantasy is imaginatively elaborated upon and sustained by the subject and his interactions with the hypnotist. [Spanos, pp. 176-177]

     [Baker, p. 131 begins:] Spanos has also carried out studies of past-life regression, and in agreement with the findings of other researchers, his work indicates that past-life reports from hypnotically regressed subjects are fantasy constructions of imaginative subjects who are willing to become absorbed in the make-believe situation implied by the regression suggestions. As expected, subjects who responded well to other hypnotic suggestions were the most likely to respond well to regression suggestions. Those with the most practice at vivid daydreaming and everyday fantasizing, i.e., the fantasy-prone, created the most vivid past-life fantasies. In the same manner as childhood regressees, past-life reporters incorporate historical misinformation into their past lives [Spanos: -life enactments]. Those who from the outset believed in reincarnation thought their past lives were true [Spanos: -life experiences were veridical] rather than imaginary. A lengthier discussion of this topic and other paranormal hypnotic beliefs will be found in a later chapter. [Spanos, p. 179]

     By no means, however, does Spanos see the problem of hypnosis as solved. New knowledge leads us to new unknowns and in the well-known and pronounced effects of suggestion on the human body there are many unsolved problems. The suggestion-induced disappearance of warts, for example, is just such a dilemma. Spanos's own work has shown that neither a hypnotic induction nor preliminary instructions for relaxation add to the effectiveness of imagery-based suggestions in producing wart regression. Nor can the effects of suggestion be accounted for simply in terms of enhanced expectancies. Subjects given placebos and those given suggestions reported equivalent expectations of treatment success, but the suggestions were much more effective than the placebos in [Spanos & Chaves: at] producing wart regression. The suggestions, however, were not effective with all the subjects. They were most effective, Spanos reports, with subjects who had [Spanos & Chaves: possessed] multiple warts rather than [Spanos & Chaves: as opposed to] single warts. Those who rated their suggested imagery as especially [Spanos & Chaves: relatively] vivid also had better results. [Spanos & Chaves, pp. 445-446]

At this point, Baker says "Spanos concludes that" followed by a large block of correctly cited and quoted text from Spanos & Chaves p. 446 that fills the rest of p. 131, with a concluding sentence on p. 132 that appears to be original. Baker goes on in pp. 132-134 to describes the views of Irving Kirsch under the heading "Irving Kirsch and Response Expectancy in Hypnotic Behavior," with an original opening paragraph that cites Irving Kirsch, "Response expectancy as a determinant of experience and behavior," American Psychologist 1985, vol. 40, pp. 1189-1202, a source he does not plagiarize. But he goes on to plagiarize a source that he cites nowhere in his book, Kirsch & Council's chapter from Spanos & Chaves' book (which book he does list as a reference at the end of the chapter, but doesn't cite in the section). There is more original content in this section, and more extensive rewriting, but the level of plagiarism increases as it goes on:

[Baker, p. 132:] In the latter part of the nineteenth century, Albert Moll argued [Kirsch & Council, p. 360: maintained] that hypnotic behavior was determined by two basic principles: 1) people [Kirsch & Council, quoting Moss, 1897, p. 241: men] have a certain proneness to allow themselves to be influenced by others through their ideas, and in particular, to believe much without making conscious logical deductions; 2) a psychological effect tends to appear in a person [Kirsch & Council, quoting Moss, 1897: man] if he is expecting it. Moll also was able to cause his [Kirsch & Council: elicit hallucinations by leading] blindfolded subjects to hallucinate when he told them [Kirsch & Council: to believe] they were being mesmerized.

   Moll's giving expectancy a role in the production of hypnotic phenomena anticipated Kirsch's thinking that response expectancies cause [Kirsch & Council, p. 361: generate corresponding] the individual to have internal subjective experiences which then cause [Kirsch & Council: and their] behavior [Kirsch & Council: behavioral and physiological correlates]. A very clear [Kirsch & Council: particularly apparent] example of this is the placebo effect. When the patient is given a sugar pill but is told or believes it is a powerful pain killer, miraculously, because of his expectancies, the pain goes away! As for hypnosis, according to Kirsch, the occurrence of a hypnotic response is a function of the subject's expectancy that it will occur. Once the subject has learned how a hypnotized subject is supposed to react and what he can expect to happen when he is hypnotized, then the hypnotic responses occur automatically, i.e., without conscious effort on the subject's part. Emotional reactions--fear, sadness, sexual arousal, pain--are good examples of automatic responses. Acrophobics, for example, will avoid tall buildings, cliffs, ferris wheels, etc., because of their expectancy that not doing so would result in a panic attack. 

   Various other evidence [Kirsch & Council, p. 362: A considerable body of data] is available to demonstrate that automatic [Kirsch & Council: nonvolitional] responses can be brought about [Kirsch & Council: elicited] by the mere expectancy of their occurrence. Both hypnosis and placebos are effective in treating pain, skin conditions, and asthma, and it seems reasonable to assume that the same mechanism, namely, response expectancy, produces these responses in both hypnosis [Baker, p. 133:] and the nonhypnosis situations. Telling subjects [Kirsch & Council, p. 364: informing them] they have received [Kirsch & Council: were ingesting] a psychedelic drug that will produce hallucinations causes about half [Kirsch & Council: 50 percent] to report visions, even though no drug was given. Subjects [Kirsch & Council: people] who are told that hypnotized subjects can't move their [Kirsch & Council: display catalepsy of the] dominant arm are likely to experience this effect when hypnotized, and being told [Kirsch & Council: informed] that inability to remember, i.e., spontaneous amnesia, is characteristic of hypnosis significantly increases the likelihood of its occurrence. When subjects were told that either the ability or the inability to resist responding to suggestions was characteristic of deep hypnosis, they responded accordingly.

   Besides affecting overt responses, role perceptions are an important determinant of self-reported experiences of altered states of consciousness. In a number [Kirsch & Council, p. 365: series] of studies it was shown [Kirsch & Council: this has been convincingly demonstrated] that the degree of change in state of consciousness subjects expected to experience significantly predicted the number of unsuggested alterations in experience they subsequently reported. Moreover, the data from these studies indicate [Kirsch & Council, p. 366: suggest] that no particular state of consciousness can be labeled a "hypnotic trance." Rather, a variety of changes in experience are interpreted by the subject as evidence of trance when experienced in a hypnotic context. Some of these are directly suggested in typical hypnotic induction--relaxation, for example [Kirsch & Council, p. 367: e.g.]--whereas others occur as a function of the subject's preconceptions. How the subject perceives the situation pretty much determines how effective the situation will be in producing hypnosis. Just hearing the words, "You are becoming very, very relaxed," is enough in our culture to make most people think [Kirsch & Council, p. 368: evokes the idea] of hypnosis. Glass and Barber (1961) a few years ago set up [Kirsch & Council: devised] a highly credible clinical environment and told subjects an inert pill was a powerful hypnotic drug which would produce a state of hypnosis. In this setting the pill was as effective as a standard hypnotic induction procedure in effecting [Kirsch & Council: raising levels of] the subject's responses to suggestion.

The rest of p. 133 of Baker is two original sentences that introduce a large block of text (five full sentences) properly identified as quotation and attributed to the Spanos & Chaves book without a page reference; it is from p. 371 in the Kirsch & Council chapter. Baker p. 134 completes the Kirsch section:

According to Kirsch's [Kirsch & Council, p. 371: expectancy] theory, the probability of occurrence of a nonvolitional response varies directly with the strength of the expectancy of the occurrence and inversely with the magnitude or difficulty of the expected response. [Baker has removed Kirsch & Council's quotation marks before "the probability"; the rest of the sentence is a direct quote from Kirsch's 1985 paper.]

   Trance induction procedures are, of course, typically designed to increase the subject's expectancies for responding to suggestions, and in the Ericksonian approach [Kirsch & Council: clinical practice] the hypnotist tailors his induction to the characteristics and ongoing behavior of the client [Kirsch & Council: individual subjects]. Kirsch sees most hypnotic induction procedures as merely expectancy modification procedures.

   Kirsch's response expectancy theory [Kirsch & Council, p. 374: hypothesis] is generally consistent with the nonstate theories of Sarbin, Barber, Wagstaff, and Spanos. All agree that hypnotic responses are best seen [Kirsch & Council: can be conceptualized] as compliance, belief, and imagination [Kirsch & Council: believed-in imaginings], and that the hypnosis experience occurs when people voluntarily play [Kirsch & Council: take on] the role of hypnotic subject. One key difference between Kirsch's theory and others is that his response expectancies are the immediate causes of the hypnotic response. Rather than having goal-directed images enhancing hypnosis, as Barber suggests, Kirsch has shown that the imagery enhances responsiveness by virtue of its effects on expectancy. Kirsch has also shown that not all so-called hypnotic phenomena are under a subject's will power or self-control [Kirsch & Council, p. 378: cannot be fully accounted for as volitional behavior]. Warts, for example, can be affected both by placebos and by hypnosis, and such changes in skin conditions are not under one's voluntary control. Kirsch notes that one could offer subjects a substantial sum of money to make their warts disappear, but it is highly unlikely that many subjects would be able to do so.

This phenomenon also clearly shows [Kirsch & Council, p. 378: demonstrates] the commonality between hypnosis [Kirsch & Council: hypnotic phenomena] and placebo effects. Both are examples of the nonvolitional nature of response expectancy effects. Kirsch's observation raises another point of significance--the fact that we must realize that not everything that happens to the human being as a result of external stimulation is or should be considered hypnosis! Suggestion is a very powerful influence on human behavior and it can influence human behavior in many different ways, only a very few of which we would or should designate as "hypnotic."

Yellow highlight: Nicholas P. Spanos, "Past-Life Hypnotic Regression: A Critical View," Skeptical Inquirer vol. 12, no. 2, Winter 1987-88, pp. 174-180. Not listed as a reference in chapter three, but is listed as a reference in chapter six.

Orange highlight: Nicholas P. Spanos and John F. Chaves, Hypnosis: The Cognitive-Behavioral Perspective, 1989, Prometheus Books. This is listed as a reference in chapter three, but is not cited in the section where it is plagiarized, but instead on p. 129 a few paragraphs before the plagiarism of the Spanos SI article (yellow highlight).

Green highlight: Irving Kirsch and James R. Council, "Response Expectancy as a Determinant of Hypnotic Behavior," in Spanos & Chaves (1989), pp. 360-379. This chapter is not listed as a reference in the book.

I reviewed Baker's They Call It Hypnosis for Amazon.com on November 18, 1996, and gave it four stars; I might subtract another star today and say more about its giving state theories short shrift, but otherwise I still agree with this:

This book is an excellent summary of theories of hypnosis
with an emphasis on criticisms of state theories. The
author argues for social/cognitive non-state theories.
The book is marred only by the fact that many passages
are lifted directly from the authors being summarized,
without being noted as such.

Finally, here is the definition of research misconduct from the University of Kentucky's "Policy on Ethical Standards and Misconduct in Research" (64.0 AR II-4.0-2) from 1992:

Research "misconduct", as used herein, is defined as plagiarism; 
fabrication or intentional falsification of data, research procedures or 
data analysis; or other deliberate misrepresentation in proposing, 
conducting, reporting, or reviewing research.  It does not include 
honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of 
data.  In cases of allegations involving activities submitted to or 
supported by a federal agency, the definition for misconduct specified 
in the agency's regulations will apply.

This policy was referenced in the faculty handbook section on "The Conduct of Research" in the paragraph on "Ethical Standards"; these are quoted more extensively in my full report. Baker was certainly aware of these in substance, as the following appears on p. 297 of Robert A. Baker and Joe Nickell's book, Missing Pieces: How to Investigate Ghosts, UFOs, Psychics, and Other Mysteries (1992, Prometheus Books):

Another question that is bound to arise has to do with rewriting and 
paraphrasing.  The courts once again have uniformly decided that it 
makes no difference whether the plagiarizer changes the arrangement of 
the original words or not--rewriting the material is not sufficient to 
aid the charge of infringement. ... More importantly, even if the use of 
the words and statements of another is totally honest, unintentional, or 
subconscious, it is still prohibited.  Neither forgetfulness nor 
ignorance is regarded as a legitimate excuse.  If, however, it was an 
honest and unintentional mistake, and no intent to plagiarize was in 
mind, the infringer usually gets off with a lesser punishment.

Baker's response to these allegations was at first to attack and concede nothing. He suggested that he was going to sue me for defamation, and enlisted the help of others who attempted to discredit me (see my letter to Tucson skeptic James McGaha). Ultimately, after psychologist Terence Hines, another prominent skeptic, was prepared to submit his book review of Baker's Hidden Memories, rejected by Skeptical Inquirer, to competing publication Skeptic magazine,  SI editor Kendrick Frazier relented and published the review along with Baker's reply. Baker fell back to the claim that his plagiarism was minor and unintentional, while resorting to falsehoods to attempt to prop up that explanation, as explained above. At this point, CSICOP founder and Prometheus Books head Paul Kurtz sent me a letter stating that Hidden Memories had been pulled from distribution and would not be reissued until corrections had been made; I replied noting that there were bigger problems in They Call It Hypnosis, but received no response.

Robert Baker was added to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry's Pantheon of Skeptics honoring distinguished Fellows of the organization on its creation in 2011.

Skeptical Inquirer and Wikipedia, at least to date, both gave Baker's falsehoods the final word. And perhaps the more interesting back story here is that Wikipedia is wrong because Skeptical Inquirer is wrong, but the reason Wikipedia only even mentioned Baker's plagiarism at all in December 2023 is because a Wikipedia editor with no dog in the fight, "Psychologist Guy," intervened and restored an old edit of the article to include the mention, which had been removed in 2018 by another Wikipedia editor, "Niomart," with the false justification that "No valid source substantiating plagiarism claims".

As the Internet becomes more and more filled with AI-generated content, there will be sources with superficial plausibility generated by large language models, there will be sources that are human-curated and based on genuine research and fact-checking, and there will be sources that are human-curated and ideologically driven that settle on acceptable half-truths concealing messy details. OpenAI's ChatGPT 3.5 says it knows nothing of plagiarism by Robert A. Baker:

Did Robert A. Baker's 1992 book, Hidden Memories (pp. 156-157), plagiarize from Terence Hines' 1988 book Investigating the Unexplained (pp. 73-75)?

As of my last knowledge update in January 2022, I do not have specific information regarding an allegation of plagiarism between Robert A. Baker's book "Hidden Memories" and Terence Hines' book "Investigating the Unexplained" related to the pages specified. Therefore, I cannot definitively answer whether Baker's book plagiarized from Hines' book.

To investigate this further and obtain accurate information, I would recommend checking scholarly resources, academic databases, or reputable sources that discuss these books and any related allegations of plagiarism. You might also look into academic discussions or reviews of both books to see if there are any mentions of such accusations and their resolution.

Google Gemini quotes from and cites Wikipedia as the final word:

Was Robert A. Baker ever accused of plagiarism, or of failure to properly cite quotations and sources?

Yes, Robert A. Baker did face accusations of plagiarism in the past according to his Wikipedia page [Robert A. Baker Wikipedia].

Here's a summary of the incidents:

• In 1994, readers of Skeptical Inquirer identified similarities between Baker's article and another author's work. Baker apologized, claiming it was an oversight.
• The following year, another author pointed out unattributed quotes in Baker's writing. Baker defended himself by saying he used the original source but forgot quotation marks.

The Case Against Bruce Ivins

The Smoking Gun has a collection of documents about the government's case against suicidal government bioweapons researcher Bruce Ivins that is fascinating. Apparently he engaged in an "edit war" on the Wikipedia entry for the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority (which my mother belonged to). He regularly posted negative information there, and became angry when it was deleted. He claimed that KKG had labeled him an "enemy" and issued a "fatwah" against him, and he broke into a KKG sorority house to steal a KKG handbook during his postdoc fellowship at UNC Chapel Hill.

The documents also show ties between Ivins and the American Family Affiliation, a conservative Christian group known for threatening boycotts against companies that do things like support gay rights, and with pro-life groups.

He was a regular user of pseudonyms and multiple email addresses.

The documents show that he was clearly a very disturbed individual.

(Previously.)

UPDATE (August 9, 2008): Ivins' coworker Meryl Nass lays out the case for reasonable doubt about Ivins' involvement at her blog.

Hume's Ghost points out in the comments that the anthrax attacks were used to help justify the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that the anthrax apparently originated there. One of the Glenn Greenwald articles Hume's Ghost alludes to, about false claims that the anthrax contained bentonite which tied it to Iraq, may be found here. A nice quote from that article:

Critically, ABC News never retracted its story (they merely noted, as they had done from the start, that the White House denied the reports). And thus, the linkage between Saddam and the anthrax attacks -- every bit as false as the linkage between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks -- persisted.

We now know -- we knew even before news of Ivins' suicide last night, and know especially in light of it -- that the anthrax attacks didn't come from Iraq or any foreign government at all. It came from our own Government's scientist, from the top Army bioweapons research laboratory. More significantly, the false reports linking anthrax to Iraq also came from the U.S. Government -- from people with some type of significant links to the same facility responsible for the attacks themselves.

Surely the question of who generated those false Iraq-anthrax reports is one of the most significant and explosive stories of the last decade. The motive to fabricate reports of bentonite and a link to Saddam is glaring. Those fabrications played some significant role -- I'd argue a very major role -- in propagandizing the American public to perceive of Saddam as a threat, and further, propagandized the public to believe that our country was sufficiently threatened by foreign elements that a whole series of radical policies that the neoconservatives both within and outside of the Bush administration wanted to pursue -- including an attack an Iraq and a whole array of assaults on our basic constitutional framework -- were justified and even necessary in order to survive.

ABC News already knows the answers to these questions. They know who concocted the false bentonite story and who passed it on to them with the specific intent of having them broadcast those false claims to the world, in order to link Saddam to the anthrax attacks and -- as importantly -- to conceal the real culprit(s) (apparently within the U.S. government) who were behind the attacks. And yet, unbelievably, they are keeping the story to themselves, refusing to disclose who did all of this. They're allegedly a news organization, in possession of one of the most significant news stories of the last decade, and they are concealing it from the public, even years later.

They're not protecting "sources." The people who fed them the bentonite story aren't "sources." They're fabricators and liars who purposely used ABC News to disseminate to the American public an extremely consequential and damaging falsehood. But by protecting the wrongdoers, ABC News has made itself complicit in this fraud perpetrated on the public, rather than a news organization uncovering such frauds. That is why this is one of the most extreme journalistic scandals that exists, and it deserves a lot more debate and attention than it has received thus far.

Greenwald goes on, in a series of updates, to point out that several of the pieces of evidence of Ivins' unusual behavior that is now pointed to as evidence of his guilt were already published in newspapers in 2004.

In a followup, Greenwald writes about whether journalists should expose sources who lie to them. I think I good case can be made that they should, in cases where the source is lying as opposed to being used as a dupe, and the journalist has good evidence to that effect. Being exposed for such lies would act as a disincentive for such lying to take place.

UPDATE (July 30, 2009): The New York Times reports that the National Academy of Sciences has assembled a 15-member panel to review the scientific work done by the FBI to identify Ivins as the culprit. The process is expected to take a year and a half to complete.

UPDATE (November 27, 2009): Glenn Greenwald argues that the case on Ivins shouldn't be closed, and cites various mainstream sources that agree.

Prosecution target for anthrax attacks commits suicide

Upon learning that he was about to be the target of a prosecution for the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, U.S. government biodefense researcher Bruce Ivins killed himself on Tuesday with an overdose of Tylenol with codeine.

Ivins became a suspect after it was discovered that he had failed to report anthrax contaminations at his lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, in 2002. In late 2008, he was ordered to stay away from a social worker who had counseled him, Jean Duley, who would have testified against him at his trial. In Duley's application for a protective order, she said that Ivins had stalked her and threatened to kill her.

Ivins worked at the same lab where a prior "person of interest" in the case, Stephen Hatfill, also worked. Hatfill was cleared of involvement with the attacks and won a $5.8 million settlement from the Justice Department after he sued for harassment and privacy act violations. Hatfill also won a $10 million libel judgment against Vanity Fair and Reader's Digest for an article by Donald Foster which claimed that Hatfill's writings and travels connected him to the anthrax attacks.

Ivins' attorney claims that he was innocent, but if that were the case, wouldn't his response have been more like Hatfill's? Perhaps, perhaps not. Private investigator and former CNN reporter Pat Clawson, who was also a spokesperson for Hatfill,

said on Friday that news organizations and the public should be “deeply skeptical” about any notion that Dr. Ivins was the anthrax killer unless and until solid evidence is brought forth.

“Everybody is jumping to the conclusion that because this guy committed suicide, he must be the anthrax killer,” Mr. Clawson said. “That is a lousy premise. The pressure of these F.B.I. investigations on individuals is phenomenal, and it is quite likely that this guy cracked under that pressure but had nothing to do with the killings.”

Ivins was a church-going Catholic and a married father of two.

(Hat tip to Greg Laden.)

UPDATE (August 7, 2008): The government's case against Ivins includes tracing the strain of anthrax to his specific lab, the fact that he worked long periods alone in a secure lab that housed that strain and could not account for his activity, that when asked to provide spores from his laboratory to investigators he gave them different spores and then lied about it, that he sent an email to an associate after 9/11 saying that terrorists have "anthrax and sarin gas" and have "decreed death to all Jews and Americans," language similar to statements in threatening letters included in the mailed anthrax envelopes. All of the spores used in the anthrax attacks came from a single flask in Ivins' lab, RMR-1029. That's probably the most conclusive evidence that Ivins was behind the attacks.

Apparently Ivins also engaged in an "edit war" on the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority's Wikipedia page, repeatedly posting negative information there, and thought that the group had declared a "fatwah" on him. (Via The Agitator.)

Zeitgeist: The Movie

Last night I attended an event at which one of the attendees promoted "Zeitgeist: The Movie." I was prompted to finally watch this piece of pernicious nonsense back in January when a commenter at this blog made reference to it, and I forced myself to sit through the whole thing. The movie is in three segments--the first is on the origins of Christianity, in which it argues that Jesus was a myth derived from Egyptian myth, based on the work of Acharya S. The second is 9/11 conspiracy theory. The third is an argument that the U.S. Federal Reserve is a scam. It's almost entirely garbage, dependent on crackpot sources.

I posted a series of comments about the movie as I watched it, but I'll summarize those here and add a bit more.

The first part argues that Christianity is derived from Egyptian myth, primarily by pointing out parallels between them. The arguments are apparently derived from the self-published "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold" by Acharya S (Dorothy M. Murdock) and perhaps also from Tom Harpur's The Pagan Christ, both works of pseudoscholarship based on the work of other pseudoscholars like 18th century archaeologist Godfrey Higgins, 19th century amateur Egyptologist and poet Gerald Massey, and Alvin Boyd Kuhn, a high school language teacher and promoter of Theosophy) and entirely ignores actual work in Egyptology. For example, the film draws a list of comparisons between Horus and Jesus that is just fabricated--Horus wasn't born of a virgin, he was the child of Isis and Osiris, though Isis was impregnated by Osiris through some magic after he was dead. There have been parallels drawn between Isis and Mary that are more plausible (especially in iconography), but the movie exaggerates them, too, and fails to note the considerable areas of dissimilarity. A quick look at the Wikipedia entries on Horus and Isis is sufficient to show that the comparison is strained. The significance of a December 25 birthdate is nonexistent--Christianity did acquire attributes of pagan religions later in its history, and it has clearly been a syncretistic religion, but while this is evidence of falsehood in Christian traditions, it is not a clue to its origin.

For accurate information about Christianity and the formation of the Christian tradition, virtually any mainstream academic work will be more reliable. There has been a lot discovered since the work of 19th century Theosophists, both in the form of document manuscripts and archaeology, that sheds light on the early history of Christianity. In discussions at the James Randi Educational Foundation Forums, poster GreNME wrote:

Oh, those people were mostly made of of the beginnings of the Theosophist movements (Blavatsky and the like) or people with similar stated motivations but not the same organizational structure (like Graves). Yeah, Dorothy [Murdock] cites regularly enough from these people (especially Graves and Massey), but the thrust or crux of her writing tends to be more similar to those like Allegro-- taking the message into a realm of New-Age-y attempts to center on mid-20th-century discoveries about the mystery schools.

That's why I mentioned Ehrman, by the way. I had the opportunity to send him a question on the topic of the "out of Egypt" mystery school centric literature coming out about by those like Dorothy, and his response was essentially that people who stick to that thin and shallow an interpretation of the mystery schools really don't understand the materials they're trying to work with in the first place.

I've read a few very well-worded academic arguments against a historical Jesus, but none of them rely on the mystery schools, Egyptian mythology, Krishna, or Mithras. They tend to focus on the culture of the region at the time and the unreliability of the few Roman authors who are used by apologists today. For me, all said and done, I don't much care because I'm not a Christian anyway. It's only reliably traceable back to Paul anyway, in my opinion.

So read some Bart Ehrman for a more accurate picture. The best case I've read for Jesus being a myth is in the books of G.A. Wells, though I'm not inclined to buy it. (Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle has also been recommended as a strong case for Jesus being mythical, but I've not read it.) I think the Arabic text of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews provides strong evidence that Josephus did refer to a historical Jesus and that his text was altered by later Christian interpolation rather than an insertion completely made up out of whole cloth.

Some of the same kind of errors (via dependence on sources like Harpur and Kersey Graves) that are in "Zeitgeist" are also in Brian Flemming's "The God Who Wasn't There," for which you an find a nice fair-minded critique, along with responses from Flemming and Richard Carrier, in "God Who Wasn't There: an Analysis."

The second part is standard 9/11 conspiracy theory that has been refuted in previous posts at this blog. It completely ignores radical Islam and the actual events that led up to September 11, 2001, and like all such conspiracy theories, completely fails to provide a coherent explanation that incorporates the level of detail in the 9/11 Commission Report. That report is a flawed document, to be sure, but it is still far, far more comprehensive, detailed, and accurately sourced than anything the 9/11 truthers put out. The right way to investigate 9/11 is to start with the 9/11 Commission Report, with accounts of the movements and actions of the 19 terrorists, and going back farther to the 1993 WTC bombing, Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman and the Alkifah Refugee Center in Brooklyn, the murder of Emir Shalabi, the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane by El-Sayyid Nosair, the killing of Rashad Khalifa in Tucson in 1990 and the role of James Williams and Wadih el-Hage (secretary for Osama bin Laden in Sudan), and so on.

The U.S. government's connection is that it funded the mujahideen insurgents in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, and then walked away after the Soviets were defeated, allowing rich Saudis to step in. There's no question that "blowback" has played a major role, and I'll also agree that the Bush Administration has hugely exploited the 9/11 attacks to its advantage and to expand presidential power (as the PBS Frontline on "Cheney's Law" documents, which I highly recommend watching and you can see online).

The right way to investigate 9/11 is to stick to reliable sources and accounts that attempt to be as comprehensive as possible, not bullshit stories made by collecting a few bits of data from unreliable sources and constructing elaborate fantasies of speculation. Some reliable sources I recommend are Gerald Posner's Why America Slept, James Bamford's A Pretext for War, and James Mann's Rise of the Vulcans. Specifically on 9/11 conspiracy theory, read the book of critiques published by Popular Mechanics and visit websites like 911myths.com and Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

Instead, Zeitgeist relies on crackpots like Michael Ruppert and Ted Gunderson, both former police officers who have a long history of promoting nonsensical conspiracy theories. Ruppert is best known for his claims to have found that the CIA was peddling drugs (itself a plausible claim, even if not well substantiated by him) while he was a narcotics detective for the LAPD; after being removed from the force in 1978, he has gone on to argue for Peak Oil and 9/11 conspiracy theory. In 2006, after facing charges of sexual harassment from a former employee whom he admits he paraded around the office in his underwear in front of, he fled to Venezuela, then moved to Canada, and then to New York and Los Angeles. Gunderson spouted nonsense about satanic ritual abuse in the 1980s and has endorsed the accuracy of phony psychic Sylvia Browne, as well as promoting wild claims of child sexual abuse by "some of America's leading politicians" including George W. Bush, which makes him sound like the crazy mind-control sex slave claimants, "Brice Taylor" (Susan Ford), Cathy O'Brien, and Kola Boof (the last of whom makes the sex slave claims without the mind control claims).

The film provides no good sources for any of its claims, and seems to contradict itself. It claims there's no evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to the attacks (despite the fact that we have people like al Qaeda member Ramzi Binalshibh, who attempted to enter the U.S. to enter a flight school but was denied a visa, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, head of al Qaeda's media committee and main plotter of the attacks, in custody), yet turns around and suggests that there's something suspicious about the Bush family connections to the bin Laden family and that two members of the bin Laden family lived in Falls Church, Virginia "right next to CIA Headquarters." Why would that connection be relevant or suspicious if Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with it?

Osama bin Laden's father had 55 children and 22 wives, and there are currently about 600 bin Laden family members--most appear to be law-abiding citizens who have disowned Osama. The two Falls Church residents, however, were two of Osama's sons, Abdallah and Omar, the latter of whom was a member of al Qaeda.

The charge of the FBI being told to "back off" from bin Laden investigations from the White House is now known to have been approved by counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, not exactly a fan of George W. Bush, whose testimony on the issue has been somewhat inconsistent. While Clarke originally claimed the plan came from top officials in the White House and was approved in consultation with the FBI, he subsequently said that he took personal responsibility for the decision to allow the bin Laden family members to leave the U.S., and that he didn't think it was a mistake, and that he'd do it again.

The third section of the movie is about the U.S. Federal Reserve, which appears to be derived from John Birch Society propaganda, with a bonus argument that the 16th Amendment to the Constitution and thus federal income tax is invalid. It argues that the Panic of 1907 was caused by (rather than, as was actually the case, ended by) J.P. Morgan, and makes no mention of the Knickerbocker Trust. It argues that the Federal Reserve Act was put into effect by a conspiracy of international bankers and the Rockefellers through Sen. Nelson Aldrich, and claims that the Federal Reserve is entirely private. But the Fed's head and board of governors is appointed by the president, which isn't mentioned by the film. Wikipedia gets theFed's legal status right, it's part of the federal government but with a fair degree of independence so that politicians can't directly manipulate monetary policy. Its status is accurately described in Bill Woolsey's October 2004 article in Liberty magazine, "Who Owns the Fed?". A number of other Federal Reserve conspiracy claims are debunked here.

It then goes off into tax evader craziness, claiming that the 16th Amendment wasn't properly ratified, but without actually discussing the evidence. That argument is made in William J. Benson and Martin J. Beckman's book The Law That Never Was, which documents errors in the ratification documents, such as typos, alternate capitalization, alternate pluralization, etc. Courts have ruled that Benson's argument doesn't work and that his selling his book as part of a tax evasion defense package constitutes fraud, and he's served time in jail for tax evasion.

As an aside, while reviewing the above I came across an even more interesting argument against income tax (not in Zeitgeist) discussed by Cecil Adams in his "Straight Dope" column. The argument states that the 16th Amendment is invalid because Ohio was not a state at the time of ratification, and William H. Taft, who was president, was therefore not legally president since he was not a U.S. Citizen. Everybody thought Ohio was made a state in 1803, but in 1953 when Ohio was preparing for its 150th anniversary of statehood, they found that Congress had defined its boundaries and approved its constitution, but failed to admit it to statehood. Ohio made an appeal for statehood (delivering it to Congress by horseback) and Congress passed a resolution granting it retroactively. Cecil Adams' description and commentary about it is worth reading.

Tax protestor claims more generally are refuted at this GWU law professor's website, and a nice case study refutation is Sheldon Richman's three-part "Beware Income-Tax Casuistry."

"Zeitgeist: The Movie" was apparently put out by "GMP, LLC", which is a company based in Port Chester, NY registered to a James Coyman, who has been claimed to be the person behind the pseudonym "Peter Joseph" credited for the writing, producing, directing, and editing of the film. Other documents online associate GMP, LLC with John Giura, former vice chairman of north Chicago company CGI Holding Corporation (now Think Partnership, Inc., traded on AmEx under the symbol THK), a company with a subsidiary, WebSourced, Inc., which is "a leader in search engine marketing (see www.keywordranking.com) and on-line dating (see www.Cherish.com)." A John Giura has directed a music video for the Nashville, TN band Clem Snide, and a John P. Giura from New York City directed a 20-min short film called "Inside Trip" shown at the 2002 Maryland Film Festival, as well as some other videos found online attributed to him and his JPG Studio in NYC. The short festival film stars former Olympic wrestler John P. Giura, who has apparently lived in Oak Park, IL and New York City. In 1986, a John Giura of Oak Park, IL who was a partner in the firm of Stein, Roe, and Farnham, was charged by the SEC for participation in a complex "kickback and payoff" scheme which victimized Teamster union pension funds in upstate New York. It's not clear which, if any, of these is associated with the GMP, LLC that put out Zeitgeist. [See update below.]

There is a movie at Google Video titled "Zeitgeist Refuted" that appears to be itself filled with bad arguments promoting Christianity. Though I've only watched a small part of it, it doesn't seem to actually respond to the claims of "Zeitgeist: The Movie."

Other responses to "Zeitgeist: The Movie" include:

The criticism section of the Wikipedia article on "Zeitgeist: The Movie"
The Web Skeptic wiki entry on "Zeitgeist: The Movie"
The site "Zeitgeist, the movie Debunked"
Jay Kinney's review of "Zeitgeist" at boingboing
Tim Callahan's, "The Greatest Story Ever Garbled," a debunking of part I of "Zeitgeist" for Skeptic magazine's e-skeptic newsletter

Henry Makow's site, which amusingly takes issue with part one but swallows whole the nonsense in parts two and three and concludes that Zeitgeist is itself the product of a conspiracy, is worth a laugh.

UPDATE (August 6, 2009): I decided to add to the main post the text of my comment from October 30, 2008 below, about "Zeitgeist Addendum":

I watched a little bit (the first 30 minutes) of the "Zeitgeist Addendum," which looks to be largely derived from "Money is Debt," another video floating around the Internet. I skimmed through much of the rest.

It's somewhat more accurate than the previous parts, but has the same flaws as "Money is Debt," most seriously in its discussion of interest. The creators of both films do not seem to understand the time-value of money, or that the expansion of the money supply doesn't create problems so long as non-monetary wealth is also expanding. No matter what you use as money, there will always be a system of credit that rides on top of it, of the sort that has been contracting rapidly in the current financial crisis. (This contraction has been *increasing* the value of the U.S. dollar this year.)

The idea that money creates slavery and that if we just got rid of fractional reserve banking, nobody would be forced to work for a living is a bit ridiculous.

Looks like part 2 of the film is based on John Perkins' Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which is a book I've read. His book was entertaining, but mostly unbelievable, and he's not a credible source. Note that he claims that we all have the shamanic ability to shapeshift and become invisible, for example.

Some of the stuff he talks about is correct, such as U.S. intervention using the CIA in the Middle East and South America, the history of which is told in Tim Weiner's book Legacy of Ashes.

In part III, the film suggests that we only need money because of scarcity, and that scarcity is a fiction. But scarcity isn't a fiction, scarcity exists because there is no limit to what people can want and desire--there can be scarcity even when a resource is abundant.

My impression is that the "Addendum" is just as bogus as the first three parts--it's largely lifted from other sources, and those sources are unreliable.

UPDATE (January 5, 2010): Better speculation by salvorhardin at Democratic Underground says that "Peter Joseph" is Peter J. Merola. This appears to be a correct identification if the Animation World Network's announcement of a multimedia event from May 29-June 3, 2007 is accurate:

ZEITGIEST is a unique and ambitious multimedia, musical event by P.J. Merola. This event is free and not for profit. It runs from May 29 - June 3, 2007 at 8:00-9:30 pm.

ZEITGEIST is an abstract, aesthetic exploration of personal belief and social myth -- told through a multimedia work of live solo percussion, stereo video displays and electronic music. Using animation, live performance, drama, humor, and narrative, ZEITGEIST attempts to bring its audience to a place that most likely counters what they believe as true.

Please visit http://www.zeitgeistnyc.com for a video preview and to make reservations.

The "GMP" is then "Gentle Machine Productions," as reported here. Gentle Machine Productions released a CD GMP001 titled "J.S. Bach on the Marimba," arranged by P.J. Merola, with P.J. Merola playing the marimba.

The Village Voice ran a story in 2004 about P.J. Merola and his brother Eric.

Answers in Genesis Wikipedia edits

Thanks to Wikiscanner, here are a few of the anonymous Wikipedia edits made by people at Answers in Genesis:

November 18, 2005: Changed a sentence in the entry on "Answers in Genesis" from "...according to Biblical myth, there was no death in the Garden of Eden" to "...according to the Biblical record, there was no death in the Garden of Eden."

December 5, 2006: Vandalized the entry on "Football" to add the words "Football sucks".

December 28, 2006: Added an entry for www.articledirect.com to the entry on "Free content." Does an AiG employee have another business on the side?

May 24, 2007: Modifies a sentence in the entry on "Creation Museum" from "This museum portrays the Earth's history interpreting the genesis literally" (ick!) to "The museum presents the account of man's origins and early history according to the Book of Genesis."

There are several other edits of "Creation Museum" and I didn't review them all, but most were reasonable improvements to the article, with the occasional biased statement that propounded creationism as true.

Wikiscanner

Virgil Griffith has put together a fascinating data-mining tool that compares anonymous Wikipedia edits to WHOIS records for IP addresses, to allow users to examine edits made by people at particular organizations. The tool can be used to examine edits by people at the NSA (Ft. Meade), the CIA, the Church of Scientology, Bob Jones University, the Environmental Protection Agency, Diebold, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Wal-Mart, Pfizer, Raytheon, The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, the WorldNetDaily, Fox News, the Republican and Democratic Party, the Vatican, among many others. The organizations listed here are all listed on the side of the tool's main search page, but there are many more in the drop-down list of user-submitted organizations, and you can specify organization names and locations.

Wired magazine has assembled a list of some of the more interesting edits, such as someone at Diebold deleting references to security flaws in electronic voting machines and someone at the CIA editing song lyrics from an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Griffith, who built Wikiscanner while working at the Santa Fe Institute, begins graduate work in September at Caltech on theoretical neurobiology and artificial life under Christoph Koch and Chris Adami.

It's wonderful when data mining can be used for good purposes.

(Hat tip to Scott Peterson on the SKEPTIC list.)

Wikigroaning

From jwz's blog:

The Art of Wikigroaning

The premise is quite simple. First, find a useful Wikipedia article that normal people might read. For example, the article called "Knight." Then, find a somehow similar article that is longer, but at the same time, useless to a very large fraction of the population. In this case, we'll go with "Jedi Knight." Open both of the links and compare the lengths of the two articles. Compare not only that, but how well concepts are explored, and the greater professionalism with which the longer article was likely created. Are you looking yet? Get a good, long look. Yeah. Yeeaaah, we know, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. (We're calling it Wikigroaning for a reason.) The next step is to find your own article pair and share it with your friends, who will usually look for their own pairs and you end up spending a good hour or two in a groaning arms race. The game ends after that, usually without any clear winners... but hey, it beats doing work.

Modern warfare	Lightsaber combat
Lizards	Dragons
Prime number	Optimus Prime
Civil war	Civil War (comic book)
Gray's Anatomy	Grey's Anatomy
Raphael (archangel)	Raphael (ninja turtle)
Citizen Kane	Clerks 2
Vulcan (mythology)	Pon Farr
John Locke	John Locke (Lost)
Category:American philosphers	List of big-bust models and performers
Women's suffrage	List of fictional gynoids and female cyborgs

A much longer list of entries to compare is at jwz's blog.

Where the wisdom of crowds fails

Richard Bennett has an interesting post about Wikipedia and the decentralization of knowledge collection titled "Teaching the hive mind to discriminate." He argues that while Wikipedia is good at accumulating the knowledge of a large number of individuals, it also collects their "prejudice, mistaken beliefs, wishful thinking, and conformance to tradition." It is unrealistic to expect that these erroneous beliefs will automatically be weeded out because "expertise is not as widely dispersed as participation":

So the real question about information and group scaling is this: are there procedures for separating good information from false information (”discrimination”) that are effective enough to allow groups to be scaled indefinitely without a loss of information quality? It’s an article of faith in the Wikipedia “community” that such procedures exist, and that they’re essentially self-operative. That’s the mythos of “emergence”, that systems, including human systems, automatically self-organize in such a way as to reward good behavior and information and purge bad information. This seems to be based on the underlying assumption that people being basically good, the good will always prevail in any group.

Readers of this blog know that I would argue that many religious and political beliefs are examples that support Bennett's position.

On a related point, Ed Felten has a recent post about how reputation systems on the Internet can be manipulated, referencing a pair of articles at Wired by Annalee Newitz. A common flaw is that the reputations of the raters themselves is either not taken into account or is easily manipulated. If there were a way of reliably weighting expertise of raters within appropriate knowledge domains, that could provide a method of discrimination to sort out the good from the bad information.

This is a subject that my planned (but never completed) Ph.D. dissertation in epistemology (on social epistemology, specifically on obtaining knowledge based on the knowledge of others) at the University of Arizona should have touched upon.

One philosopher who had touched on this subject at the time I was working on my Ph.D. (back in the early 1990s) was Philip Kitcher, whose book The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions (1993, Oxford University Press) contains a chapter titled "The Organization of Cognitive Labor" (originally published as "The Division of Cognitive Labor" in the Journal of Philosophy, 87(1990):5-21).