Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
From: edwards@uwmacc.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Cheating (Is it clearly definable?)
Message-ID: <1386@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-Apr-87 09:09:08 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1386
Posted: Wed Apr 15 09:09:08 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 17-Apr-87 00:14:19 EST
References: <1368@uwmacc.UUCP> <6487@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1374@uwmacc.UUCP> <6548@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Reply-To: edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu.UUCP (mark edwards)
Organization: UW-Madison Academic Computer Center
Lines: 58

In article <6548@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>Besides, you're not a scientist, you're a student (or the hypothetical
>cheater is.) When you become a scientist you can use other's work like
>that to extend the field. You are not extending the field by writing a
>bubble sort for an intro programming class so copying it out of the
>ACM Algorithms is cheating.

   I agree with you in principle, the arguments I will make are to 
   understand more fully these distinctions . 

   Are not scientists, former students. When do they make the jump 
   from student to scientist. Could not some of these students ( It
   is agreed that most are not) be acting in just this manner as a
   scientist? How does one tell? Do not graduate students, take 
   classes, and do research? Why shouldn't they use what they know
   to accomplish a given task.

>Do you understand the difference between learning a field and extending
>it? Good.

  I understand it as you say, but I do not have such a clear cut notion
  as you seem to have. Is learning in a field not also extending it,
  should a scientist not learn before he trys to extend it?

>My point was solid, if you want to do your homework like a scientist
>does his/her research then you will give full credit, in writing, to
>all ideas which are not your own. As I said before, anything less
>is cheating (for a student or a scientist.)


    I must argue that a scientist does not give full credit to all
    the ideas that are not his own. What if the idea seem to come
    from within, but existed subconciously from what some one said
    to him sometime in his past. I do not think that it is possible
    that a scientist or a student cite all references. The only 
    references that are cited are those that are concrete ( taken
    from papers, books ..) and those that he remembers. Cheating
    therefore seems to be the concious act of not giving credit,
    where credit should be given. If you have no concious knowledge
    of it what then? I would have to argue that most scientis cheat,
    but the definition as been alter to exclude what they do.

      But defining cheating as clear as you have seemed to define it,
    Reminds me of the Christian/heathen distinction. Some Christians
    will say if you are not a Christian then you are a heathen. I 
    think it is arguable that some heathems might be Christians, and
    vice versa and they do not really know it. And there may even be
    some kind of scale (3/4 heathen and 1/4 Christian).

      Forgive me but, please try to explain it once more. You seem to
    have a clear understanding of it. I wish to, also.

    mark
-- 
    edwards@unix.macc.wisc.edu
    {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!edwards
    UW-Madison, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706