Identity Verified Thinker in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology
Mike Sutton
Mike Sutton
Dr Mike Sutton is the author of 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret'.


This Blog has no active categories.
Posted in Science / Social Sciences / Sociology

On Geiger Counters, Google and Rational Assumptions that Underpin our Conclusions: Further notes on Darwin's and Wallace's miraculous "immaculate conceptions" of a prior-published theory

Feb. 2, 2015 4:36 am

Public Domain

Geiger Counters detect radioactivity

Geiger counters and Google - just like microscopes and telescopes - allow us utilize simple research methods, by way of technologies, to discover what is there but hidden from our normal physical abilities to detect it.

Dogs and I Might Bark, But The Train Moves On


Public Domain

Google uses BigData technology to enhance our powers of detection

If a Geiger Counter makes its classic noise then scientists know they are detecting radiation. And there is often big money in it! Uranium, for example, being a very valuable radioactive commodity.

Unfortunately, when money talks some scientists are like quack doctors. These allegedly quack-scientists, apparently, consider unsaleable facts and truth to be far less important than readily salable fallacies. Moreover, just as thieves are motivated by stolen goods markets, nurture their growth and maintain them by supply (see my work on stolen goods markets and the Market Reduction Approach to theft), pseudo-skeptical scientists are doing something similar by selling fallacies. In that respect, my Dysology Hypothesis is that safe and ready markets for fallacies motivate poor scholarship and science fraud and are similarly supported back up-stream by publications disseminating the products of poor, pseudo-skeptical, and fraudulent, scholarship. Let me explain.

If I use Google to uniquely detect book after previously undiscovered book and so newly prove that other naturalists known to Darwin & Wallace in fact did read (indeed cite!) Patrick Matthew’s (1831) prior published hypothesis of natural selection (Sutton 2014a, 2014b), why is it that Darwinists are keeping sheepishly silent now that their books and peer-reviewed papers about Matthew being unread by naturalists before 1860 are all 100% proven wrong, And, more specifically, the New Data disproves Darwin's (1860) (see my essay for the reference) claim, that no naturalists known to him had read Matthew's unique ideas. Wallace was less specific in his fallacy spreading. He claimed (Wallace 1870) simply to have "discovered" natural selection. Supposedly, by that he was claiming to have discovered it independently of anyone else, as opposed to in the literature where Matthew had put it in a book that the editor of Wallace's famous Sarawak paper (1855) (Selby) had earlier read and cited in 1842?

The biased Wikipedia editors who were involved in the brute censorship process of deleting many of the New Facts about who actually did cite Matthew pre-1858 on the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia took it as their duty to weirdly follow me onto the "talk page" of my RationalWiki essay on the same topic and having questioned whether RationalWiki should publish my essay at all they went on to accuse me of behaving like a creationist, being a conspiracy theorist and (you have to laugh at the irony of it) suffering from a persecution complex. Perhaps it is that very complex, therefore, as opposed to a desire to let the world know what these particular Darwinists are up to that I ask the following telling questions.

Why are some influential Darwinists - such as Richard Dawkins FRS (2010), writing patent nonsense that the orchard owning silvaculturalist Matthew failed to understand the significance of his discovery because he hid it away in a manual on silvaculture? Do they not know that the two oldest books of the Royal society - and among its most important -are on both silvacuture and apple growing? Dawkins (2010), who has published his continuing belief in earlier fallacies about Matthew's work being unread by anyone who mattered, criticizes Matthew for not trumpeting from the rooftops (at a time when doing so would in fact have landed him in trouble for heresy and sedition) the new discovery that important naturalists such as Loudon, Selby and Chambers in fact did read and then they actually cited Matthew's book.


Public Domain

Skepticsm is a way of thinking not a camouflage club for credulous toadies

Why are influential Darwinists seemingly not interested in disconfirming evidence for their old unevedenced mere knowledge beliefs? Why, for example, did Professor James Moore (A Darwinist Darwin biographer) engage in a typical and fallacious Semmelweis Reflex denial by way of claiming, without even bothering to check the facts - that nothing new had been discovered - when my unique discovery of independently verifiable new facts was reported by the Daily Telegraph newspaper? Why has he not gone into print to apologize for his embarrassing blunder? Why did Assistant Professor Alex Comfort publish on Twitter his unevidenced foul-penned opinion that my peer-reviewed paper on the the New Data was an "ignorant piece of [*]rap" and then refuse to explain his opinion when politely invited to do so? Instead, Comfort responded like a shameless coward, in my opinion, by running silently away from his published rudeness by way of blocking me on Twitter. Why does the Curator of the Wallace Collection - George Beccaloni publish historically ignorant and counter-factual dysology about Matthew's full and complete prior published discovery in a desperately muddle-headed attempt to convince others that the New Data does not matter? Why did Beccaloni dishonestly claim that I emailed him abusive comments and why did he claim his comment on my work were about my book, which he was brow-beaten into later admitting he had not even read it? One explanation, besides trying to hide the fact they are now an intellectual laughing stock, is that these Darwinists and Wallacists are demonstrating the Werther Effect.

The Werther Effect

Dysological science cults, such as Darwinism (not Matthew's theory of natural selection, Darwin idolization), can be destructive to progress toward veracity in our understanding of how the great discovery of natural slection was made. The problem is that pseudo-scholarly behavior becomes wrapped up in a warm cloak of positive hero worship, surrounding an in-group membership with peer support. This in-group sense of belonging makes the selective silent treatment, rabid criticism of the relevance of dis-confirming and independently verifiable evidence, pedantic and gleeful dismissal of the whole for the discovery of the odd typo, defamatory attacks on the messenger, deliberate misrepresentation of the data, and plain old stubborn refusal to accept dis-confirming evidence, feel like a culture, a lifestyle choice, something to be embraced for the common good.

In my opinion, such pseudo-scholarly behavior is nothing more than a long-running intellectual suicide note, penned by those who will be judged by future scholars to be classed among the credulous number of Darwinists who could see no further than the end of their namesake's self-serving fallacious pen on the question of how he came to replicate Matthew's prior published theory of the natural process of selection.

That explanation might account for why the anonymous Darwinist blogger "Joachim D" (actually I know exactly who he is but I have no stomach for playing any part in his personal intellectual downfall - at least not before it even takes off) engaged in a daft as a brush misrepresentational and dishonesty pseudo-scholarly and defamatory crusade against both me and my e-book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret"? He seems to think he is doing good through misrepresentation. Or else perhaps he is just a massively biased guru worshiping muddle-head. Who knows.

All daft-as-a-brush accusations of persecution complexes aside for the moment, The Werther Effect is also at play with profit and prestige. Consequently, Darwinists have failed to behave and have behaved the way they have, because the “New Facts” threaten both amateur and professional; "expert" Darwinist reputations – disprove all their widely published and unevidenced mere "knowledge beliefs" about Patrick Matthew's influence and threaten to undermine their reputations and the money the professionals and their university departments and publishers earn from the profitable Darwin Industry. Hence, it is a career-decision to defame the messenger, keep mum about the New Data, pretend it is not new - or else deny it even exists! How unscientific is that?

On which critical note, I have several private emails sent to me, by esteemed professors of biology and forestry, warning that my work will be awarded the classic Darwinist selective-silent-treatment, which was, Incidentally, a favourite tactic of Darwin, as evidenced from his correspondence synthesized in a book co-written by James Moore.

One particular professor, in listing all the ways he thought my work would be deliberately ignored by Darwinists, and why, summed up what he perceived to be the likely guilt-neutralizing rationalizations of many Darwinists to the new uncomfortable disconfirming evidence thus: "The dogs may bark but the train moves on."

Why Compare Google with a Geiger Counter?

Of course, my barking about the fact that Matthewian “knowledge contamination” being newly discovered to have been present in the literature pre-1858 no more proves that it infected those who cited Matthew pre-1858 than a Geiger Counter proves that those who came close enough to the detected source of radiation were significantly irradiated and then significantly affected, However, what we do know about radioactivity and physiological responses to it, and what we know about “memes” and the great power of written words to psychologically - both consciously and subconsciously - influence those who read them, and infect wider thinking in society, is enough for us to know under what conditions being physically contaminated by radiation and psychologically contaminated by the ideas you read is more likely than not.

Because Matthew got there first - if one single iota of his original and prior-published work on natural selection somehow got into the brains of Darwin or Wallace (directly or indirectly - consciously or subconsciously, orally or in writing) before 1858 then thereafter we have zero idea of what effect it had on their later work, because we have little idea of exactly how human brains build from one unique idea to a greater formulation of ideas based on them. All that matters, therefore, is the likelihood that some kind of knowledge contamination took place to completely destroy any notion of immaculate conception (independent discovery) of Matthew's prior published theory.

I argue that such knowledge contamination (1) can no longer be denied by Darwin's "...neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew's views" (2) is more likely than not (3) it would be a miracle (given the New Data) if it never occurred. (4) Most Darwinsts claim to be against the notion of miracles (5) All Darwinists appear to think Wallace and Darwin did miraculously conceive natural selection - independently of Matthew's prior publication of it and independently of those naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace who read it - and independently of each other. (6) I don't believe in miracles - not of any kind. No exceptions No special Darwinist privileges!.(7) If there was no knowledge contamination then we need to call in the Vatican - because Darwin and Wallace are miracle performing unique ideas, terms and idiosyncratic examples replicating saints with miraculous, though selectively impervious to only The Originator's work which they amazingly uniquely replicated despite socializing and corresponding with others who cited Matthew's book!

In sum, Matthew has priority anyway and now even the desperately daft DIY Darwinist demands and denial excuses are all busted by rational arguments and independently verifiable hard evidence. The Darwinist cats are out the bag and there is no getting them back in. Darwin needed to write that no naturalist read Matthew line in 1860, and it served him well for 154 years. But it perished in 2014.

More so, in the case of Matthewian knowledge contamination when we see the roles played at the very epicenter of influence on and facilitation of the pre-1858 written work of Darwin and Wallace by those who read and cited Matthew's (1831) book pre-1858 - namely: Loudon, Selby and Chambers (Sutton 2104). Does it not, rationally, seem more likely than not the case, therefore, that Matthew did psychologically influence these three naturalists and so influenced - in some way - through "knowledge contamination" the work of Darwin and Wallace (Sutton 2015)?

If you doubt the relevance of comparing the power of radioactivity with the power of the written word then perhaps you should argue against the latest insights into terrorist radicalization, via written ideas, on the Internet. Perhaps you might also criticize the wisdom of Western military leaders investing in "words warfare". Even more on-topic, consider the overwhelming evidence that Matthew (1839) coined the term, originated the concept and influenced President Kennedy in the 1960's to launch the US Peace Corps (Sutton 2013). How long before expert knowledge in this area creates a munitions-level meme Twitter account do you think?

Active 21st Century Knowledge Contamination

I would like to thank the polymath Howard Minnick (third great grandson of Patrick Matthew) for providing a subtle lesson that enabled me to see further in order to write this particular blog post - and Dr Mike Weale of Kings College London for establishing the Patrick Matthew Project, which facilitated the environment where our latest communication on this topic took place. Here we are talking "knowledge contamination" from Minnick to Sutton. There can be no doubt it took place. And you, dear reader, just detected it thanks to the technology of the internet and the World Wide Web - and the cultural facilitation of the Best Thinking website. For this reality, I thank the scientists, programmers and publishers who made that possible, For reading my words, I gratefully thank you, and hope this one instance of multiple knowledge contamination proves useful.

A typology of knowledge contamination

  1. Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of unique ideas from Matthew's 1831 book via (a) other published sources on the topic, which failed to cite Matthew as their source, (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to Darwin by those who read Matthew's book - understood its importance in whole or simply in part - but failed to tell Darwin about the existence of the book.
  2. Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) Darwin read Matthew's book, absorbed many ideas and examples and terms from it, but forgot all about having read it - and never did remember (b) read it and took notes but forgot the source of the notes, (c) was told about ideas from Matthew's book by someone - who understood their importance in whole or simply in part - who told him they came from a book, but Darwin failed to ask the name of the author and book.
  3. Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): Darwin read Matthew's book, took copious notes, knew that he had done so at a later date, but always pretended otherwise.

One concrete example of Matthew to Darwin knowledge contamination, which is, nonetheless, possibly non-deliberate because it might have been solely indirect

I wish to reiterate that I am personally convinced by the weight of combined evidence presented in Nullius in Verba that Darwin's pre-1860 natural selection work was deliberately contaminated with Matthewian knowledge. In other words, I believe the overwhelming evidence makes it more likely than not that Darwin read and deliberately plagiarized Matthew's work. However, even if I am wrong about that (and we may never know for sure) some other kind of Matthewian knowledge contamination most certainly did take place - absence a miracle. Let me explain.

The highly esteemed science historian Loren Eiseley wrote a famous Darwin celebratory book in 1958, but as his research deepened he became convinced that Darwin was a downright plagiarist (Eiseley 1981) . Eiseley was convinced that Darwin plagiarized Blyth's two early papers. However, he did not make the connection, as I uniquely have, that Loudon (who cited Matthew in 1832) edited both of Blyth's early papers. Eiseley was also convinced that Darwin's (1844 - private essay) replication of Matthew's artificial selection explanatory example of the inferiority of trees selected in nurseries compared to those selected naturally in nature was taken from Matthew's unique arboricultural expert and unique use of that example to explain natural selection in his book of 1831. What Eiseley also never discovered - as once again I uniquely have - is that David Low had most definitely read Matthew's book because he took so much unique content from it, including unique Matthewian terms, and was first to replicate (without citation) Matthew's unique prior-published, artificial selection, nursery grown trees analogue, in his own book of 1844. Most crucially, Darwin knew Low and recommended his book (successfully) to the Royal Society - precisely because of his work that stressed the lessons to be had from studying artificial selection. Moreover, Low - a fellow of the Royal Socety of Edinburgh - was closely networked with both Robert Chambers and Prideaux John Selby - who had both cited Matthew (1831) pre-1858!

Darwin's far from comprehensive notebooks of books he wanted to read and books he read have no record of Low's books that contain two apparently unique Matthewisms that Low was apparently first to replicate. The terms are "Long continued selection" (In Low's 1834 book ' The Elements of Practical Agriculture') and "Overpowering the less" (In Low's 1842 'On landed property and the economy of estates'). However those notebooks do record the following from Darwin: "Advertised. David Low “Treatise on Domestic Animals”; also Illustrations of the Domestic animals of Gt. Britain [D. Low 1842]. must be read carefully." Strangely, or not as the case may be, given that he recommended Low to the Royal Society, there is also no correspondence to or from Low in the much decimated Darwin correspondence archive.

David Low died in May 1859, six months before Darwin's Origin of Species was first published. He is buried in relative obscurity.

And if that is not enough to convince the credulous mule-headed Darwin worshipers of the Church of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior Published Theory, then how about the fact that Professor David Low and Matthew were Perth Academy school mates? No - still not enough? Then weigh-in, along with all the other Low connections mentioned so far, the fact that Darwin also replicated the unique Matthewism 'long continued selection' that Low also replicated without citation (see Sutton 2104); only Low hyphenated it, whereas Darwin used it just as Matthew did when he first coined it. Still not convinced? What if I told you that Low and Matthew shared the same London publisher - Longman and Co (e.g. here or that Low also shared Matthew's Black's of Edinburgh publisher?

Matthew's 1831 book was published by Blacks of Edinburgh and Longman and Co of London - exactly as was Low's (1847) fifth edition of The Elements of Practical Agriculture. If all of that happened, under those circumstance of close social networks, without Matthewian knowledge contamination passing to Darwin pre-1858 through his admitted reading of Low's work, then surely it would not be irrational to claim that a supernatural miracle really did happen. Because If not directly from reading Matthew's 1831 book (which he never admitted to doing pre 1860) or through reading Low (as he admitted he did do pre 1858), how could Darwin have replicated Matthew's artificial selection analogue of trees raised in nurseries without Matthew's prior-published influence? Perhaps in answer to this mythbusting dis-confirming evidence, Darwinists will be publishing papers claiming that a bearded sky dwelling god intelligently designed Darwin's brain to work completely independently of all such newly discovered highly-likely influences from Matthew? Of course, the bearded granter of such Darwinist-only "special privileges" would have similarly made an exception for Darwin's proven influencer David Low, thereby making Low's replications of Matthew's two unique terms and nursery trees analogue into miraculous immaculate conceptions.Perhaps they happened in a stable on a farm? Was an angel involved? Alternatively, maybe no god intervened. Perhaps a great wizard did it all instead?

Summary of rational arguments and conclusion

When I first read Howard Minnick's account of the application of knowledge about which plants, from where, are significantly radioactive, I thought of simply using radioactivity detection in plants - and our underlying assumptions about what that detection would lead us to conclude about those who came into close proximity with, touched, or even consumed such plants - as a useful analogy to explain my rational assumptions regarding who consumed Matthew's book and the subsequent likelihood of significant knowledge contamination. In other words, I very nearly never acknowledged in my own writing that Howard's writing had significantly influenced me.

Historians and biologists have written many times to imply that Matthew's book was unread by naturalists because, so they believe, it was not the sort of book a 19th century naturalist would read. This thinking is erroneous because all the evidence of what they did read, in their own citations, proves that naturalists were drawn to such books. Darwin's own private note books reveal as much. This general misconception was perhaps started by Darwin himself when he wrote to defend himself against Matthew's claim to full priority. Darwin (1860) wrote in the Gardeners Chronicle:

"I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture."

It is no doubt this line that has influenced the notion that Matthew's book went unread among naturalists because it had an "inappropriate title". This is, of course, utter stuff and nonsense, because it would only be fair to think that way if most other books naturalists read had titles that glared out the subject matter of evolution, species variation and other natural selection relevant subject matter! Moreover, Darwin was lying about Matthew's ideas being solely in an appendix, because he had just written to his best friend Joseph Hooker admitting that Matthew's text on natural selection came from three main parts of his entire book.

Picking up on Darwin's cue:

Loren Eiseley (1957) in Darwin's Century (p. 127) writes: "Matthew's system perished, ...because it had been published obscurely by an obscure man..."

Bowler (2013) in Darwin Deleted (p. 58) implies Matthew was unread: "Having a basic idea, even publishing it, has no effect if the publication is obscure..."

Millhauser (1959) in Just before Darwin (p. 72) implies the same by dismissing it as some kind of working man's manual: "And there is that remarkable fellow Patrick Matthew, whose Naval Timber and Arboriculture (of all the practical books in the world)...."

Dawkins (2010) In Seeing Further (p, 209) does the same: "...wouldn't he have published it in a more prominent place than the appendix to a manual on silviculture?"

Countless other less creative credulous Darwinists, such as the greatly revered Stephen J Gould, the founder of the so-called "Skeptics Society" Michael Shermer, and the dysological Rebecca Stott simply reprinted Darwin's fallacy verbatim as though it were true because "it is written."

Other questions regarding Darwin's loose writing, self-serving falsehoods and downright lies, which are all dealt with in my book and to a minor degree in my article, are not particularly relevant to the point of this particular debate, because here we are talking about the informal rationale used by Darwinists to seeking to deny Matthew his due full priority over Darwin and Wallace for his prior-publication of the discovery they replicated. That Darwinist rationale started from a fallacious premise that no naturalist, more so no naturalist known to Darwin or Wallace, read Matthew's book before 1860. Darwin started the fallacy by writing it - literally - and it has been parroted and used more subtly ever since so that what Darwin wrote in the Gardeners Chronicle in 1860 has been allowed to stand unchallenged by Darwinists and historians of science - as though it were in some way fundamentally true. But the New Data 100 per cent proves it untrue.

Three out of seven naturalists (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) cited Matthew before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858. We knew about Loudon before my research in this area - but not until my research (Sutton 2014) was published was it revealed that Loudon edited Blyth's influential papers.


Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

The fact that Selby and Chambers cited Matthew is also my unique and new discovery. Some writers might now wish to claim that Loudon's editing of of the scholarly journal that published Blyth's two influential papers on species and variety was a mere coincidence and that there is no evidence of Matthewian knowledge contamination from Loudon to Blyth. If so, the same claimant must say it is also a mere coincidence that Selby was the chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's famous Sarawak paper on natural selection. If so, they must then add to their belief in no knowledge contamination a third mere coincidence by way of the belief that Chambers was not in any way influenced by having read Matthew before he wrote the Victorian sensation on evolution - The Vestiges of Creation. And if this amazing mere tri-coincidence is indeed exactly no more than that then the fact Darwin admitted Blyth's great influence on his work and that he was obviously influenced by reading Wallace's Sarawak paper, and was admittedly influenced - like so many others including Wallace (more than any other) by Chambers' Vestiges then we must assume that - despite replicating Matthew's ideas.terminology and unique explanatory examples - those ideas and creative examples were all immaculately conceived independently of anything in Matthew's prior published book - which had been read by Darwin's and Wallace's friends associates and great influencers - and then (most miraculously) duplicated non-miraculously by both Darwin and Wallace.

Having so decided to accept Darwin's and Wallace's old claims to "independent discovery" (immaculate conception), those wishing to believe no Matthewian knowledge contamination took place must next assume that just because those who read Matthew (1831) and cited him pre 1858 never spelled out his influence upon them that he had none.

For my part, in light of the New Facts about who DID read Matthew (1831) pre-1858, I find such notions of immaculate conception of Matthew's prior-published theory completely implausible. All the more so - why should we expect those who cited Matthew pre-1858 to spell out Matthew's influence upon them when the conventions of gentlemen of science at the time (see Secord 2003) would have exerted huge social and professional pressure upon such naturalists who read and cited Matthew's heretical and seditious book not to acknowledge in print Matthew's influence upon their thinking and that of others they knew and shared his discovery, novel ideas, terms and explanatory examples with? If such knowledge contamination did occur, I think it particularly likely that it would have happened, though not necessarily solely, informally within their many clubs and scientific societies, which were established primarily for such purposes of new knowledge transfer (see Sutton 2014).

At those very clubs and associations, all long before 1858, Chambers associated with Darwin's great friend Lyell many times at the Edinburgh Geological Society and Lyell knew by June 25 1847 - as did Darwin by April 1847 - that Chambers was the secret author of the Vestiges. Darwin and Chambers met and corresponded. Selby sat on many scientific committees with Darwin and was closely networked with many of Darwin's friends - for example, Darwin's father and Darwin's friend Jenyns were guests at Selby's house. Loudon was closely networked with Darwin's other great friends the Hookers of Kew - as was Wallace! Of course, this is exactly what we should expect. And the fact that those who cited Matthew's book played such influential roles at the epicenter of influence of the pre-1858 written work on evolution of Darwin and Wallace is an argument in favor of knowledge contamination taking place - not against it as some desperately defensive Darwinists have got themselves in a logic-muddle trying to argue (e.g. here).


The All Saints Company Ltd: Attribution

St Charles Darwin, Never Rejected God in the Origin of Species, as did the first-to-be-first heretical Originator Patrick Matthew in 1831

Thinking about how knowledge contamination of all the kinds in my typogy takes place, if you are an academic, like myself, just consider what you talk about with colleagues at work, in the pub after work, at academic conferences and in ephemeral emails that are deleted today as often as were many handwritten 19th century letters consigned to the fire-grate and bonfire between then and now. Much of Darwin's correspondence, and that of Wallace is lost. All of Loudon's papers were lost in the Blitz in London and according to family legend Patrick Matthew's unmarried daughters burnt all his papers - except a few letters from Darwin - on his death. Anyone (such as Professor Peter Bowler 1983 - see here) claiming that Matthew did not influence Darwin simply because there is no evidence of it in Darwin's decimated correspondence archive, or his torn-apart private and far from robotically recorded notebooks of what he did, who he spoke with, and who influenced him, is quite simply arguing from a very irrational and unworldly St. Darwin-serving premise.

In reality, the more scientists Darwin and Wallace rubbed shoulders with exponentially increases the chances of Matthewian knowledge contamination - either directly, in whole or in part, orally or in writing - from those who cited Matthew, or indirectly via their friends and associates - to Darwin and Wallace. And it follows, therefore, that the more times this happened exponentially increases the chances of Darwin and Wallace finding out about and personally reading Matthew's book. I should further add at this point that in addition to listing Loudon, Selby and Chambers citing Matthew, my book Nullius reveals that a total of 24 actually cited it and a further 28 more likely than not read it because they were first to be second to publish unique Matthewisms from it.

In 1860, when confronted by Matthew in The Gardeners Chronicle, Darwin needed to write "...neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr. Matthew's views" And that fallacious excuse has served him and the lucrative Darwin Industry very well for the past 155 years, but the excuse perished in 2014 when my research uniquely proved it to be multiply fallacious.

Darwin's and Wallace's cats are well and truly out of the bag. And no amount of wishful, irrational and unworldly thinking can ever put them back. This is how true knowledge progresses.

On the talk page for my RationalWiki essay on Matthew's priority, you can see how the Darwinist editors of that site attempt one argument after another to seek oppose the rational argument that Matthew has full priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior discovery. They claim that discovery is not everything, although Darwinists always claimed it was when they thought they knew Darwin and Wallace had independently discovered natural selection. They claim now that doing more than merely publishing your original prior discovery is necessary, because providing a wealth of confirmatory evidence is more important. But if that is true then why is it Fleming and not Florey and not Chain who is celebrated for the discovery of penicillin when all Fleming did was write a small passing remark in journal article? Why do we celebrate Mendel when he failed to convince anyone of the importance of his discovery in his lifetime? Why did Higgs win the Nobel Prize when it was others who proved his hypothesis correct? The answer to all these questions is because no amount of confirmatory evidence can ever transmute another person's unique prior discovery into your own!

As they retreat to their one last possible pseudo-skeptical refuge, I would anticipate that dyed-in-the wool Darwin and Wallace idolaters will seek to argue to deny Matthew his rightful full priority on the grounds that "independent discovery" is never a zero-sum game and that they always (although they never before mentioned it) anticipated that Matthew might have had some kind of prior-influence on Darwin's and Wallace's so-called "independent discoveries" of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis. But to do so would be pure flim-flam of the exact kind attempted by the Darwinist founder of the Skeptics Society Michael Shermer (here). Why? Because Darwin and Wallace - and all other Darwinists have denied Matthew his priority precisely because they all claimed it was a zero sum game when it came to the question of their replication of Patrick Matthew's complete (according to both Darwin 1860 and 1861 and Wallace 1879), indeed superior than the replications of it (see Wallace 1879, Dempster 1996, Rapino 2010), prior published discovery of natural selection.

The zero-sum game was played when Darwin wrote his line that no naturalist had read Matthew's unique ideas before 1860 and his credulous Darwinists went along for the ride when they claimed Matthew failed to influence either Darwin or Wallace, or anyone known to them, with his unique bombshell of a prior-published hypothesis, which he uniquely called the 'natural process of selection'.

Truth versus lie is a zero sum game and Darwin was a prolific liar when it came to his wormy manipulation of the 19th century scientific community. For one example among many, despite the fact Matthew (1860) had told him the Gardeners Chronicle that the naturalist Loudon reviewed his book and that another - unnamed (perhaps it was David Low) - naturalist knew it but feared to teach it to his students - Darwin (1861) wrote to the hugely influential naturalist Qatrefages de Bréau to lie that: "... no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his [ Matthew's ] book." Darwin repeated that very same lie from the third edition of the Origin of Species to the last. And that was one of only six lies he told to achieve effective , although illegitimate, priority over Matthew. So much for Darwin's legendary honesty! Before 2014 that fallacious legend held such sway it led historians astray. Darwin's esteemed biographer Clarke wrote:

'Only the transparent honesty of Darwin's character, which shines out so brightly from the archives, makes it possible to believe that by the 1850s he had no recollection of Matthew's work. But memory plays curious tricks, much that had happened before the Beagle voyage was overlaid by that decisive experience, and all that seems certain is that if Darwin had any previous knowledge of Arboriculture, it had slipped down into the unconscious.'

As confirmatory evidence for the Dysology Hypothesis, that getting away with publishing fallacies creates a spiraling decline of veracity that attracts poor scholars to add to the ever growing problem, Richard Dawkins has been on something of a failed personal DIY project campaign to demand Matthew should not be awarded his due priority over Darwin and Wallace. In the Linnean Journal he argued that Matthew did not understand the importance of what he had written. Here, Dawkins fallaciously asserts that Matthew's ideas were buried in the appendix to his book. In fact, Dawkins (2002) is wrong about that because the very name for Matthew's discovery - 'natural process of selection' - and the use of his unique and fitting explanatory example of trees grown in nurseries as an analogue for those selected in nature by natural selection (that Darwin replicated in his unpublished essay of 1844) is in the main body of his book, as is a great deal of other text on the topic (see the appendix to my book where it is all presented). Desperately, Dawkins demands further that Matthew should not have made his 1860 claim to priority in such a lowly publication as the Gardeners Chronicle. Again, Dawkins is wrong. Because Hopkins (2002) pointed out in a letter in the Linnean Journal that the Gardeners Chronicle was highly esteemed back then and had been used to reproduce Mendel's neglected work 35 years after its discovery (see Hopkins 2002). Moreover, Hopkins pointed out that Darwin's and Wallace's (1858) papers, which replicated Matthew's prior-published discovery, failed to make any impression on the the scientists of the Linnean Society when they heard them. Why on Earth does Dawkins demand more of the originator than he does of the replicators?

Dawkins reasoning and DIY priority denial project skills appear not to have improved eight years later (Dawkins 2010) when he ludicrously claimed that now Matthew did not deserve priority over Darwin and Wallace because Matthew did not "trumpet his discovery from the rooftops".

Moreover, Dawkins also - most weirdly - fails failing to mention that the first half of the 19th century was a time of great violent social unrest characterized by national fear of revolution and so-called "Red Lamarkians" that led to imprisonments for writing heresy, blasphemy, and seditious texts. Matthew's book was a dangerous commodity. Trumpeting it from the rooftops in the first half of the 19th century would have been an extremely unwise thing for him to do. Indeed, Matthew told Darwin as much in his 1860 letter in the Gardeners Chronicle where he explained that one (unnamed) naturalist feared to teach its contents for "fear of the cutty stool" (being pilloried in church). Did Dawkins forget this?

What Dawkins also forgets to explain is that Matthew' s (1831) discovery trespassed on natural theology and was a deduced hypothesis that was woven in with Chartist sedition politics and foreign political news- all of which were taboo topics the commenting upon which was greatly frowned upon by the gentleman of science at the time (See Secord 2003 and my blog on that topic Sutton 2014). In this latest desperate Darwinist daft demand, Dawkins' selective amnesia when it comes to seeking selective reasons for denying Matthew's priority includes the fact that his own hero Darwin was supposed to have held off publishing his "own" work on natural selection for over two decades due to his fear of prosecution and persecution for heresy and blasphemy (Desmond and Moore 1991).


Public Domain

Celebration in Public Places of Non-Secular Scientific Beliefs in Improbable Miracles is Probably OK in France

Due to their great contributions in providing confirmatory evidence for the Dysology Hypothesis, Professor Bowler, Richard Dawkins, Michael Shermer and Professor James Moore are all very warmly invited to come worship and preach against rationalism and in favour of the pecuniary benefits of the selective silent treatment and outright denial of the existence of the New Facts at the Church of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior Published Theory. They, other Darwinists, and all other readers of this blog, might also seek to make a difference by voting for or against my appeal to the Royal Society to make a statement on how the rules of scientific priority for discovery should be applied in the story of Matthew, Darwin, and Wallace: please vote by clicking here.

POSTSCRIPT 17 Feb. 2015

I would like to thank Dr Richard Dawkins for very kindly re-tweeting my tweet that linked to this post. He has 1121052 followers. Over 2,000 of them came to Best Thinking and read my post inside 3 hours. Now that is Twitter Power. And that is further confirmatory evidence of The power of written words - if read - to influence physical actions.


A Trumpet from the Rooftops to Richard DawkinsPublic Domain

Richard Dawkins re-tweets my blog post that criticises him for fallacy-spreading

Howard L. Minnick
February 2, 2015 at 8:23 am
Alan Turing's friend Christopher

Good morning Mike,

A good Criminologist should have easily picked up on what was going on in my analogy of the Geiger counter...just as easily as Alan Turing was able to eventually realize that he only had to key in certain repetitious words for his friend Christopher to be able to mathematically deduct the next 24 hour cycle. Such a moment is known as a BFO or more simply a "BLINDING FLASH OBVIOUS" moment. I'm impressed with your extrapolation and deductive capabilities. However I don't have a clue what a polymath is...but I do have a dictionary...I just need to locate it.


Thinker's Post
Mike Sutton
February 2, 2015 at 11:49 am

Polymath: "a person of encyclopaedic learning" or a person very knowledgeable in several different areas of study.

Origin of POLYMATH = Greek polymathēs very learned, from poly- + manthanein to learn.

Given your military, agricultural, botanic and forestry background and knowledge I think its a fair assessment Howard.

Latest Ebooks