Appendix Myth: The blindsight explanation for this and other myths about Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior-publication of the complete hypothesis of natural slection

Foreword

One of the most intriguing questions on the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace and the discovery of the theory of natural selection was asked by my daughter. She is just 6 years old. Eleena asked me the other day:

 “Why did you discover that Darwin told lies Daddy? Why not someone else years ago?” 

I told her that I had discovered a novel way to find hidden books that showed the truth about who really did read Matthew's book - who Darwin and Wallace knew - before Darwin and Wallace published a word on the topic. I told her it worked like a magic wand - only without any magic.

On the issue of Darwin's lies that were discoverable at the time he wrote them, however, my clever daughter got me thinking about this most obviously significant question about how it was that for 155 years Darwin scholars could have possibly missed so  many obvious and significant facts that they read – literally right under their very noses, which dis-confirm their paradigm that Darwin and Wallace conceived the theory of natural selection independently of Matthew. Surely, Darwin scholars are/were not all dreadful liars themselves for denying the real facts?  I mentioned this conundrum to a sociologist college - Dr Andrew Wilson. Andy had been a graduate student of the late Stanley Cohen and suggested a book for me to read entitled ‘States of Denial’ (Cohen 2001). 

Professor Cohen was most concerned about ‘states of denial’ at the individual, micro and macro-cultural level that led to and facilitated the Holocaust in Germany, and states of denial that allow torture to take place today etc. Cohen’s work made me aware of the neuro-psychological phenomena of ‘blindsight’ – which is  experiencing a negative hallucination – genuinely not seeing and perceiving the significance of what is plainly there and plainly significant. This is something the brain does to protect us from dreadfully disturbing information. Eureka! I cried gratefully on reading Cohen's words. They explained completely, with reference to psychological research, a mysterious phenomenon I uncovered earlier in this story, which I then called 'Loudon Naturalist Blindness'.

The Blindsight Explanation for Poor Scholarship 

For the past 155 years, Darwin scholars have simply parroted Darwin’s (1860 and 1861) 'Appendix Myth', 'Scattered Passages Myth' and 'Mere Enunciation Myth',in order to fill in the knowledge gaps as to what really happened to Patrick Matthew’s original ideas on natural selection between their publication in 1831 and Wallace’s, (1855), Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858) and Darwin’s (1859) replications without citing Matthew. These myths served  as plausible devices to enable the world to accept Darwin’s fallacious tale that Matthew’s ideas went unread by natural scientists until Matthew drew Darwin’s attention to them in 1860 , Hence the three myths above braced Darwin's: 'No Naturalists Read Matthew's Original Ideas Before 1860 Myth' and 'No Single Person Read His Original Ideas Before 1860 Myth', The credulous use of these myths by 'expert' Darwin scholars to criticise the scholarship of those who have in the past questioned Darwin's right to be celebrated as an original and immortal great thinker for what he has written on the theory of natural selection, has made Darwin's two Matthew was unread until 1860 variant fallacies into the worst kind of entrenched fallacy. Namely, they are braced-supermyths. 

What everyone somehow missed, is that the fact was right under their noses, in the print they all read closely, the indisputable plain and highly significant fact that Darwin knew of at least two naturalists who had read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection because Matthew had told him so in print in 1860  (Sutton 2014).  Moreover, my research went even further to originally uncover, using an apparently unique hi-tech BigData analysis method in Google's Library Project, the fact  that a total of seven naturalists, four known to Darwin/Wallace, three of whom played major roles influencing and facilitating the work of Darwin/Wallace on macroevolution,  not only read Matthew's (1831) original ideas before 1858 - but also cited the book containing them before that famous year when Darwin and Wallace had their papers read before the Linnean Society. 

In reality - as the proven serial liar Darwin knew, because he informed Hooker that he knew, Matthew's ideas were contained throughout the main body of his book as well as in its appendix. I demonstrated this fact in a recent blog post, with reference to Matthew referring his readers, on several pages in the introduction chapter in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture (Matthew 1831)  to that book's appendix. Matthew did this very clearly so they could  tie in his observations on natural selection in nature with the socially damaging artificial selection of human stock that happened in human culture. And yet Darwin scholars for over a century and a half failed to register this fact and its significance on reading Matthew's book. Why? The question is hugely important because failure to see this fact has led to the myth, blindly parroted throughout the literature, that Matthew is to be blamed for the World's failure to acknowledge  his discovery, because he supposedly buried his original ideas on natural selection in the book's appendix (e.g. Dawkins in Bryson 2010; Bowler 2014) where they supposedly remained unread by any naturalists until 1860. Incidentally, my book, Nullius in Verba, has an appendix that contains every word on natural selection from the main body of Matthew's (1831) book and includes its famous appendix.

But that is not the all of it. Other plain facts and their obvious significance, right under the very noses of Darwin scholars, who read them these past 155 years, were peculiarly missed until my 2014 research. I revealed this in my peer reviewed article on the topic of Darwin's and Wallace's  plagiarising science fraud Sutton (2014), where I wrote the following:

'What makes Darwin’s (1861) falsehood all the more audacious is the fact that he knew also that Matthew’s ideas were not merely contained in an appendix, nor briefly scattered. Because Matthew (1860) published large passages of text, cited as coming from his book - a great deal of which came from the main body of the book - in his letter in the Gardener’s Chronicle. And Darwin knew that because he purchased a copy of Matthew’s book, read it before replying to Matthew’ letter, and wrote as much about those same passages, although somewhat cryptically, to Joseph Hooker (Darwin 1860b):

 The case in G. Chronicle seems a little stronger than in Mr. Matthews [sic] book, for the passages are therein scattered in 3 places. But it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that.'

How then might we seek to understand why the scientific community, historians of science and the world's leading, award winning,  'experts' on the topic of the history of discovery of natural selection - including household names such as Richard Dawkins - all failed at one time or another over the past 155 years to see the plain fact of the matter that Darwin lied about Matthew's ideas being solely 'buried' in an appendix, which started one of many myths about Matthew's book in 1860?

How do obvious and significant, but deeply disturbing, facts hide in plain sight?

I think that the sociologist Stanley Cohen's (2001) superb book 'States of Denial' provides us with

Professor Stanley Cohen
 23 February 1942 – 7 January 2013

plausible explanations for this phenomenon of macro-denial of the facts, and what should be seen as their great and obvious significance, that have been in the published literature - literally right under the noses of Darwin scholars as they have read them - for all these years. 

Hiding in blindsight 

On pages 42 and 43 of  his book 'States of Denial', Cohen writes about the cognitive and neuro-psychological concept of blind-sightedness. This is a denial-like phenomena with several contexts. Within the various explanations Cohen explores for the general phenomenon, one explanation is that of the 'negative hallucination'. 

We all know that it is possible for human beings to see things that are not there - we call these hallucinations. Negative hallucinations, however, involve not seeing things that are there. On this topic, Cohen (2001, p. 43) writes:

'Blindsight' suggests a starling possibility about the mind: that one part may know just what it is doing, while the part that supposedly knows - that is awareness - remains oblivious. In this sense, blindsight - also found in 'normal people' - is analogous to everyday denial. The mind can know without being aware of what is known.'

The right to an explanation

Why would the intelligent self-aware academic community of Darwin scholars experience something like 'blindsight' when reading independently verifiable hard evidence that disproves the internationally accepted 'knowledge belief' of Darwin's authenticity and legendary honesty? Cohen (2001 p. 44) refers us to evidence on this general phenomenon, thereby enabling us to seek to explain it:

'Emotionally charged stimuli are perceived less readily than more neutral stimuli. This protects you from awareness of objects that have unpleasant emotional connotations. Without you knowing, the mind 'activates' your internal filter or sensor, If you were aware of what your mind had seen, but denied this, this would be mere dissembling or lying. But stimuli can arouse autonomic reactions of anxiety or pleasure prior to any conscious awareness.'

The No Naturalist Read Matthew's Original ideas before 1858 Myth: Loudon Naturalist Blindness Explained

Why, for 155 years, did expert naturalists fail to see the fact and its significance that, contrary to Darwin's (1860) lies in the Gardener's Chronicle (countersigned by Hooker) that no naturalists had read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection before 1858, that  John Loudon did?

How did Darwin scholars  not see the significance of the fact that Matthew informed Darwin that another naturalist university professor (unnamed) read his ideas before 1858 and then told Matthew he feared pillory punishment were he to teach Matthew's heresy on the topic of the origin of species?

Furthermore, Matthew also informed Darwin and other readers in that second letter in the Gardener's Chronicle that his book was banned by Perth public library. That is another fact (this one pointed out by Jim Dempster - yet cannily ignored), the significance of which seems to have failed to register with all other Darwin scholars.

 These three 'blindsighted facts' are significant for the following reasons:

1. Because Loudon was an internationally famous naturalist and botanist.
2. Because Darwinists, (e.g Dawkins 2010) have victim-blamed Matthew for not trumpeting his great discovery from the rooftops in the first half of the 19th century at a time when  - just as Matthew (1860) explained in the Gardener's Chronicle with the actual facts of the matter - it was deemed heretical and unfit, under the scientific conventions of the time, for discussion by gentlemen of science. If Dawkins, for example, was not blindsighted during his research into this topic, on which he holds so confidently forth as a self assured expert, then the alternative explanation is horrendously incriminating!
3. The naturalist, Loudon, not only read and cited Matthew's book in 1832, but in that review he wrote - 27 years before Darwin replicated Matthew's discoverer, original ideas, terminology and unique explanatory examples and claimed to have done so independently of Matthew - that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on 'the origin of species', and varieties of species, no less'!

The neuroscience blindsight explanation for the Appendix Myth also explains perfectly Loudon Naturalist Blindness Syndrome. 

Although they have written extensively on the fact that Matthew's 1860 letters to the Gardener's Chronicle were published, and that in those letter Matthew claimed his right to priority for the prior published conception of natural selection, Darwinists and other Darwin scholars all failed, before my original 2014 research in Nullius, to see the fact and its significance that Matthew informed the Chronicle's readers - including Darwin - that the naturalist John Loudon read and cited Matthew's original ideas on 'the origin of species'.

Had any Darwin scholars seen the significance of that fact that Loudon reviewed Matthew's book and that Loudon was an internationally famous naturalist who was part of Darwin's inner network of naturalists, being well known to both William and Joseph Hooker and John Lindley, then they would have known that Loudon was chief editor of the journal that published two of Blyth's (1835, 1836) most influential articles on organic evolution (see Sutton 2014 for the references). This is a highly significant, oversight (blindsight) because Darwin met Blyth before 1848 and and later corresponded with him pre 1858. Moreover, from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward, Darwin wrote  that Blyth was his greatest and most prolific informant on the topic of varieties of species! This represents yet another route of Matthewian knowledge contamination from Matthew -> Loudon -> Blyth -> Darwin or via Loudon directly to Darwin's best friend and botanical mentor Joseph Hooker or to him and then to Darwin via William Hooker. Or else the knowledge about Matthew's ideas may have come directly to Darwin via William Hooker on any of the occasions when they are known to have met at Kew.

Once again, therefore, here we see (so long as we are able to see without the hindrance of blindsight) yet another newly detected route of Matthewian (1831) to Darwin pre-1848 knowledge contamination.

In sum, one explanation for the 155 years old  Darwinist 'knowledge belief', started by Darwin's lies in the Gardener's Chronicle and continued from 1861 onwards in the third and every subsequent edition of the Origin of Species  - that Matthew's original ideas on natural selection went unread until Matthew told Darwin about them - is that the dreadful fact that the great and revered Charles Darwin (FRS) told lies to corrupt the history of discovery of natural selection. Being obvious and dreadfully disturbing  significant lies they were cognitively rendered invisible to readers who revered Darwin. Because Darwin's lies and the many other pertinent facts about the readership of his book, and the fact it was censored in the first half of the 19th century, and all the other obvious and significant facts provided by Matthew are so disturbing, they too were rendered cognitively invisible to Darwin scholars.

Summary of the facts

• Patrick Matthew's (1831) Book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture was Cannily Ignored, Plagiarised, Cited, Banned, Criticised and its Readership Lied about by Charles Darwin, who, in 1858 and 1859 (and in private essays supposedly written in 1842 and 1844)  Replicated Matthew's Conception of Natural Selection and His Unique Artificial Versus Natural Analogy of Differences, which explain it. 
• Darwin claimed no naturalist read Matthew's original ideas until Matthew Informed Darwin of them in 1860. He lied, because Matthew had prior-informed Darwin that two naturalist read it and Perth (the Fair City) public library in Scotland banned it.
• Darwin scholars credulously parrotted Darwin's lies for 155 years.

Conclusion

THE WORLD DESERVES AN EXPLANATION FOR HOW ON EARTH DARWIN SCHOLARS MISSED OBVIOUS AND SIGNIFICANT FACTS THAT DARWIN LIED ABOUT THE READERSHIP OF MATTHEW'S (1831) BOOK AND THAT THE BOOK - AND THE ORIGINAL IDEAS IN IT ON NATURAL SELECTION - WERE BOTH READ AND CITED BY NATURALISTS KNOWN TO DARWIN AND WALLACE AND THAT IT WAS CENSORED IN THE FIRST HALF OF THE 19th-CENTURY.

I think that  Cohen's (2001)  scholarship on 'States of Denial' provides considerable and valuable information about how the scholarly atrocity of Darwinist multiple-myth spreading, to corrupt the history of the discovery of natural selection, happened.

As a sociologist and criminologist it is my creed to understand rather than condemn. Perhaps cognitive and neuro psychologists have given us an explanation for the dysological myth-spreading behaviour of scholars such as the Royal Society Darwin Medal winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr, of Richard Dawkins, and so many others too numerous to list?

What then of the behaviour of Charles Darwin? Does 'blindsight' explain why he told six lies in order to achieve priority over Patrick Matthew for Matthew's prior-published discovery of natural selection? You decide dear reader. But in order to do so you will need to ensure you look at, and are actually able to see right under your nose, the newly discovered and independently verifiable, significant, facts. Those new facts are all in my book ' Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' - the book many Darwinists, I rather suspect, wish could be buried in the same oblivion where the vast majority of Darwin scholars have worked tirelessly to ensure Matthew's bombshell book resided these past 155 years.

Most importantly, it is important to emphasise that I think it would be naive for us to attribute the failure of all Darwin scholars to engage with the facts about who did read Matthew's book to blindsight.

Cohen (2001) provides us with additional explanations, beyond such negative hallucinations as 'blindsight'.  We are empowered by Cohen's superb scholarship on the topic of 'states of denial' to seek to examine why Darwin scholars are - and have been for 155 years - in a state of denial over so many dis-confirming facts for the paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's independent conceptions of Matthew's prior published theory. They may, for example, be engaging in any of the following:

1.  Disingenuous 'canny unresponsiveness'. 
2.  'Psychotic negation of the obvious facts'.
3.  'Lying to convince their listeners and reinforce their own denial of the real facts'.
4.  'Negation by wishful thinking'.
5.  'Evasive reassurance that the facts are not that serious'.
6.  'Victim blaming' - blaming the victim for their predicament.
7.  'Withdrawal of attention - deflecting the gaze'. 
8.  'Compartmentalization'.

NOTE: If you found these ideas thought provoking you may wish to read an earlier blog post, which explores the telling question: 'Are Darwinists in a synchronised state of denial?'

You can view a Prezi presentation on Darwin's lying, plagiarising science fraud by glory theft - here