Title of Mike Sutton's forthcoming, March 2016, Public Lecture at Scotland's James Hutton Institute : "Has the Bank of England Put the Wrong Scientist on the Back of It's £10 Note?"
Note: This talk is organised by The Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group.
Note: This talk is organised by The Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group.
Dr. Michael (Mike) Sutton (brief biography)
 |
| Dr Mike Sutton (Criminologist) |
Quite by chance, I became interested in the history of discovery of natural selection. As I explain in my book ‘Nullius in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret’, I had been experimenting in the winter of 2013 with various ways to search the millions of newly scanned books and other documents in the Google Library Project. I was doing that to try to check the veracity of long-accepted claims regarding the origination of words, terms and their associated concepts. I made a breakthrough in this research on January 5th when I found a powerful way to use Google to detect the use of words, terms and phrases dating back as far as the 16th-century.
Paradoxically, both disappointed and rather excited to find that this new Big Data analysis was disproving many long-standing 'knowledge claims' made in the scholarly press about the originality of such terms and concepts as 'moral panics', 'the global village' and 'self-fulfilling prophecy', I focused my attention on checking the veracity of claims I felt sure were sound.
Alarmingly, I found I could immediately prove that seemingly countless publications are wrong to claim that one of my then science heroes, Richard Dawkins, coined the term and the concept of the 'selfish gene' in his book of the same name. I soon discovered that he did neither. Rather, years earlier, his associate William Hamilton published both term and concept first, in an obscure paper.
Somewhat further perturbed by what I was unearthing, in March 2013, I turned my attention to my other science hero Charles Darwin. I thought that most surely all the science and history of science books were right that both the term and the concept of natural selection were Darwin's unique origination. What I found was literally shocking. Firstly, I soon learned that it is acknowledged in the literature that the existence of the Scottish botanist and farmer, Patrick Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture', proves he was the first to discover and have published the concept of macorevolution by natural selection, 27 years before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society and 28 years before the publication of Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. However, the new evidence I found built on this existing knowledge to disconfirm the existing majority view that Darwin and Wallace each conceived the idea of natural selection independently of Matthew. In brief, the New Data, which I originally discovered between 2013 and 2014 in 'the hidden books in the library', reveals that - as opposed the earlier 'knowledge claim' that none had read it - seven naturalists cited Matthew's book before 1858. Among them were four of Darwin's and Wallace's friends and influencers, three of whom (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) were at the very epicentre of influence and facilitation of the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on organic evolution. Loudon was an associate of the father of Darwin's best friend, Joseph Hooker. Loudon's work as a naturalist was well known to both Darwin and Joseph Hooker. Significantly, Loudon went on to be Chief Editor editor of the journal that published two of Blyth's (1835, 1836) influential articles on evolution. And Blyth was Darwin's most prolific informant. Selby went on to be Chief Editor of the Journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper on evolution. Chamber's, an associate and correspondent of Darwin, and Wallace's greatest influencer, went on to write, in 1844, the best selling book on evolution 'The Vestiges of Creation'.
Most importantly, it is a newly discovered fact, therefore, that Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated the original ideas in Matthew's book, without citing Matthew, and then claimed, fallaciously, in their defence that no naturalists, indeed no one at all, had read those ideas before their replications. As objective scholars, we cannot now rule out the likelihood that, at the very least, some form of indirect 'Matthewian knowledge contamination' affected the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace.
Moreover, I went on to prove that from 1860 onwards that Darwin lied about no naturalists reading Matthew's book before Matthew brought it to Darwin's attention in 1860. It is a lie because Darwin made that claim in both the Gardener's Chronicle (1860), and from 1861 onwards in the third and every subsequent edition of the 'Origin of Species', after Matthew had informed him by way of two letters published in the Gardener's Chronicle (1860) that his book had been read by at least two naturalists (Loudon and the other unnamed) and was banned by Perth Public Library in Scotland. Before my research, no one seems to have noticed that Loudon was an internationally famous and influential naturalist and polymath.
By lying about the readership of the original ideas in Matthew's book, Darwin most certainly corrupted the history of discovery of natural selection and committed lying, plagiarising science fraud by glory theft, of Matthew's prior-published ideas and their influence on 19th century naturalists who, in turn influenced Darwin and Wallace.
I conclude from the evidence given in these few paragraphs, and in far greater detail, with many more facts in my book 'Nullius in Verba', that Darwin committed the world's greatest science fraud. Finally, I conclude that the 'New Data' in the history of discovery of natural selection has punctured the 'no naturalist read it' premise upon which rests the currently accepted paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of the unifying theory of biology.
It is time to bring to an end the 'state of denial' of the dreadfully disturbing facts. Due to 155 of years of injustice, Scotland has a neglected science hero. He is worthy of long overdue celebration as an immortal great thinker and influencer in science. His name is Patrick Matthew. As an Englishman, I say his image belongs on the back of the English £10 note. What now say the Scots for their currency?
More on Mike Sutton
Mike is Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University (UK), where he teaches Hi Tech Crime and also Crime Reduction and Community Safety where he is the founding Director of the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crimes. Before that he worked for 14 years as a senior researcher in the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit in the Home Office in London. Mike is the originator of the Market Reduction Approach (MRA) to theft and co-founder and Chief Editor of the open access Internet Journal of Criminology. He is a winner of the British Journal of Criminology Prize for virtual ethnographic research into a pan-European hacking group. He is particularly well known in popular science circles for debunking a long believed science myth that a misplaced decimal point in the recorded iron content of spinach led to scientists mistakenly believing its iron content was 10 times greater.
Paradoxically, both disappointed and rather excited to find that this new Big Data analysis was disproving many long-standing 'knowledge claims' made in the scholarly press about the originality of such terms and concepts as 'moral panics', 'the global village' and 'self-fulfilling prophecy', I focused my attention on checking the veracity of claims I felt sure were sound.
Alarmingly, I found I could immediately prove that seemingly countless publications are wrong to claim that one of my then science heroes, Richard Dawkins, coined the term and the concept of the 'selfish gene' in his book of the same name. I soon discovered that he did neither. Rather, years earlier, his associate William Hamilton published both term and concept first, in an obscure paper.
Somewhat further perturbed by what I was unearthing, in March 2013, I turned my attention to my other science hero Charles Darwin. I thought that most surely all the science and history of science books were right that both the term and the concept of natural selection were Darwin's unique origination. What I found was literally shocking. Firstly, I soon learned that it is acknowledged in the literature that the existence of the Scottish botanist and farmer, Patrick Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture', proves he was the first to discover and have published the concept of macorevolution by natural selection, 27 years before Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read before the Linnean Society and 28 years before the publication of Darwin's 'Origin of Species'. However, the new evidence I found built on this existing knowledge to disconfirm the existing majority view that Darwin and Wallace each conceived the idea of natural selection independently of Matthew. In brief, the New Data, which I originally discovered between 2013 and 2014 in 'the hidden books in the library', reveals that - as opposed the earlier 'knowledge claim' that none had read it - seven naturalists cited Matthew's book before 1858. Among them were four of Darwin's and Wallace's friends and influencers, three of whom (Loudon, Selby and Chambers) were at the very epicentre of influence and facilitation of the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on organic evolution. Loudon was an associate of the father of Darwin's best friend, Joseph Hooker. Loudon's work as a naturalist was well known to both Darwin and Joseph Hooker. Significantly, Loudon went on to be Chief Editor editor of the journal that published two of Blyth's (1835, 1836) influential articles on evolution. And Blyth was Darwin's most prolific informant. Selby went on to be Chief Editor of the Journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper on evolution. Chamber's, an associate and correspondent of Darwin, and Wallace's greatest influencer, went on to write, in 1844, the best selling book on evolution 'The Vestiges of Creation'.
Most importantly, it is a newly discovered fact, therefore, that Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1859) replicated the original ideas in Matthew's book, without citing Matthew, and then claimed, fallaciously, in their defence that no naturalists, indeed no one at all, had read those ideas before their replications. As objective scholars, we cannot now rule out the likelihood that, at the very least, some form of indirect 'Matthewian knowledge contamination' affected the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace.
Moreover, I went on to prove that from 1860 onwards that Darwin lied about no naturalists reading Matthew's book before Matthew brought it to Darwin's attention in 1860. It is a lie because Darwin made that claim in both the Gardener's Chronicle (1860), and from 1861 onwards in the third and every subsequent edition of the 'Origin of Species', after Matthew had informed him by way of two letters published in the Gardener's Chronicle (1860) that his book had been read by at least two naturalists (Loudon and the other unnamed) and was banned by Perth Public Library in Scotland. Before my research, no one seems to have noticed that Loudon was an internationally famous and influential naturalist and polymath.
By lying about the readership of the original ideas in Matthew's book, Darwin most certainly corrupted the history of discovery of natural selection and committed lying, plagiarising science fraud by glory theft, of Matthew's prior-published ideas and their influence on 19th century naturalists who, in turn influenced Darwin and Wallace.
I conclude from the evidence given in these few paragraphs, and in far greater detail, with many more facts in my book 'Nullius in Verba', that Darwin committed the world's greatest science fraud. Finally, I conclude that the 'New Data' in the history of discovery of natural selection has punctured the 'no naturalist read it' premise upon which rests the currently accepted paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis of the unifying theory of biology.
It is time to bring to an end the 'state of denial' of the dreadfully disturbing facts. Due to 155 of years of injustice, Scotland has a neglected science hero. He is worthy of long overdue celebration as an immortal great thinker and influencer in science. His name is Patrick Matthew. As an Englishman, I say his image belongs on the back of the English £10 note. What now say the Scots for their currency?
More on Mike Sutton
Mike is Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University (UK), where he teaches Hi Tech Crime and also Crime Reduction and Community Safety where he is the founding Director of the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crimes. Before that he worked for 14 years as a senior researcher in the Policing and Reducing Crime Unit in the Home Office in London. Mike is the originator of the Market Reduction Approach (MRA) to theft and co-founder and Chief Editor of the open access Internet Journal of Criminology. He is a winner of the British Journal of Criminology Prize for virtual ethnographic research into a pan-European hacking group. He is particularly well known in popular science circles for debunking a long believed science myth that a misplaced decimal point in the recorded iron content of spinach led to scientists mistakenly believing its iron content was 10 times greater.
What is Mike's March 2016 talk at the James Hutton Institute about?
Patrick Matthew is generally acknowledged as the originator of the theory of natural selection. He published his discovery of ‘the natural process of selection’ in a book entitled ‘On Naval and Timber and Arboriculture’ in 1831, which is 27 years before Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s papers were read before the Linnean Society in 1858.
The current consensus is that Darwin and Wallace each discovered natural selection independently of Matthew and independently of one another, and that Matthew had no influence o anyone with his original ideas. Moreover, Darwin is hailed as the immortal great thinker on the subject of evolution, because he alone is recognised as first to take his own discovery of the theory of natural selection forward, with many confirmatory evidences, convincing others of its veracity and importance.
In this talk, Mike Sutton will challenge this orthodox view with brand new and independently verifiable evidence, that he uniquely discovered in 2014 with newly available ‘big data’ research methods, to prove that, pre-1858, Matthew’s 1831 book was read by at least 25 people because they actually cited it in the published literature. Importantly, Mike reveals that at least seven who cited Matthew’s book were naturalists. Most importantly of all, he focuses upon the fact that three of only seven naturalists now known to have cited Matthew’s book were at the very epicentre of influence on Darwin’s and Wallace’s researches. Moreover, two of those three were personal associates and correspondents of Darwin and Wallace. He will show why he believes that Matthew, not Darwin, should now be celebrated as the only independent solver of the problem of the origin of species.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Spam will be immediately deleted. Other comments warmly welcome.
On this blogsite you are free to write what you think in any way you wish to write it. However, please bear in mind it is a published public environment. Stalkers, Harassers and abusers who seek to hide behind pseudonyms may be exposed for who they actually are.
Anyone publishing threats, obscene comments or anything falling within the UK Anti-Harassment and the Obscene Communications Acts (which carry a maximum sentence of significant periods of imprisonment) should realize Google blogs capture the IP addresses of those who post comments. From there, it is a simple matter to know who you are, where you are commenting from, reveal your identity and inform the appropriate police services.