Tuesday, 25 July 2017
Monday, 24 July 2017
Thursday, 20 July 2017
The hard and independently verifiable facts 100 per cent prove that Robert Chambers cited Matthew (1831) in 1832.The independently verifiable hard-print evidence in the publication record 100 per cent proves it. If you doubt that audacious statement is true, then try the following experiment: cover the published text with your hand and remove it 100 times. You will note it never changes. What is published in the publication record is as proven to exist as fossils in the geological fossil record. Explaining them is another matter, of course
In detail, the various possible reasons for why Chambers most likely despised Matthew, and other possible reasons for why he did not cite him anywhere on the topic of his breakthrough conception are discussed in my new paperback abridged edition of Nullius in Verba (Sutton 2017).
Is it a mere coincidence, as part of a snowball, or else unconnected collection, of nothing more than mere multiple coincidences perhaps, that Chambers was fascinated by trees and arboriculture, that within a decade of 1832 he had written his own guide on arboriculture and cited Matthew's (1839) second book, that in the next decade he wrote his own best selling book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation, that he both met with and corresponded several times with Darwin in the 1840's? Of course coincidences happen, which is exactly why we have a word for the phenomenon, but how many coincidences of this kind in the history of the publication of a bombshell breakthrough in science, and the citation of its published source by other influential scientists, I wonder, are required to sum to a probability that they are not merely coincidental, not unconnected?
As if that is not enough, in his 1859 review of Darwin's Origin of Species, Chambers was apparently "first to be second" in published print (at least out of the 35 million books and other publications scanned by Google to date) with Matthew's apparently original term "natural process of selection". That is highly significant, because Darwin was apparently first to re-shuffle those exact same four absolutely essential words to "process of natural selection." Matthew's original term containing the exact same three most crucial words that are in that Darwin-shuffled term are crucial. They are crucial to the theory of macroevolution by natural selection because natural selection occurs as an unthinking "process", and because it is "natural" as opposed to artificial "selection". Arguably, that is most likely why Darwin was compelled to replicate them in his four-word shuffle of Matthew's (1831) original published useage, along with replicating Matthew's superb origination of his natural versus artificial selection analogy of differences to explain the process.
4. Darwinites can no longer claim that Matthew's conception of natural selection was contained solely in the appendix of his book. I reveal exactly how much is actually contained in the main body of his book and that Darwin lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas were solely contained in the appendix. Because Matthew referred him to just some of the relevant text from the main body of his book and Darwin wrote to admit the fact to Joseph Hooker, but wrote that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth of the matter!
Tuesday, 18 July 2017
Monday, 17 July 2017
On Bullshit", the difference between a liar and a bulshiiter is that the former is concerned with the truth but the other could not give a.... (ahem) care. The liar knows what the truth is and wishes to convince us that the opposite position is true. The bulshitter, however, does not care what is true when making a claim, only that you believe what they say is true.
In yesterday's Guardian newspaper you can find an article on Alfred Wallace. It's, arguably, a load of grade-F philosophical-grade bullshit, because it studiously ignores the fact Matthew - not Wallace or Darwin originated the theory of macroevolution by natural selection (see: Sutton 2015). But the greatest dollops of bovine incontinence come with the claims in the Guardian that:
- Alfred Wallace coined the term "Natural Selection."
- Alfred Wallace coined the term "Darwinism"
Wallace did not coin the term Darwinism. In reality, the modern usage of the term was coined by Huxley in 1860 (see here) . The term was also used to refer to Charles Darwin's grandfather as early as 1840 (see here).
So that's several more piece of bullshit bagged and dropped in the dysology bin.
Moreover, when Wallace was just 9 years old, in 1832, John Loudon wrote of Patrick Matthew's (1831) origination of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection that he appeared to have something orignal to say on "origin of species" no less! (see: Loudon, J.C. 1832. Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener’s Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.).
Among seven naturalists who cited Matthew (1831) pre-1859 Loudon went on to edit two influential papers on evolution written by Blyth, who was a great influence on both Darwin and Wallace. This is just one of several routes for Matthewain knowledge transfer that have been newly discovered (see Sutton 2015 for more information).
Perhaps the Guardian should at least bother to fact-check claims before going into print to spread even more myths on the topic of the discovery of the unifying theory of biology.
An article in the Guardian on the genuine originator, Patrick Matthew would perhaps help to set the factual record straight in the press. Here is some real news! And also here.
.Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics.
Independently verifiable facts prove the Guardian just published two large pieces of grade-F bullshit on science: https://t.co/s0YgUIrQn8 pic.twitter.com/V3sdYgiraO— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 17, 2017
Sunday, 16 July 2017
"Absolute rubbish. Who on earth wrote this and why did the Guardian's Editor not fact-check it? The literature r..." https://t.co/uHb2xXQzam— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 16, 2017
Saturday, 15 July 2017
Friday, 14 July 2017
Wednesday, 12 July 2017
More fair that scientists admit that independently verifiable facts are the friends, not enemies of science. Whether they like them or not.— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) July 13, 2017