Conclusion on the topic of 'knowledge contamination' from the latest IDD method bombshell breakthrough in the history of scientific discovery and Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarism of Matthew's prior-published and often-prior cited theory (see related earlier blog post here).
Above all else, the unearthing of the fact that both heretical evolutionist Professor Robert Jameson and his nephew, the botanist William Jameson knew of Matthew and were aware of his work On Naval Timber is confirmation for the concept of knowledge contamination and its applicability in the story of Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing replication of Matthew's theory of evolution by natural selection from that book. This is because pre-1858 Matthew twice appeared in print citing himself as the author of On Naval Timber in works edited by and also contributed to by Robert Jameson (who was, incidentally, Darwin's tutor at Edinburgh University), whose nephew William Jameson was a regular correspondent of William Hooker. William Hooker was in turn an associate of Charles Darwin and father of Darwin's best friend, evolutionary confidant and botanical motor Joseph Hooker. If knowledge contamination is not relevant then anyone claiming so perhaps believes no amount of what might be seen as improbable and closely linked multiple coincidences ever sum to a likelihood that they are not actually coincidental at all? By way of example: Are we to believe that the fact Robert Jameson edited the journal containing an article by Matthew, in which Matthew cited his own 1831 book and where an advert for that book made the subject matter of species and varieties in it plain and clear, and that Matthew appeared in an academic testimonial with Robert Jameson, where Matthew again cited his book has nothing at all to do with the fact William Jameson then cited Matthew's book and mentioned one of Matthew's important observations that supported Matthew's original theory of evolution by natural selection?
My assumption is that 19th century scientists would as likely as not discuss then if they were aware of the heretical ideas in Matthew's book. And aware of them they were made, not only by the famous naturalist and editor Loudon who wrote in 1831 a very public review that Matthew's (1831) book contained important new information on what he termed the "origin of species", but amongst others by an anonymous reviewer who wrote that he/she disdained so much as rumination on Matthew's writings on law of nature, a fact that Darwin deification fanatical official Wikipedia editors fought desperately to permanently delete by deleting it again and again when its fully referenced source in the historic publication record was put on the Patrick Matthew page on Wikipedia. This desperate Darwinist superfan fact denial behaviour, on the world's worst encyclopedia, with all fully verifiable facts on that disgraceful matter can be seen here. What were those Wikipedia editors so afraid of? And what do they remain afraid of today? I think the answer is they were and remain afraid of 'knowledge contamination' of the wider scientific community and the wider general public with newly unearthed data that disconfirms all Darwin fans mere mythology about Darwin's originality, honesty and disproves the lies Darwin wrote about Matthew and the myth fuelled bias-blinkered and fake-facts claptrap his fanatical followers have written about Matthew since.
Secord's book on the Vestiges (its anonymous author Robert Chambers also newly discovered by me to have cited Matthew's 1831 book) in : 'Victorian Sensation' absolutely demonstrates that the heretically delicious topic of organic evolution was on everyone's lips. Moreover, two acts of Parliament were passed to stop such issues being discussed in public scientific societies. Knowledge contamination is such an important issue. If not, why were all those science clubs and societies formed - if not to bring naturalists together to discuss new ideas? That was one very important reason given for the founding of the British Association for Advancement of Science - for the very reason that others were hypothesising about evolution. So weighing all these facts, a quite reasonable assumption is, I think, that 19th century naturalists might well have discussed the topic of Matthew's book with fellow naturalists, if they were aware of it. Then there are all those letters from these so called "men of letters" - letters kept and even more burned that where is could have been discussed in correspondence. The time is now to look in the archives of those naturalists we newly know did read and cite Matthew's (1831) book (see Sutton 2015) to see what can be found in that regard pre-Darwin's and Wallace's 1858 claimed independent replications of Matthew's prior published - and prior cited by their friends, editors and influencers and their influencer's influencers - complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection, including his name for it and his highly idiosyncratic explanatory example and analogy of differences between artificial and natural selection.
Reasoned arguments (see text in image file) @HughDower on why the latest discovery about Robert Jameson confirms the suitability of the notion of "Knowledge Contamination" in the story of Charles Darwin's science fraud by lies and plagiary. The story: https://t.co/2Jxxr6GMrm pic.twitter.com/7izaxADqqw— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) January 15, 2019
Original expert peer reviewed article: On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis
My book containing more information: Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret (paperback version)
Hugh Dower's @HughDower original research reveals more examples of independently verifiable proof that contrary to the Oh So Unusually Honest Darwin Myth Charles Darwin was clearly a blatant serial liar when it came to his pre 1858 influencers. Facts here https://t.co/DWt7Oo9OXU pic.twitter.com/E5uS0sv7VI— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) January 17, 2019