 |
| Interestingly, those who discover paradigm changing and independently verifiable new data are often portrayed by desperately biased scholars with vested career and in-group establishment interests in the old but newly myth-punctured paradigm as cranks. With painful irony, the real cranks are those who let their bias interfere with their critical reasoning. |
Dr Arlin Stoltzfus, referring to discussions between Dr Mike Weale and I on Weale's Blogsite The Patrick Matthew Project explains why Weale's loyal 'belief-based' Darwinite bias cannot trump the fact-based uncomfortable - newly discovered - truth in the story of the history of discovery of natural selection.
Stoltzfus, A. Friday, August 05, 2016 (Writing on the Sandwalk blog site).
'Darwin, by repeating the idea that no naturalist read or noticed Matthew's book, repeated a self-serving statement that he knew to be factually incorrect, because Matthew himself had pointed this out. These facts are not in dispute. Sutton describes these facts by saying it is "100% proved" that Darwin "lied".
In the cited web site, the case made by author Mike Weale is entirely based on quibbling about "lied" and "100 % proved", while bending over backward to give His Holiness Charles Darwin the benefit of the doubt. According to Weale, when His Infallible Holiness Charles Darwin says that "nobody read it", we must interpret this as the kind of harmless exaggeration that occurs every day-- of course His Holiness must have known that the book would have been read by *someone*, so obviously he wasn't intending to be taken literally (*). To accuse his holiness of "lying" would be to impute deception, which cannot be proved "100 %" because it requires an inference of motives (according to Weale).
Thus, Weale's case against Sutton rests on the same kind of scholarly double standard that we are now accustomed to seeing: (1) insisting on a literal interpretation of a rhetorically loaded version of Sutton's argument, while Darwin gets off easy precisely because Weale *refuses to hold Darwin to a literal interpretation*, and (2) insisting that Sutton can't rely on inferences or touch on the issue of intentions by invoking "lied", while Weale is free to defend Darwin precisely by appeal to inferences about Darwin's knowledge and motives (sentence above with *). '
Appeal for a Rational Way Forward
Please do something (no matter how small) to support veracity in the war for veracity over claptrap in the story of the discovery of natural selection. Because Darwinites currently dominate the scientific community, but they are behaving like an authoritarian religious deification cult.
Modern advanced societies will be harmed by having an inaccurate history of scientific discovery, disseminated through the propagandising machinations of palpably biased salaried academics and other powerful establishment in-group members. Only a crank could not see that.
Belief is the Root of all Delusion: Dr Arlin Stoltzfus on Dr Mike Weale's Arguments in favour of Darwin's Innocence: https://t.co/sFRKTIQmBz— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) August 13, 2016
