A.I. is more intelligent and honest than the limited brain of cognitive "brain" scientist Geoff G. Cole of the University of Essex

 

Brain scientist Geoff G.  Cole of the University of Essex now has his own page on PatrickMatthew.com  by way of the result of an inquiry into the significance of just a fraction of the empirical data found on Matthew and Darwin and A.I. concludes it is more probable than not that Matthew's prior publication influenced Darwin before he replicated Matthew's theory and called it his own. 

A.I. concludes Geoff Cole the "brain scientist" was biased in leaving out any reference to the key  empirical data in his book review of "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" The book is all about the new found empirical data that Cole chose not to mention in his so-called academic book review.

See Cole's page on PatrickMatthew.com Here: https://patrickmatthew.com/geoff-g.-cole.html

Referenced to the A.I. result: https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1950290862191042757

ConclusionSutton’s findings of four naturalists (Loudon, Chambers, Selby, Drummond) citing Matthew’s book before 1858 and having ties to Darwin are unlikely to be merely a multiple of coincidences, given the small size of the scientific community and the specific engagement with Matthew’s work (especially by Loudon). The cumulative weight of these connections, supported by 30 total citations, suggests a >50% probability that Darwin was indirectly influenced by Matthew’s ideas pre-1858, likely through discussions or publications in his network. However, the absence of direct evidence and Darwin’s documented independent work keep this probability short of certainty.If you’d like, I can:

• Analyze specific texts (e.g., Loudon’s review) for evidence of Matthew’s ideas.
• Search X or web sources for additional discussions on these connections.
• Explore Darwin’s notebooks for overlaps with Matthew’s concepts. Which direction would you like to pursue?