Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection
I am relieved to learn that my prior observations (see also Sutton 2016) that Wikipedia’s paid personal agenda editors are operating throughout the entire Wikipedia encyclopaedia to subvert the truth and bury annoying and uncomfortable dis-confirming facts for the “majority view” has been firmly confirmed by the research of other academics.Click herefor an overview of my personal experiences withWikipedia editors engaging in systematic fact deletion.
Wikipedia needs investigation by the FBI, because its owners claim it is an objective encyclopaedia edited by the general public. On those grounds it seeks sponsorship via the public for donations to keep it going. In reality it is secretly earning money on a “fact deleting paid-to-lobby” basis.
This corporate activity stinks to high heaven of corruption, fraud and organised crime. Wikipedia editors are gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. I am prepared to testify!
Regarding his published accusations against me and my research, the only excuse provided by Dr Mike Weale for his continued refusal to engage in an open public scholarly debate, in a university of his choosing, and at any time of his choosing, and with as much assistance and support from his colleagues, associates and contacts as he requires is that he fears I will ridicule his scholarship on the same topic. How very weird - oops!
I have tried to debate with you on this site for well over a year now. But here on your own web site you deny that facts are facts. You deny that what is literally written means what it literally says and you deny that lies are lies. You even deny that analogies are analogies.. And the list of what you refuse to engage with could go on.
Now you do not wish me to call you a pseudo scholar for such behaviour – yet you say I have created a supermyth.
You have written here in your website: that I am….
“….creator and promulgator of an elaborate set of myths and supermyths of your own. You claim to be busting the myth, deliberately set up by Darwin and credulously believed by Darwinists ever since, that no-one read Matthew’s book. But the very existence of the myth you are busting is itself a myth. It’s not just a case of de-bunking the de-bunker of the myth, but de-bunking the very idea that there is a “myth and supermyth” narrative in the first place. It really is Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit-hole territory.”
You said I have created a Supermyth.
Now I have challenged you – to go off the pages of your own website – where we have ALREADY held the debate (if you can call denying facts and refusing to answer questions debating) you wish to have yet again on your website where only you decide what can and cannot be said, where you chose what you do and what you have so many times refused to answer.
I have challenged you now to do something bigger, better and more scholarly/ I have challenged you in no uncertain terms to put up or shut up in a public academic forum that will be filmed and disseminated world wide.
I am calling you out on your assertions of fact. Assertions you have made about me. But you are refusing to engage in a public academic debate on academic territory. Instead, you are asking to continue the same old thing you keep on doing with the facts, to seek to conceal them, here on your own website. I wish to expose that behaviour. I will expose that behaviour.
I say it looks like you are very afraid to face me in public on camera in debate in a place where your refusal to answer questions and refusal to admit facts will be exposed for the World to see. Why would that be Dr Mike Weale?
If, as you have claimed so boldly and confidently, above, I have created an supermyth then what better way for you to silence that supermyth in public than by exposing it and my ability to defend my position?
And I mean in public – where you cannot hide by fact denial – where you will not be allowed to hide by a systematic failure to face the facts in the same way you have done on this website time and time again.
Here is my answer to you for the question you asked in place of actually answering mine: I have absolutely no intention of wasting my time debate facts that you deny are facts on your own website again and again with you and trying to get you to answer questions you refuse to answer here. So I have challenged you to an academic debate off this website.
You have an academic title and position and so do I. We both work for universities. Let us take this debate now onto a university campus – or other esteemed place. I have no fear of doing that – so why do you fear it Mike? What is it you fear Mike? Is it the facts Mike?
To deal with – and to expose – what I will claim by reference to your published and academically fully archived published behaviour on this site I will expose the hard data of what I will claim is your persistent evasion of the facts and what I will, with respect, claim is your denial of the facts and I will do so in order to challenge you to support your serous claims against me that I have created a supermyth, I think that is quite fair and reasonable.
I have openly and honestly – in no uncertain terms – challenged you to debate this serious issue with me.
Yours is a serious and published academic allegation. I have given you the wonderful opportunity to be open and scholarly on this issue. Therefore I have challenged you to go with me before an academic and public audience and to have our debate on this serious allegation you have made filmed and disseminated as far and as wide as possible. And I wish to do this to expose your behaviour on this very website for what it is Mike. You can then defend your position in public and we can let the public and our peers judge who is right and who is behaving correctly.
You are refusing to participate in a public debate off the pages of this website are you not?
Answer the question please Mike. Yes or no.
So please answer my question:
Are you refusing to take this debate regarding your serious academic accusations against me off your own website and into the public forum in the form of a proper academic and scholarly debate – to be filmed, disseminated and judged by our peers and the wider public?
You have repeatedly demonstrated that the way that you deal with people who don’t agree with you is via mud-slinging and ridicule. You have repeatedly labelled anyone who disagrees with you, including myself, as either stupid, mentally deranged or deliberately deceitful – see for example your series of comments addressed to me starting here: https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-853.
In the face of such appallingly insulting behaviour, why on earth should I agree to debate with you in public? Your mud-slinging is vicious enough when delivered via webpage comments, goodness knows how much worse it will be in a live confrontation, when your hackles are up.
No, the evidence is clear. A live debate with you would simply expose me to your mud-slinging insults at first hand, and would be the very opposite of illuminating.
I urge you accept my offer to debate with you on the pages of this website, and to adopt a debating style that concentrates just on the facts and the interpretation of the facts, and not on your vituperative opinions of your opponents.
So you are still refusing to answer the question with a yes or a no.
Even though no is your effective answer.
You refuse to answer the question.
Even where I show you that there is no point in debating with you on your own website because you refuse to answer questions. All you can do is to write, what is, with respect, an excuse about imagined mud slinging possibly coming your way. But you refuse to write yes or no as asked.
And by doing exactly that you once again avoid answering the very question you have just been asked.
That is a classical transparent very basic denial tactic. I don’t suppose you have studied denial tactics have you? I have. I intend to make the behaviour of Darwin scholars, in response to the New Data, subject to a research study in that very area.
So, let me just re-cap what you have written:
You are refusing to enter into a public scholarly debate with me in a university, or anywhere else whatsoever other than in the comments section of a website that you totally control. You will not engage in debate with me – not even to defend the serious academic allegations you have made about my research – other than than in the comments section you control on your own website. Therefore, to be absolutely clear, you are refusing to debate your accusations against me before an academic audience where that debate would be filmed for the world to see because you – as you have plainly stated above – fear I will sling mud at you. You are refusing to do so despite my polite public invitation to you to do so because you are in a “mud-slinging” state fear of me. Despite the fact that the invitation is to engage in a scholarly debate in a scholarly setting in a public forum to discuss facts in relation to the serious academic charge you have levelled against me..
You have refused to debate the facts with me anywhere in the world other than in the comments section that you control on your own website where you systematically (as fully evidenced by the data in the comments section here) refuse to answer questions and where you claim that facts are not facts and where you claim that what is literally written does no mean what is literally written and clearly intended to be understood as it is literally written, and so on and so forth..
Now for yet another hard and proven discomfiting fact for your mud-slinging fears about how you think I am likely to behave in a scholarly public setting before an academic and public audience.Namely, that unlike you, my dear Mike, I have debated the “New Data” in several highly sceptical public venues before audiences who have very pointedly and at times very aggressively questioned my research and my findings and my conclusions. I have answered every single question in all such venues very civilly to the compete satisfaction of the chair and audience at every such open presentation and I have never, once not ever “slung mud” as you claim you fear I will now now as your new excuse for failing to face me in a public filmed venue.
I have no reason to sling mud Mike. Because I have facts to sling. Lots of facts, “the New Facts”, uncomfortable facts. The facts that you are refusing to engage with outside of your website comments section which you completely control. Those facts are peer reviewed and in a science journal here: http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05
Most importantly, let me put your purported fear of mud slinging at rest with reference to relevant facts. I have presented and debated the “New Data” facts of my scholarly findings without any dreadfully fearful “mud slinging” ever. Not anywhere. To date and in total that includes the following public venues:
1. “Internet Dating With Darwin”. Edinburgh International Science Festival. Edinburgh Skeptics Society. April 10th.2014
2. “The Hi-Tech Detection of Charles Darwin’s and Alfred Wallace’s Great Science Fraud”. British Society of Criminology Conference. Liverpool University. July 10th 2014
3. “A DREADFUL DISCOVERY: BIG DATA PROVES WALLACE AND DARWIN COUNTERFEIT DISCOVERERSI”. Conway Hall Sunday Lecture. Ethical Society. London. July 27th 2014.
4. Teesside Skeptics in the Pub 2 October 2014,
5. Sheffield Skeptics in the Pub 25 May 2015.
6. “About Patrick Matthew”: Meeting with the children and teachers of the Junior Carsonians: 17th March 2016
6. “On Charles Darwin and Patrick Matthew: Have we got the wrong scientist on the back of the English £10 note/”. The Rotary Club. Perth. Scotland. 17th March. 2016
7. “The 100 Per Cent Proof of Darwin’s Lying Plagiarising Glory Thieving Science Fraud” James Hutton Institute Lecture 17th March 2016
So what are you really afraid of Dr Mike Weale? Imaginary mud? Is that it? Is that what I am to tell journalists who inquire about you now – that I am to tell public audiences where I am present and clearly not slinging mud that you make serious and unevidenced accusations about my work, but when invited to put up or shut up that you fear to face me in public because you think I will sling mud at you on camera where my behaviour will be filmed for posterity? Really? Mud?
Is it that not an irrational type of academic Mysophobia Mike? The morbid and irrational fear of dirt?
Is that it? Is that, with respect, the best excuse you can come up with?
https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-857
In reference to my “clearly biased agenda”: “But given the context you are simply exposing your dreadful bias.”
In reference to my stupidity and/or dishonesty: “Only a stupid person would honestly think – or think otherwise but disonestly claim – otherwise.”
https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-866
In reference to my “daft as a brush” notions: “Postmodernists – including the newly evolved – it seems – post-modern Darwinists – seek to do intellectual mischief, which is caused by their daft-as-a-brush postmodern notions that nothing is certain or objective and that all “truth” is simply a subjective social construct … I would argue that’s exactly what you are doing Mike”
https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-884
“My definition of institutional stupidity – formed from observing your arguments Mike: “Strict adherence to denying the existence of your own group’s disproven beliefs by making irrational arguments from fear of looking stupid.” The question now remains – “Are ALL Darwinists desperately stupid when cornered by the truth of their stupidity?””
https://patrickmatthewproject.wordpress.com/leave-a-reply/comment-page-5/#comment-1016
“It creates what Wurmser nicely calls ‘Pseudo-stupidity.’ And we have seen plenty of that on this website in various attempts to spin the obvious significance of the new facts into a comfort blanket of denial that they have any significance at all”
“It seems to me – after reading Stanley Cohen’s excellent book “States of Denial: Knowing about atrocities and suffering’ – that such biased scholarship creates an enabling environment for all kinds of dangerous quackery and claptrap, as well as a dysological pseudo-scholarly soup in which hate crime can grow and flourish.”
http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/the-postmodern-darwinist-much-good.html
“Is the Patrick Matthew Project a Darwinist postmodern project? Is it evidence of an anomalous Darwinist flight from science and reason on the question of Patrick Matthew’s right to be considered an immortal great thinker and influencer in science – with full, complete and appreciable priority over Charles Darwin?”
Now the first thing I’d like to say is that all your accusations are false – I’m not stupid, I’m not mentally deranged, and I’m not wilfully deceitful. The second thing I’d like to say is that even if I were stupid or mentally deranged, then calling me this still amounts to disgracefully insulting behaviour – perhaps even more so if it were true. The third thing I’d like to say is that you’re never going to win your arguments by attacking your opponents in this way – you will win them (or not) by the strength of your evidence and your interpretation of that evidence, not by mud-slinging.
There is still time for you to change your behaviour Mike, to apologise for your past aggressive and insulting online behaviour and instead move to a model where you argue the facts and the interpretation of those facts, rather than resort to mud-slinging whenever someone disagrees with you.
I repeat my invitation, and I urge you to accept it, to debate the facts and the interpretation of those facts here within the pages of PMP. If you pose one of your previously unanswered questions, I promise I will answer it now (provided it isn’t “Are ALL Darwinists desperately stupid when cornered by the truth of their stupidity?” or one of your other previous insulting questions of that nature).
Again you seem not to be able to comprehend the plainest meaning of what you read.
As I have explained several times, here on your own website it is not possible to have a rational academic debate with you, because you simply refuse to respond to certain questions and you deny the obvious meaning and context of the most clear and simple text.
Now here is what I think is the real reason you will not debate with me before an audience. It is, with respect, I think, because you deny what every audience I have presented to so far (see above list) admits are Darwin’s lies about the the prior readership of Matthew’s book. You claim that what everyone else can see are lies are not lies. And yet it is you who writes of “Alice in Wonderland fantasies” – presumably that does not breach your own Alice in Wonderland rules on your own website about your own protocols of what is acceptable comment about others? Whatever the case, I am glad that I am allowed to use the term “Alice in Wonderland” and Rabbit Hole” – of course these are in fact the terms I used to explain the thinking of Darwinists on the “plagiarism problem” in my interview with journalist Daniel Engber for his article “Who Will Debunk the Debunkers?” which I shared with you (see earlier comment above).
I wonder what you really fear any sane and rational and honest audience will say to you outside of your rabbit hole website Mike? Those plain and simple lies whch you proclaim are not lies, are here in a blog post about John van Wyhe deceiving the Scottish press: http://patrickmathew.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/insanely-jealous-dr-john-van-wyhe-madly.html
It is also impossible to hold a rational debate with you on your own website because, for example, after arguing endlessly that there cannot be such a thing as an analogy of differences you then fail to admit that you are wrong when shown the Oxford Dictionary definition of analogy. I asked you to apologize for systematically failing to admit your error on several occasions in the comments section here, but you are apparently “blind sighted” to what I wrote – or else you are, apparently, being – with respect – dishonest, or perhaps there are other explanations that a psychologist can provide? Perhaps those are all mysterious unwritten PMP House Rules forbidden conjectures?Just in case that is the let me use the use the one your own example proves is OK – perhaps it’s all simply your “Alice-in Wonderland” behaviour?
The reason for your “blanking” of such facts might well have a psychiatric or psychological explanation, but let’s leave that to the experts and speculation of the armchair Einsteins of the Internet shall we? I would, with respect, suggest, an Alice in Wonderland academic delusional dishonesty will do: “What more disconfirming facts!” “off with their heads!”. As you can see I am abiding by your “Alice in Wonderland” is an OK criticism example here.
What a relief you used it first. Otherwise you might have taken the head off my reply and deleted it down this rabbit hole!
Now, my dear Mike, with respect etc, you also refuse to accept that disconfirming facts for your belief are facts, because you deny that what sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr wrote (see above link) was meant to be taken literally, as it was obviously literally written and intend it be interpreted in academic texts so as to convince readers of the veracity of the now debunked “tri independent discovery paradigm of natural selection”.
I expect that despite explaining these facts of your, with respect,”Alice in Wonderland” behaviour to you that you will be “rabbit-hole” blindsighted to them and once again ask me to apologise for criticising such “Red Queen” behaviour and to debate with you ad infinitum on your “rabbit hole” web site.
The trouble is, my dear Mike, that the definition of madness is to endlessly repeat the same behaviour whilst expecting a different result.
I now have the answer, which I must now be compelled, by your answers here, to give any journalists and forthcoming university and other audiences. Thank you.
When I present the facts of Darwin’s lies and the credulous parroting of them by de Beer and Mayr etc I will explain that you think it’s all an Alice in Wonderland Supermyth and John van Wyhe thinks it’s a silly conspiracy theory.
I will in future direct journalists and audiences and my readership to your comments to your own website (I have them all archived should they ever disappear) and you will, unfortunately, be judged accordingly. Me too, of course. I am very happy with my comments and I stand by them all and I am happy to present my research findings to the public via lectures and peer reviewed papers and books etc.
I will explain that despite my best attempt to get you to debate with me in an academic lecture in a university setting of your time and choice – with as many supporters as you require – where your silences and interpretations of literal text and meanings can be questioned by an academic audience, and by members of the press and wider public – that you refuse to accept through your admitted fear you will be ridiculed by me on video camera for the world to see.
I will, of course be referencing your comments and, with respect, excuses in my future written work on this topic – on the denial tactics of Darwin scholars.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr Mike Weale's unremarkable metamorphosis
Want to know why Darwin Scholars deny that peer reviewed proven lies are lies? Why they deny that what is literally written means what it literally says. Why not "Go ask Alice down the rabbit hole?" And good luck trying getting a rational or honest reply.
Alternatively, read the MacDarwin de facto Corporation explanation - Here
“Mike, respectfully, I do think that the “exquisitely painful irony” here is that you, the coiner of the “supermyth” concept, are the creator and promulgator of an elaborate set of myths and supermyths of your own. You claim to be busting the myth, deliberately set up by Darwin and credulously believed by Darwinists ever since, that no-one read Matthew’s book. But the very existence of the myth you are busting is itself a myth. It’s not just a case of de-bunking the de-bunker of the myth, but de-bunking the very idea that there is a “myth and supermyth” narrative in the first place. It really is Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit-hole territory.”
As a result of his unevidenced claims, I, on the 2nd of May 2016, publicly challenged him to put up or shut up. The gauntlet is now thrown down for a public academic debate.
THIS IS MY REPLY TO DR MIKE WEAL:
‘And there we have it Mike. As always you cannot produce a jot of evidence to support what you write. You have written, once again, nothing but your mere unevidenced and now debunked opinion. That alone should worry you. But I expect it doesn’t. Because it’s a pseudo-scholarly habit of yours.
You can’t argue with facts – because you have absolutely no facts that can refute the New Facts, do you Mike?
And the new facts refute the old mere unevidenced “knowledge beliefs” of the so called “Darwin Industry”, don’t they Mike?
All you are doing is seeking to deny the facts that you don’t like, Mike.
It appears that you wish the newly discovered facts did not exist Mike.
But my dear Mike, you can’t wish them away. You really can’t. It just doesn’t work that way. And you can’t magic them away by writing totally unevidenced claims about me as though you hope that will make your debunked beliefs true. Moreover, the old Darwinist “knowledge claims” are completely debunked by the New Facts of who we now newy know both read Matthew’s book and the bombshell original ideas on natural selection in it.
With respect Mike, you don’t seem to understand that in order to, rationally, refute a myth you need independently verifiable disconfirming facts to deploy against it. That is how I debunked the pervasive “No one read Matthew’s (1831) original ideas before 1860 myth.”
Simply voicing your unevidenced bias as an opinion cannot magically transmute facts that disconfirm that mere opinion into something else. You are, with respect, engaging in embarrassing magical thinking in your – above – comment, Mike. And on this website you go around and around in ever evasive tall tale chasing circles doing the same old thing. But it’s too late Mike – your favourite tale of immaculate deception has already been well and truly bitten. Consumed in fact – by the facts!
With respect, Mike, you seek to claim the independently verifiable newly discovered facts are themselves a myth? How unscientific of you, with respect, Mike. That’s fact denial.
Answer the following questions if you dare Mike and also show me where in the literature it is written that another naturalist, scientist or biologist read Matthew’s ideas before 1860? Where does it say anywhere that Darwin was wrong to write that none had? Where does it say that so many top Darwin scholars before me were wrong to claim that none had. You won’t will you mike? And why won’t you? Because YOU can’t can you Mike?
Now let us turn to the New Facts shall we.
Now look at the newly discovered facts – the facts that I uniquely discovered. It is these new facts that prove you are, with respect, credulously worshipping a fact-denying supermyth Mike.
Ouch! Painful facts that Dr John van Wyhe misled the Scottish press about. How on Earth are such facts a “conspiracy theory”, as he claims? As if facts that 100 per cent disconfirm the prior historical “understanding” are not of value to history. What desperate nonsense. How is this a supermyth? Don’t, with respect, be so, with respect, silly Mike.
You claim I create a myth by sharing with the general public the newly discovered facts that 100 per cent disconfirm the myths published by the world’s leading Darwinist scholars – such as Charles Darwin (FRS) himself, Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) and Ernst Mayr (FRS) – amongst so many others. The facts that disprove Darwin’s lying “no naturalist / no one at all / read Matthew’s (1831) original ideas before 1860 myth”. That IS, similarly, the debunked Patrick Matthew Supermyth – the myth upon which rested the now punctured paradigm of Darwin’s and Wallace’s independent discovery. And why is is that paradigm debunked? Because of the New Facts that you, with respect, cannot now refute. Because these New facts newly prove that routes of potential knowledge contamination are now 100 per cent newly proven to have existed. No myth on my part Mike, Why not? Because it’s all 100 per cent true. Isn’t it Mike. No myth at all on my part Mike. just uncomfortably disconfirming facts.
It’s not a bad dream Mike. It’s all true. All fact. All hard facts. All independently verifiable facts. And what do you have, with respect, to refute the New Facts Mike? What exactly have you got, with respect, beyond, with respect, your mere wishful thinking that facts are not facts? With respect, you have a big embarrassing nothing Mike, besides newly debunked unevidenced ideas that were dressed up as facts?
Facts Mike are facts. What I have is new facts Mike. Newly discovered facts. What have you got? All you have is something that has been wrong for 156 years. Now proven wrong. Just because something has been wrong for a very long time does not make it right Mike.
We find also now that the great friend of William Hooker – John Lindley (great friend of John Loudon – no less) did the exact same thing for 13 years to Matthew on Matthew’s priority for introducing giant redwood trees in the UK. Is that a supermyth too Mike – is that fact also a myth according to your, with respect, magical thinking, simply because you don’t like that uncomfortable and incriminating fact either? Funny isn’t it that Darwin, Wallace and Lindley were among the few naturalists at that time who thought species capable of evolving into new species.
Read the facts. The facts are newly discovered. And I discovered them. Deal with the facts Mike. I’m not interested in your factually debunked mere opinion – other than showing you that is all it is.
So, if facts – not debunked mere wishful thinking beliefs – are currency in the history of science, what actual facts do you have to disconfirm my disconfirming facts Mike? Or are you going to, with respect, admit that you are simply and credulously, in a state of denial, desperately worshipping a debunked myth. The fully fact-led debunked myth of Darwin the honest original discoverer?
With kindly, respect, bring facts not unevidenced beliefs to a fact fight Mike. Otherwise you will not stand a chance. On which note, I wish to make you an offer I think you dare not take up.
Would you like to publicly debate this with me Mike. Bring along as many of your Darwinist friends and colleagues and associates and contacts as you like. The more eminent the better. I will stand alone, completely alone, and debate my facts – the New Facts – against your mere opinions – and any facts you think are relevant – anywhere any place any time. A place of your naming Mike. I just insist that we film it and put the film on YouTube and Vimeo afterwards.
Consider that an academic gauntlet thrown down Mike.
This is a public challenge Mike
I dare you to debate this with me in front of your peers and students – or in front of mine! I have nothing to fear from the facts, or your mere opinions. Do you fear them?
Are you man enough to back up your accusations that I have created a supermyth of my own on this topic with substance? I am more than willing to debate against your accusations in public Mike! I would welcome it.
With respect Mike Weale – put up or, with respect, shut up!
So what is it to be then Mike?’
The existence of the uncomfortable New Facts, which have got so painfully under Dr Mike Weale's skin, and under the skin of Dr John van Wyhe, and many others, leading them to effectively to deny their very existence are reaching an ever wider audience (Sutton 2016 and Engber 2016) .
Very pleased to say that the King of Meta-Skeptics has endorsed my article in no uncertain terms... https://t.co/kGZnwDXqYf
Today this blog post is heavily influenced by some brainy ideas in "Who Will Debunk The Debunkers?" by Daniel Engber (2016) FiveThirtyEight.com April 28th 2016. 6.30am
Introducing “Rekdal’s Poison Irony Hypothesis”
“And so it goes, a whirligig of irony spinning around and around, down into the depths. Is there any way to escape this endless, maddening recursion? How might a skeptic keep his sanity?” (Daniel Engber 2016) *Archived HERE
Are those in a famously skeptical debunking group, or on a successful debunking campaign trail, more at risk of being blinded by their own smugness so as to be credulously less skeptical about their own conceptions of veracity regarding their own work?
Might this explain why Darwin scholars are in a sociological state of denial about:
(1) the very existence of facts that disconfirm their sacred mere beliefs that no naturalists read Patrick Matthew's original conception of natural selection before 1858?
(2) The plain fact that Darwin really is a proven serial liar in that regard (see Sutton 2014and Sutton 2016for the real facts). [UPDATE 2022 See now: "Science Fraud" the book by Mike Sutton.
And – with exquisitely painful irony – what warning might this serve for meta skeptics such as I?
Rekdal’s Hypothesis is a delightful cautionary hypothesis if ever there was one. But is it likely to be a good explanation for bias and error? Is it (a) Testable? (b) Disconfirmable? (c) Ironically capable of being varied if disconfirmed?
A conspiracy theory by proxy is where significant, independently peer reviewed, new and independently verifiable, factual, new data-led, paradigm changing discoveries of independently verifiable disconfirming facts, published in the scholarly literature, are summarily dismissed, without evidence, as being a silly conspiracy theory. In such cases, the person creating a 'conspiracy theory by proxy' produces no evidence that the new data discoverer has concocted any kind of conspiracy theory and may also deny that the data is new, deny it is veracious, deny it is significant or deny, without explanation, that it overturns existing knowledge beliefs. If thosebehaving in such a way have a vested career interest in suppressing the "New Data" then they are perhaps most likely to be either telling a deliberate lie, Frankfurtingly bullshiting (Frankfurt 2005), or else in a group "sociological state of denial" (Cohen 2001).
Ideally, anyone asserting that what has been said is a conspiracy theory should also demonstrate why. Accordingly, in current published absence of an easy reader on the history of discovery of natural selection, I have made some special "flash cards." These are three from a series of ten lies Darwin told in order to steal Matthew's glory. More details with full references to the historic facts can be found here.
Written in 1996. Undated. But written immediately after publication of his second book. This is the last of the 10 transcribed of the 11 Wavertree Letters from the retired surgeon and pioneering human organ transplant research scientist Jim Dempster to Ian Hardie of the Patrick Matthew Trust
Jim Dempster
Dear Ian, Thanks for yours of the 11th. Please give the books away as I have done here. The prof of Zoology at Edinburgh seems a nice guy; send him one. Send them to the academic departments in each big town. Hutton. I told you the mess Simmonds got into without looking up my book’s index! I spend some time on Hutton. He is the father of British Geology. Lyell took most of Hutton and added some relevant points and called it Uniformitarianism which dispensed with catastrophes (of Cuvier) and mass extinctions; these are now back after 170 years! If you find some on or thing new – look up the index. Harper will speak on Biodiversity. Diversity was introduced by Cuvier – the four main branches of animal life; he denied any heredity link along the branches but Lamarck added ‘branches’. Matthew introduced ‘diverging ramifications of life forms occupying a new field’ after a catastrophe. Edward Blyth (1835-37) came in with reiterate diversity and ramifications. Darwinists try to argue that Darwin introduced diversity; some mad American thought Darwin lifted divergence from Wallace. See my book. See page 132 for what Darwin missed in South Africa. Photographs. The only one I have I sent to Australia for a Scot, based in Queensland, who wants to include in his book a word about Matthew. I am sending you a brief outline of evolutionary paradigms. Paradigm is the ‘in’ word: American, of course! I have given the historical development of the ideas. Now that Cuvier’s catastrophes and mass extinctions are back Matthew’s paradigm is up do date. Darwin hated Cuvier – for some reason. Jealousy? He wrote that the catastrophes had been invented. This is in my book. I have the impression that Darwinists are not aware that the “Lyell-Darwin evolutionary paradigm’ had abolished catastrophes and mass extinction. Test the audience on this! Simmonds will not be going to Dundee. There is so much in my book one has to spend weeks on it. Simmonds keeps on finding things and fails to look at my index. I have not missed much and the few points I have missed I have committed to essays. Did I send you ‘the Consequences of punctuated equilibrium’? I have discussed the theory in my book. Gould and Eldredge – lifelong Darwinist propagandists now have a new role an ‘anti-Darwin mode’ which is punctuated eq. This restores the catastrophes and mass extinctions and much else which disagrees with Darwinism. BUT little about Lamarck and Cuvier! Kilpatrick. No enclosed article! The Scots have forgotten all their great men – Hutton, John Hunter (our Lamarck), Robert Grant (teacher of Darwin at Edinburgh and later prof. at University College, London – 1828). I deal with them in my book. Hunter is our link with Buffon and Lamarck. You could ask Kilpatrick who asked him to write on PM. Strange that pathologists should be interested. By the way on the ecology front. Matthew was complaining about
Dempster's second book.
Published in 1996
the extravagant use of fertilisers in the 1860s. Guano had been discovered and imported. Also his concern about the forests. The poor nature of nursery trees – Darwin takes up this point and acknowledges Matthew. For the organisers. Robert Smith is not in the Chambers Nat. Biographical Dictionary. Is he in the Scottish! If not send a brief statement to Prof John Horden, Univ of Stirling. Addendum – Ecology. If we accept that ecology is the study of plants and animals in their environment, then we are back to one of Lamarck’s main concepts approved of by no less than Darwin. See the Historical Sketch enclosed. Then turn to the first page, chapter 1 of all editions of the Origin of Species and there is a sentence with ‘the conditions of life’. Enclosed. Then turn to the Historical Sketch where Matthew is considered and you will find Darwin pointing out that Matthew stressed ‘the conditions of life’. Enclosed. Darwin is very odd about the conditions of life. The phrase occurs all over the Origin and yet he admitted to Professor Semper in 1881! (See the book page 148) that he had not given sufficient weight to ‘the conditions of life’. Look at 2nd paragraph. Was he denying his Lamarckian attachment[?] Darwin was a Covert Lamarckian! Use the Historical Sketch and Lamarck’s concepts and you will find them all in the Origin without any reference to Lamarck. Lamarck referenced once; Cuvier once The Creator referenced on average 6 times. Citation analysis would award first place to the Creator! No Creator in Lamarck or Matthew. Stress that because the Origin is supposed to be completely natural science. See my book page 212 – 2nd para – conditions of life This is not in the [my] book. Darwin elsewhere said that he could not find much evidence for ‘the conditions of life’ but that recently more evidence was appearing. Lamarck and Cuvier seem to have had enough evidence before Darwin was born; Matthew in the 1820s saw enough evidence. Some Darwinist may come in with this point. It seems to me that Darwin was hiding his Lamarckism. ~~~~~~~~~~
Notes and Comments by Mike Sutton
Here we see evidence that Dempster made sure free copies of his self-published book were distributed by the Patrick Matthew Trust, which funded its production. Most importantly we see also Dempster's analysis of where Matthew's work fits into the various breakthroughs in thinking made in academic development of the field of organic evolution and natural selection. Note that Matthew was first with the divergent ramifications of life and that Blyth built upon that only after Matthew and only after, as my original discovery reveals (Sutton 2014), Blyth's editor! Loudon reviewed Matthew's book in 1832 and mentioned the question of Matthew's originality on the question of the "origin of species" no less!. The importance of the bombshell discovery of this Matthew -> Loudon -> Blyth -> Wallace -> Darwin route of possible knowledge contamination is completely lost on many. Note also that Matthew's book was complete heresy because he excluded any notion of a creator in it - which probably explains, in part, why it was not cited much in the first half of the 19th century. This fact is dealt with at length in Nullius (Sutton 2014). It explains also why, pre-1858, it was banned by the public library of Perth in Scotland and why, pre-1858, a naturalist professor of an esteemed university failed to teach the observations in it for fear of pillory punishment.
Matthew's (1831) outright mockery of Christianity in his book would, in part, explain why Darwin lied from 1860 onwards that no one had read Matthew's original ideas on natural selection. Perhaps Darwin was afraid of his ideas being proven to have come via knowledge contamination from those of an outright heretic?
I am relieved to learn that my prior observations (see also Sutton 2016) that Wikipedia’s paid personal agenda editors are operating throughout the entire Wikipedia encyclopaedia to subvert the truth and bury annoying and uncomfortable dis-confirming facts for the “majority view” has been firmly confirmed by the research of other academics. Click here for an overview of my personal experiences with Wikipedia editors engaging in systematic fact deletion.
Regarding his published accusations against me and my research, the only excuse provided by Dr Mike Weale for his continued refusal to engage in an open public scholarly debate, in a university of his choosing, and at any time of his choosing, and with as much assistance and support from his colleagues, associates and contacts as he requires is that he fears I will ridicule his scholarship on the same topic. How very weird - oops!