IDD Method Not Working At All Now

When I first used the IDD research method back in 2013/14, I disproved the Darwin supermyth lie that no one at all / no naturalist had read Matthew's (1831) book (containing the original theory of macro evolution by natural selection) before Darwin and Wallace (1858/59) plagiarised it.

The powerful IDD method detected that Darwin's and Wallace's primary influencers and friends, and their friend's' friends, and even Wallace's Sarawak paper editor Selby (an original highly important discovery later plagiarised by Dagg), had cited it!

For the detailed facts on who did cite Matthew pre-1858 see Sutton "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret"

List 1.

In our paper on the IDD method, Professor Mark Griffiths and I noted that since the introduction of the autonomous artificial intelligence deep learning RankBrain  to run Google books that the IDD method was finding much less than it did in 2014/14.

Yesterday, RankBrain (a bot) actually asked me if I am a bot when I used the IDD method.

Today, 27 June 2020 the IDD method could detect, besides the scathing Edinburgh Literary Review, and the positive Metropolitan Magazine review, and John Loudon's most famous 1832 review (which most tellingly said Matthew had something orignal to say on "the origin of species" no less), and the Quarterly Review article on dry rot, just a handful of pre-1859 books and other publications that mention Matthew's 1831 book. But these others do so only by way of advertisements for it, Advertisements are not even included in my above list of citations.  Luckily I did the original 2014/14 IDD research when I did. The jealous and sneaky plagiarist Dr Dagg would never have been able to plagiarise my Selby discovery otherwise!


.

Dr Joachim Dagg of the @RoninInstitute should thank me for discovering & using the IDD method when I did (so he could deliberately plagiarise my discoveries in Linnean Journal @BiolJLinnSoc ) @DrMarkGriffiths. Because today it is not working at all.

SEE https://t.co/DOdmKcEgbG

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 26, 2020

.

What is your policy on your members committing acts of serious and deliberate academic plagiarism? I am not asking for a friend.

Here is one of your members doing exactly that. His name is Dr Joachim Dagg and he did it in the @BiolJLinnSoc journal: https://t.co/SbV6TXsmdK

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 26, 2020

IDD method and Google's Bot Asks If I am A Bot

It is not often that a deep learning AI bot asks you if you are a bot when searching on Google with the IDD method. Is it?

Google, it appears on the basis of this evidence, is not designed to be interrogated by this powerfully unique method. Maybe that is why if it were used today rather than back in 2013/14, when I first used it to look to see who really did cite Patrick Matthew before Darwin plagiarised his theory and claimed in his lying defence that no naturalist / no one whatsoever did read it, the books that I uniquely discovered, and we now know exist and can, thankfully therefore, read in libraries, can sadly no longer be detected with the IDD method. It seems that it is Google's Rank Brain (AI) that has diminished the power of Google to search Google's Library of millions of scanned books and other publications. See Sutton and Griffiths Here.

Unscientific, Thick, Incurious, Credulous Scientists, Patrick Matthew and Covid19

We should not be surprised that English scientists advising the UK government on the 2020 Covid19 pandemic have got so much wrong and are refusing to admit it and would rather tens of thousands more people die than back pedal on their mistakes, lose face and their status.

 Get the full story on the Patrick Matthew website: https://patrickmatthew.com/
.

Scientists often turn to the past to understand where we are today. To understand why the government has been misled by scientifically incurious, credulous ludicrous dogma following pseudo-scholars we can learn much studying imbecilic Darwin worshippers: https://t.co/RKbJV7ogAU

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 21, 2020

Rob Roy

Nothing to with Patrick Matthew (not directly anyway, although his neighbours the Drummonds of Perthshire get a mention). But here is some great Covid19 lock down entertainment. I saw this film some 56 years ago at the cinema. It's a somewhat forgotten Disney version of Rob Roy. Filmed in Scotland and using real Scottish soldiers in the battle scenes.

HERE

Tackling the Darwin Myth Pandemic Using Track and Trace Research

Using the BigData IDD method to bust the myth that no one read Matthew's prior published discovery of evolution by natural selection and then to track and trace their relationship to Darwin and his personal contacts. See On Knowledge Contamination and Nullius in Verba for the scientific findings.

Tackling a virus & fraudulent Meme pandemic. Following evidence of "knowledge contamination" "tracking & tracing" used to see, contrary to Darwin's science myth that none whatsoever read Matthew's published discovery of natural selection. Who did cite it! https://t.co/aInM0fTdvH pic.twitter.com/9FgYWyznK5

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 10, 2020

.

Did T Horton James read On Naval Timber?

Here is an article citing Matthew's Emigration fields and Matthew as the author of "On Naval Timber". It is reproduced in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine in 1839 (Here).

There is no evidence the author read On Naval Timber. But it is further evidence of the extent to which Matthew's book was cited in popular literature long before Darwin and Wallace plagiarised it.

Thomas Horton James was a merchant and traveller: See: https://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/page/A137272

Terraforming: and Patrick Matthew

Veracity v Myth and Matthew V Darwin in the invention of terraforming

Based on the Supermyth that Darwin and Wallace uniquely and independently discovered the natural process of selection, there is a related, daughter, myth that Charles Darwin, together with his botanical mentor and best friend Joseph Hooker uniquely invented terraforming by way of what they did on Ascension Island (e.g. that story here).

In reality it is Patrick Matthew, the plagiarized and cheated 1831 originator of the theory of natural selection, whose research and observations of nature provided the factual and theoretical base for terraforming.

When, in 1831, Matthew published his theory in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, it contained, amongst other religious heresy at the time, the heresy that trees could grow better in other than their "natural" habitats when transplanted there by humans. This heresy was heretical because it went against then Christian doctrine that "God", as designer and creator, placed every living thing in its ideal location. Matthew's heresy probably just one of those that led his book to banned by Perth public Library in Scotland and for reviewers to demand readers not even think about his ruminations on the laws of nature. Indeed, Selby (a regular church-going Christian naturalist, who I, in 2014, 2014a, 2015 see my later 2016 paperback uniquely discovered cited Matthew's book in 1842 and wrote that he could not understand this idea before going on to be chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's 1855 Sarawak paper. NOTE: My Selby discovery was later plagiarized in the Linnean Journal by Dagg The Jealous and Sly Plagiarist - facts here).

In 1843, a year after Selby (1842) noted what Matthew had written abut some trees doing well outside their natural habitat, Joseph Hooker landed on Ascension Island (see here and here) and arranged for an abundance of different species of tree to be planted there.

Selby wrote that he could not understand how it could be so that Matthew said trees could do better when grown outside their natural habitat. See Prideaux John Selby, A History of British Forest-Trees: Indigenous and Introduced, Van Voorst, London 1842. In this way, whether he really could understand it (but pretended otherwise to appease the powerful church) or not, Selby drew attention to Matthew's heresy. Later it was picked up upon as no more than an important fact for economic botany and cited prominently by William Hooker's (William being Joseph Hooker's father and also a friend of the Darwin and his wife) correspondent William Jameson in 1853 (facts here).

The United Service Journal and Naval and Military Magazine published an extended review in the 1831 Part II and 1831 Part III numbers of the magazine:

"But we disclaim participation in his ruminations on the law of Nature, or on the outrages committed upon reason and justice by our burthens of hereditary nobility, entailed property, and insane enactments."

Darwin and his cronies capitalized upon the opportunistic fact Matthew had been earlier silenced in the first half of the 19th century when the church was still in its ascendancy to steal his ideas. Indeed, while Matthew mocked the church and priests, in many editions of the Origin of Species Darwin kept the notion of "The Creator" in as a supernatural deity that created evolution by natural selection. 

Patrick Matthew's Book donated by J Strang - 1848 Mechanics Institute Library

The 1848 list of books held by Glasgow's mechanics institute lists Patrick Matthew's (1831) book amongst others on botany. The copy was donated by J. Strang. HERE

Masks and the Matthew Awards

Another nominee for the Mathew Awards in natural v artificial selection

Ever wondered how @realDonaldTrump got elected?

Puzzle no more... https://t.co/t5PzzwrdYI

— Adrian Littlejohn (@yorksfella59) May 4, 2020

Tower of Babel Moment on the Internet?

Why did AI stop me and others from discovering more bombshell breakthroughs with the IDD method?

In the entire history of human technology, is it true we have never thwarted related scientific progress? What about when #RankBrain AI thwarted functionality on Google's Library? Were we getting to know too much? Too close?

Is it a #TowerOfBabel analogy? https://t.co/Nli3gCzRvO pic.twitter.com/Tm2tmZRCwX

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 4, 2020

HERE 

.

And is it better, or worse, that it was (presumably) driven by a mindless and valueless (by which I mean 'without values' rather than worthless) commercial imperative rather than a philosophical or ideological position? Tragic, either way.

— Andy Sutton (@faceblindandy) May 4, 2020