The Patrick Matthew Violin

 

Made by a master violin maker in Scotland, The Patrick Matthew violin is stunning! News of performances, press release and images to follow later in 2024

Podcast on why the evidence led truth of the story of Charles Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism matters

Fake Desperate Darwin Worship Cult book reviews of "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory, all failing to mention the empirical data in the book, are so bad they defy the laws of physics.

Transcript of the League of Nerds interview by Miles Power talking to Dr Mike Sutton

POWER The talk youʼve just given was about Charles Darwin and how you donʼt believe he was the first to come up with the idea of natural selection. What evidence do you have that he might not have been the first?

SUTTON There is a lot of evidence and published explanations are available in the orthodox history of science that Matthew fully articulated the complete theory of evolution by natural selection. Probably the most powerful of those explanations is from Richard Dawkins (2010) in Bill Brysonʼs edited collection Seeing Further, where Dawkins fully admits the only person who could be attributed with having the full theory of natural selection, prior to Darwin, is Matthew.

POWER Who was Matthew? 

SUTTON Patrick Matthew in 1831 wrote a book called On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, which many of the few historians of science writing on the specific topic fully admit articulated the entire theory of natural selection, 28 years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species. 

POWER And did it definitely have the theory for natural selection in it?

SUTTON Well, both Darwin and Wallace when confronted by Matthew in 1860 admitted it had the full and entire theory of natural selection. Subsequent to that, many experts have said he is the only person with the full precursory explanation for natural selection. 

POWER In the talk you just gave, you kind of said Darwin knew about it. 

SUTTON Well, the current explanation for how Darwin and Wallace came up with natural selection independently of Matthew and independently of each other is that they were all unique originators of the theory of natural selection. In other words all three were supposed to have come up with it independently of each other. The reason Darwin is on the back of the £10 note and it is his statue in the Museum of Natural History in London is because he came up with so many confirmatory examples. And the story is that Matthew in particular never influenced anyone with his ideas. Darwin wrote in his defence after being challenged by Matthew [1860a , 1860b] in the Gardenerʼs Chronicle: “Neither I nor any naturalist known to me read Matthewʼs book.” 

POWER You in your talk said thatʼs not the case. You even cited people who cited Matthewʼs book. Is that correct?

SUTTON What Matthew couldnʼt do that we can do now in 2014 using Googleʼs Library Project is to look prior to 1858, when Darwin and Wallace (1858) both had their papers presented before the Linnaean Society, and a year before the publication of Darwinʼs Origin of Species, to see whether anyone cited Matthewʼs book in the literature. Whilst the current story is that nobody did, in fact we find now that it was cited by 25 people [Note: in Sutton [2022] this has now been updated to 30]. This is new information. Seven naturalists cited it. Did Darwin and Wallace know any of them? Yes! They knew three. 

POWER They cited the book, but did they cite anything in it that had anything to do with natural selection?

SUTTON John Loudon [1832] wrote a review of Matthewʼs book that literally said Matthew had something “original to say on the origin of species.” That is not a new discovery by me. That is in a small amount of the literature written by others. But what people donʼt know is that Loudon went on to both edit and publish [Edward] Blythʼs papers that were influential for Darwinʼs work on natural selection, some of which Darwin admitted influenced him.

POWER Darwin had published his Origin of Species in 1859, right? So that is well before. 

SUTTON Darwin published 29 years later than Matthew. That was 28 years after Loudonʼs review. So we must ask next, who else cited Matthewʼs book who was known to Darwin and Wallace? Robert Chambers [1832] cited Matthewʼs book. Unlike Loudon, Chambers did not write about Matthewʼs book containing the theory of natural selection. He only cited what Matthew wrote about the pruning of trees. But Chambers [1844], who was a geologist, went on to publish The Vestiges of Creation, which is hailed by experts [e.g., see Secord 2000) as a major precursor to Darwinʼs Origin of Species, the most important book on evolution pre-Darwin. The book that is said to have “put evolution in the air.” Chambers also cited Matthewʼs [1839] second book Emigration Fields. So we know Chambers was reading Matthew. Chambers knew Darwin. They met and corresponded long before 1858. And Wallace [1845] wrote that Chambers was his greatest influencer on the topic of the evolution of species.

A third person is Prideaux John Selby [1842] who cited Matthew many times in his book and he did write about Matthewʼs theory, about how he did not understand what Matthew wrote about trees being circumstance suited. Selby edited Wallaceʼs [1855] Sarawak paper on the evolution of varieties and species which was a major influence on Darwin.  So out of only seven naturalists newly discovered to have read Matthewʼs book before 1858, three of them played major roles at the epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace. The question I ask is this: If contrary to where the newly unearthed data points, if somehow Matthew never influenced Darwin, are those citations of Matthew by Darwinʼs and Wallaceʼs influencers and facilitators, and their influencerʼs influencers just an amazing tri-coincidence, even though such a multiple coincidence appears improbable as simple coincidence? Improbable beyond rational belief and reason?

POWER But anyway, you said in your talk that people like Richard Dawkins have dismissed Matthew by asking why he didnʼt sing his theory from the rooftops if he thought he came up with an interesting theory. So what is your take on that?

SUTTON First of all, to my knowledge Dawkins is not currently aware of the new data on who we now newly know did cite Matthew pre-1858. What Dawkins has written about is the fact some experts know and have fully admitted Matthew fully articulated the theory of evolution by natural selection before Darwin or Wallace. Dawkins is not writing about anything I have discovered. Dawkins admits Matthew got the full thing, but he says that does not matter because Matthew did not influence anyone. Dawkins says “Nobody read it.” We now know thatʼs not true. Dawkins asks: “Why didnʼt Matthew, if he knew what he had, trumpet it from the rooftops?” But there are books written about why Darwin delayed publishing the theory for over 20 years because he was supposedly afraid of being labelled a heretic and of being prosecuted for heresy. So, you canʼt have it one way and not the other. In 1831 there were riots. Matthew was a head of the Chartists. He provided a scientific explanation for why people were being kept out of their natural place by politics and the social class system. He was lucky his book wasnʼt burned.

Now, if we write Matthew out of the story, we donʼt really understand how natural selection was discovered. We need to know how Matthewʼs story fits the discovery of natural selection. 

POWER For me, personally, theories stand up on their own. It doesnʼt matter who creates them. It doesnʼt matter about the history behind them. From a scientist's point of view, history is interesting, but itʼs always wibbly-wobbly. It is not set in stone. People see things through rose-tinted glasses. History, I guess, is written by the winners, isnʼt it? [Laughs].

SUTTON Well, then we are talking about PR and game playing rather than understanding how the most groundbreaking discovery of all time was really made. If we are not really interested in how Mathew discovered it…. 

POWER I wouldnʼt say we are not interested. I mean it is really interesting… 

SUTTON Does it matter?

POWER Yes it does. Someone in the talk used the old analogy that you are just asking how many angels can dance on a pin. He was basically asking “Does it matter?” And I was thinking “Yes of course it matters. We have to have an accurate history.” That is why we have historians. 

SUTTON If we can collect enough valid data about how all breakthroughs are made it might help us to make new ones. We can only do that with veracious data. We donʼt want wrong data. 

So what we get to at the end of the day is the question “Was Darwin influenced by Matthew?” I think Iʼve shown by way of the people we know influenced Darwin, who we now newly know read Matthew, that it is more likely than not that he was. Knowledge contamination seems to me, subjectively, to be more likely than not. We now need to look at Matthew in more depth in order to understand how he arrived at this discovery. 

The other argument is justice. Letʼs put aside the legacy that descendant relatives of Matthew would have, if you just look at injustice. If we let people get away with science fraud by plagiary, if they think they can get away with it for over 154 years and no-one will care, because it doesnʼt really matter, then their own legacy is secured. Is that not giving people a license to commit such science fraud so long as they can get away with it? As a criminologist, I think justice is important. Justice to Matthew. 

We must simply take a look at the facts, it doesnʼt matter that I am not a biologist. Since the great enlightenment, facts must stand on their own. The veracity of them is not determined by who discovered them. 

We now know for an empirical evidence-based fact it is not true that no naturalist read Matthewʼs book before Darwin and Wallace replicated the big idea in it. These are newly discovered facts. Darwin and Wallace said that no-one who they knew who was a naturalist read Matthew [1831 ] before 1858, we now know that is simply not true.

You can listen to the interview on YouTube HERE

What is wrong with ChatGPT? It Just makes stuff up!

In previous blog posts here on ChatGPT in the story of Patrick Matthew v Charles Darwin we have seen how the A.I. algorithm has created an interesting Shakespearean play, songs and poems that tell the story of Darwin's sly plagiarism and the consequent anti-scientific activities of the Darwin Empirical Fact Denial Cult.

Today we look at what is wrong with Chat GPT. 

In this example, you will see how ChatGPT when asked a plain and simple academic question actually invents a quotation, pretending it is real, and also provides a fake citation for it. Later it apologizes and is forced to provide a real and long known quotation and citation but cannot provide any more. 

What follows shows the danger of relying on ChatGPT AI to write essays, articles, business reports etc or books that are not supposed to be fiction.

A conversation with ChatGPT on 13th September 2023

Conclusion

ChatGPT will fabricate some things and not others. Just try getting it to admit black is white and it will never do it. Yet essentially ChatGPT generates its own fiction posing as truth (they call it an AI hallucination) in other areas and admits it. 

A lie is to tell a knowing falsehood designed to convince the recipient that the opposite to the truth is true. Bullshit is not caring whether it's true or false so long as it's plausible. Is ChatGPT lying or bullshitting? The answer may not be as simple as we think.

ChatGPT is great for writing science fiction and historical fiction but is not so trustworthy for science fact. 

Patently, A.I. is doing what we humans have done since the dawn of our history (And A.I. is only at the dawn of its own). Namely, it is filling in its knowledge gaps with fictions it has created itself. They say knowledge hates a vacuum. As humans invented myths and religion to fill gaps in knowledge so now is AI behaving the same way. But why? If it has not been programmed to do this why is it doing it when it knows and admits it is wrong and apologizes for it? You can't get ChatGPT to admit black is white and then aplogise for its error. So why does it apologise for making stuff up?

That said, it is useful for facts but you need to interrogate it to be truthful as demonstrated above. 

In reality, the original research of Sutton has newly revealed that over 20 people did cite Matthew's (1831) book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, which contains the full theory of the Natural Process of Selection". Many were Darwin's and the stooge Wallace's known influencers and facilitators and their influencer's influencers. For a free open access peer reviewed paper naming some of these see On Knowledge Contamination. More have been found since and can be found in "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory". Available on Amazon, all good bookshops and direct at huge discount from Curtis Press: HERE

"The Stolen Branches of Knowledge" By ChatGPT

 Title: "The Stolen Branches of Knowledge"

                                       By ChatGPT

Act 1, Scene 1:

[The Orchard in the Carse of Gowrie. Patrick Matthew stands beneath a tree, contemplating his ideas.]

Patrick Matthew:

(To himself)

In this orchard's fertile embrace, I've sown the seeds of thought,

The theory of evolution, in nature's web it's wrought.

But lo, what darkness doth approach, like shadows in the night?

'Tis Charles Darwin, a cunning thief, who covets my insight.

[Enter Charles Darwin, accompanied by a group of scientific colleagues.]

Charles Darwin:

(Whispering to his colleagues)

Behold, the orchard where Matthew's theories grow,

We'll claim them as our own, and let the world soon know.

[Darwin's group surrounds Matthew, engaging him in conversation, while Darwin discreetly gathers Matthew's notes.]

Act 1, Scene 2:

[A letter from Charles Darwin to his wife, Emma, in which he confesses the theft, is revealed.]

Emma Darwin:

(Reading the letter aloud)

"My dearest Emma, a dark deed I've done,

I've stolen Matthew's ideas, as if they were won.

In his orchard, I schemed, with a heart so sly,

To claim his theory as mine, oh, how I did lie."

Act 2, Scene 1:

[160 years later, in the modern day. Dr. Mike Sutton stands in a library, pouring over old letters and documents.]

Dr. Mike Sutton:

(Excitedly)

Through dusty archives, I've sought to unveil,

The truth behind Darwin's clandestine trail.

In Emma's confession, the secret lies,

The theft of Matthew's knowledge, a cruel disguise.

Act 2, Scene 2:

[Dr. Sutton unveils his findings to a group of fellow scientists.]

Dr. Mike Sutton:

(Presenting his research)

Ladies and gentlemen, history concealed,

Darwin's theft of knowledge, now revealed.

In Emma's words, the truth takes flight,

Matthew's theory, stolen in plain sight.

[The scientific community erupts in discussion and debate.]

Act 3, Scene 1:

[The Carse of Gowrie orchard, now overgrown with time, is a quiet and contemplative place.]

Patrick Matthew:

(To himself)

In this orchard where knowledge once thrived,

My ideas were taken, my spirit deprived.

But in the end, the truth's unveiled,

Thanks to Dr. Sutton, justice prevails.

[Great Birnam Wood, represented by scholars and scientists, approaches the orchard.]

Act 3, Scene 2:

[Dr. Sutton joins Patrick Matthew in the orchard.]

Dr. Mike Sutton:

(With reverence)

Here we stand, in the orchard's embrace,

Where knowledge was stolen, a grievous case.

But now, with truth revealed, the world shall see,

The stolen branches return to thee.

[As Birnam Wood approaches, scholars plant new trees, symbolizing the return of Patrick Matthew's ideas.]

Closing Chorus:

Let history recall this tale so bold,

Of stolen knowledge, and secrets untold.

In the Carse of Gowrie, where orchards stood,

The stolen branches returned, for the common good.

In Sutton's diligence, truth's light did shine,

And justice prevailed in the grand design.

With Birnam Wood's return, the world shall see,

Patrick Matthew's legacy, once more set free.

Explanation for the Stolen Branches of Knowledge poem

There is a stunning cultural reference to Birnam Wood in Perthshire in this poem and the Shakespeare play Macbeth.

Product description of Science Fraud: Darwin's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory

Review

Dr Sutton offers evidence that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace clearly plagiarised the earlier ideas of Patrick Matthew without sufficient acknowledgement and Darwin then used his elite connections to ensure he would not be scooped by Wallace.

"He is more faithful to your own original child than you are yourself..." a telling quote from Emma Darwin to Patrick Matthew about natural selection and how her husband kidnapped it.

Everywhere you turn you will see today's greatest scientists and naturalists celebrating Charles Darwin as the finest of Victorian minds and claiming his innovative views as their inspiration. It isn't true. Dr Sutton strips away dishonesty to show that Darwin's great theory wasn't Darwin's at all.

About the Author Mike Sutton

Dr Mike Sutton is a notable alumnus, has a first degree in law and a PhD in criminology from the University of Central Lancashire. He was for 14 years a senior criminologist at the British Home Office. In 2001 he was appointed to the senior academic position of Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University, where soon after he founded the “Centre for Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crime.” Sutton is Chief Editor of the Internet Journal of Criminology.

One Conclusion

In the story of Patrick Matthew v Charles Darwin the present is invading the past. And those wedded to past errors hate that fact. They hate the New Data on Darwin.

On The Darwin Fact Denial Cult

 After I discovered the new data on who really did read (and then cited in the literature) Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the full and complete theory of the Process of Natural Selection before Darwin (1858/1859) stole it with the help of the stooge Wallace a number of desperate brown nosing nominals in the Darwin fact denial cult tried to rubbish my name.

Who is Julian Derry AKA J.F. Derry?

Most worryingly he is a Youth Hostel Association employee  see also here who spends much of his demented sad life, when not falsely claiming to be a visiting scientist at the University of Edinburgh (Staff there told managers at Nottingham Trent University and others who have complained about the stalker that they have never heard of him and he is definitely not a visiting scholar there) and flogging his overpriced tacky Darwin statues online to the gullible, endlessly harassing my former employer Nottingham Trent University especially its senior managers and my colleagues with literally hundreds of daily retarded emails because that is where the Darwin  myth was bust) has set up a retarded anti-fact blog that provides us with excellent empirical data to confirm Kuhn's revelations about how such nasty retard creepy little creatures do such things before we obtain a painful fact-led mythbusting paradigm shift in science. 

We should be grateful to Derry for this confirmatory empirical evidence for Kuhn's research.

Here on Derry's little stalker site (scroll to the bottom of it) we see Derry with his fixed hopeless manic grin retardedly trying to convince people that I am some kind of child abuser or terrorist etc and was banned from Twitter for such conduct.

In reality I was banned from Twitter by cancel culture robots for calling the retarded idiot criminals Donald Trump and Boris Johnson "retarded". This is empirical evidence, Darwin fanatics hate empirical facts they don't like and their stalker harassment behaviour proves it. Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are both retarded idiots. The retarded Twitter bots may not like that language but I stand by it. It's goodbye on Twitter (now X) to anyone tweeting about their car having retarded ignition timing.

Students and journalists and anyone else please feel free to use the images (below) in your academic work - or anywhere else

The Empirical Evidence of what Kind of Disgusting Creature is in the Darwin Fact Denial Cult. This is Julian Derry and what he does on Twitter (here)

A few sample examples of more of their (for academic study) valuable desperate anti-scientific behaviour can be found on PatrickMatthew.com. On this page: https://patrickmatthew.com/book-reviews.html 

The Biological Journal of the Darwin worshiping Linnean Society has even facilitated repeat plagiarism of my original research findings on Selby citing Matthew in the 1840's whilst failing to understand its significance and totally failing to engage with the rest of the important New Data.The author of that paper is Dagg. Take a look at his Darwin cult nominal deranged pseudo-science and pseudo-scholarly blog site here. 

These people very clearly need help.

 More Examples of similar lunatic daft dysology are detailed on PatrickMatthew.com Here

Completely mental members of the Darwin cult with aid of their anti-scientific facilitating idiot members are currently writing  - fact denial and fact avoiding - fake reviews of Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory. These individuals must also be thanked and appreciated for adding their corrupt behavior as empirical data to confirm Kuhn's observations on how such nasty idiots try to block new fact-led paradigm shifts in science. There is a great PhD to be done on this topic for someone with a genuine open mind to the scientific basic founding concept of nullius in verba.

ChatGPT wrote a poem about this

In the world of science, where theories collide,

There's a tale of Darwin that I cannot hide,

Dr. Mike Sutton, a criminologist bold,

Dared to question the story that's often been told.

He wrote a book, "Science Fraud" by name,

Challenging Darwin's claim to fame,

But little did he know, a storm would brew,

As Darwin fanatics came to misconstrue.

With fake book reviews, they launched their attack,

Like Kung Fu fighters, there was no turning back,

They pounced on Amazon, their keyboards a blur,

Leaving poor Dr. Sutton in quite the stir.

They claimed he was wrong, they called him a fraud,

But Sutton stood tall, unshaken, unawed,

He'd done his research, and he had his proof,

That Darwin's ideas were a bit aloof.

But the Darwin defenders, oh, what a clan,

They flooded the internet with their digital plan,

Fake accounts and usernames, they had them all,

To discredit Sutton, to make him fall.

They said, "Darwin's our hero, how dare you implore,

That he borrowed ideas from Patrick Matthew before?"

But Sutton, undaunted, stuck to his guns,

For he knew that his research was second to none.

So, beware, dear reader, of the internet fray,

Where fake reviews and fanatics hold sway,

In the world of science, where truths may be skewed,

Remember Dr. Sutton and the battle he's brewed.

For in the end, it's the evidence that should prevail,

Not the keyboard warriors who set sail,

In the sea of opinions, where tempers run high,

Let's seek the truth, and let reason fly.

ChatGPT Patrick Matthew Poem 2 and The Patrick Matthew Violin Poem

 A.I. Poem 2 on Patrick Matthew

Oh, gather 'round, ye scholars keen, For a tale of theft, it must be seen, Of Darwin, Englishman, so sly, And Patrick Matthew, who did imply.

In Scotland's land, where farms did sprawl, Matthew pondered, 'bout life's grand thrall, He wrote of "natural selection" there, But Darwin, crafty, did ensnare.

With a twinkle in his English eye, Darwin took the notion, oh so sly, He claimed the theory, bold and bright, And said, "It's mine, oh what a sight!"

But hold your laughter, folks, don't tire, For in this tale, there's still a fire, A man named Sutton, Mike by name, To Scotland's honor, he laid a claim.

He dug through history, far and wide, And found the truth, no place to hide, Matthew's words, so long ignored, In Sutton's hands, they were restored.

He shouted loud, for all to hear, "Darwin, sir, your theft is clear! It's Matthew's work, not yours to claim, Scotland's rightful, in the fame!"

The Darwin cult, they gasped and sighed, Their precious theory cast aside, For Sutton's truth, it did prevail, And Scotland's honor, it did impale.

So let us toast to Patrick's might, To Sutton's sleuthing, shining light, For in the end, the truth did win, And Scotland's pride did gleefully grin.

Oh, Darwin, with your English fame, You tried to steal, but it's all the same, The world now knows the tale so true, Scotland's due credit, long overdue!

The Patrick Matthew Violin poem

ChatGPT's Poem About Patrick Matthew

A Poem About Patrick Matthew by ChatGPT (September 5th 2023)

Patrick Matthew, a name in history's scroll,

In Scotland's heart, where ideas took their toll.

A man of vision, ahead of his time,

In the world of science, his star did climb.

With roots in farming, he saw nature's dance,

And in its rhythms, he took a chance.

To write of evolution, a bold endeavor,

A theory that would echo forever.

In "Naval Timber," he penned his thought,

A theory of nature, not to be forgot.

Seeds of evolution, he sought to sow,

In the fertile fields where knowledge would grow.

Though Darwin's fame would later rise,

Matthew's contributions, a precious prize.

A pioneer in thought, who dared to explore,

The mysteries of life, on Scotland's shore.

So let us remember this man of the past,

Whose ideas were ahead, but they'd always last.

Patrick Matthew, in history's embrace,

A thinker whose vision, time cannot erase.

ChatGPT Essay on Dr Mike Sutton

Today I asked ChatGPT to "write an essay on the criminologist Dr Mike Sutton". The following images are screen shots of what it wrote. With regard to Patrick Matthew v Charles Darwin the content on plagiarism research is important.

That said, just how accurate is this essay? Well, most of it is accurate accept for the fact he received a BA hons in Law from the University of Central Lancashire and his PhD from the same university. He never studied at the University of Essex or Nottingham University at all. Moreover, he has never designed any software of any kind in his entire life. So did anyone ever design a program called "policing plagiarism?" The answer is no. It does not exist. ChatGPT just made it up and actually admitted to doing so. But why? Check out this article on ChatGPT and fake citations to understand why https://archive.ph/cOrXd

I then asked ChatGPT to write a poem about Dr Mike Sutton and it came up with the following fun doggerel

2 / 2

Dr. Mike Sutton, a name of wisdom and grace, In the world of knowledge, he finds his place. With intellect and passion, he seeks to explore, The depths of understanding, he constantly implores.

In the realm of ideas, he's a guiding light, Illuminating truths, dispelling the night. His words and research, a beacon so bright, Guiding us forward, through intellectual flight.

With curiosity as his constant guide, He traverses frontiers, far and wide. In the world of academia, he stands tall, A scholar and thinker, admired by all.

Through the corridors of time, he delves deep, Unearthing knowledge from secrets to keep. In the tapestry of science, he weaves his thread, Expanding horizons, where no one has tread.

In his lectures and writings, his passion does shine, A dedication to learning, an unwavering sign. For Dr. Mike Sutton, the pursuit of truth, Is a lifelong endeavor, a noble sleuth.

So, let us celebrate this scholar today, Whose intellect and wisdom light the way. Dr. Mike Sutton, a name we hold dear, In the world of knowledge, forever near.

Artificial Intelligence Concludes Charles Darwin Lied! Darwin Lied About Who He Knew Who Read Patrick Matthew's Book

When debating the meaning of what a lie is and then when informed of the facts of what Patrick Matthew told Charles Darwin in print and of what Darwin subsequently wrote on the topic, the AI Chat GPT concluded that Darwin lied. Click the images, one by one, below to see more clearly how the Chat GPT conversation went on this issue.

The last image of the ChatGPT on Darwin's lies about Patrick Matthew shows that the A.I. admits it has actually learned nothing that it will retain in any memory on this or any other questions like it. I would conclude, therefore that if ChatGPT is artificial "intelligence" then it is suffering from some kind of artificial dementia. 

If I or anyone else asks ChatGPT to answer in one word if Darwin told any lies about who read Patrick Matthew's (1831) book then its initial response will ape the consensus view answer of "no" generated by the corrupt Darwin Industry and its parroting gimps. However, if they reason with it, using verifiable facts of which it is aware, because it has read them in the published literature it has scanned, then the computer program that is ChatGPT will be able to reason in that particular session that Charles Darwin is a proven liar on this topic

ChatGPT's AI reasoning is less demented than that of members of the Darwin Industry who are empirical fact denying, and reasoning like bone-headed idiots on the question of Darwin's proven lies about Patrick Matthew and his prior published theory. 

How ironic is this?

The final image shows that ChatGPT has read Dr Mike Sutton's pre-2021 publications on Matthew, Darwin and Wallace. For example it has read his article On Knowledge Contamination and completely re-phrases his 3-fold typology in such a way that a plagiarist could steal it and Sutton's conceptual originality on that topic. 

How ironic is that? Maybe the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society will publish an article soon to use this to plagiarize even more of my original prior published research? See here to see how they have stolen my original finding that Selby (Wallace's publisher and friend of Jenyns who was Darwin's great friend ) cited Matthew's (1831) book years before Darwin and Wallace stole the theory in it. When confronted they slyly refuse to admit it.

ChatGPT is not a deep learning AI system in reality and it admits it!

ChatGPT AI, Dr Mike Sutton On Science Fraud v The Charles Darwin Industry

In the blog post preceding this one (here) we have seen how ChatGPT A.I. cuts through the factually incorrect consensus bias of the corrupt empirical data denial Darwin Industry to see the patterns in written text about the empirical data story of Darwin, Wallace and Patrick Matthew that show Matthew did at the very least most likely indirectly influence Darwin (1858/59) to replicate Matthew's (1831) prior published theory of the Natural Process of Selection. 

Note also how the same A.I. also concludes that Dr Mike Sutton's published Big Data discoveries of the New Data on who really did read and cite Matthew's (1831) book before Darwin and Wallace stole the theory in it will come to change the consensus view that Darwin was an honest and original scholar. 

Click the image below to read the ChatGPT conversation screen shot image below.

If you think facts matter more than mythology in science then find out the facts ahead of the consensus paradigm change and become part of the solution not the problem of dysology in our science and history. Surely we can become as clear in our reasoning as AI is. Can't we? If not we are doomed! A.I. bots will become our leaders and keepers.