Given that so many people follow famous people like cattle, if I change my name to Richard Dawkins what would that do for book sales? By the way, Darwin superfan, Richard Dawkins has written empirical fact denial nonsense about Patrick Matthew. As Science Fraud, the book, proves with empirical evidence.
One question that is raised in Science Fraud, the book is: How many multiple coincidences in a real life story sum to the probability that they are not merely coincidental at all?
Some people think that the sheer number of individual remarkable coincidences in the Jim Twins story of twins who were separated at birth and led entirely independent lives before being reunited after more than 30 years, surely do sum to raise the hypothesis that some kind of strange unknown force governs the universe.
The Jim Twins (Information taken from the New York Times 1979).
■ Each married and then divorced a woman named Linda. Their second wives were both named Betty.
■ One named his first son James Allan, the other named his first son James Alan.
■ Each man grew up with an adopted brother named Larry.
■ During childhood, each owned a dog named Toy.
■ Both twins had law enforcement training and had worked part time as deputy sheriffs in their Ohio towns 70 miles apart.
■ They shared many common interests, such as mechanical drawing, block lettering and carpentry.
■ Both said their favorite school subject was math, their least favorite, spelling.
■ They vacationed at the same, three‐block‐long beach near St. Petersburg, Fla., both getting there and back in a Chevrolet. (but holidaying at different times from one another).
■ Their smoking and drinking patterns were nearly identical. Same brand of cigarettes smoked for example.
Taken together these coincidences do on the face of it appear extraordinary and many may see them as difficult to explain as mere coincidence.
But coincidences do happen, which is why we have a word for it, and if there really was no single or multiple knowledge contamination routes between the twins leading one to influence the other, or others to influence both, then it seems rational that the story requires a better explanation than genetic inheritance, or at least a more sophisticated explanation than what is currently available.
The Matthew v Darwin and Wallace Story
On this blog site, on the Patrick Matthew website and in the book Science Fraud you will discover how, not just that Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's (1831) original full theory of macro evolution by natural selection, but also used the exact four same words to name it and support and then explain it with the same explanatory analogy of differences between natural and artificial selection, replicated much of Matthews original prose but also his expert examples of fruit trees and apple hybridization to explain the importance of ecological niches and new varieties leading eventually to new species.
The Wallace and Darwin multiple replications would surely be as difficult to explain as mere coincidence as the story of the Jim Twins were it not for:
1. The multitude of examples of newly discovered (independently verifiable empirical data) multiple routes of direct and indirect knowledge contamination between Matthew and the two replicators Wallace and Darwin
2. The proven serial lies told by Darwin about Matthew's prior readership,
3. Wallace's letter to his mother that he dishonestly altered in his autobiography to conceal the evidence) that Darwin and his pals were paying him to play ball with Darwin's tall tale of independent replications of the same theory.
And so, what we have in the Matthew v Wallace and Darwin story as opposed to the Jim Twins story is not another supernatural hypothesis case of possible strange unknown forces governing human affairs but a simple case of science fraud by plagiarism and serial lies. And why does nobody really care about this? The answer is in the 2023 Springer Science book chapter by Dr Sutton and Dr Griffiths: The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science.
If you would like to ponder the Jim Twins story further in terms of asking yourself could it be more than pure multiple coincidence, then you might like to see this article on Elon Musk thinking we might be living in one big simulation, governed by aliens. If that explanation is true then perhaps the Jim Twins are a programming error (a The Matrix film type bug in the simulation) and perhaps not a bug, the Matthew v Darwin and Wallace Story is just a creative joke at the expense of the gullible (simulations of scientists and wannabee proper scientists known to those in the know as rabid Darwin worshipers) in the simulation? Have a look at this.
In the Springer Science book chapter on science ethics and academic integrity in the social sciences The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science (Sutton and Griffiths 2023) Professor of Psychology (Dr Mark Griffiths) and General Editor of The Internet Journal of Criminolgy, (Dr Mike Sutton) write about the ethical requirement not to bury painful empirical data. They also describe what happens to those who upset beloved myths, which are held dear as though they are true facts by the scientific community, by publishing and defending that data. In that chapter, they write:
"We know dangerous minds can engage in and create dangerous behaviour. More specifically, that can mean engaging in academic misconduct such as misrepresentation of data, brute censorship, and even criminal malicious harassment for those who dare to put their head above the parapet (see Sutton 2022) for fully evidenced examples of such behaviour by others following his naming of the scientists who cited Matthew pre-1858, vindictive, prolific and systematic workplace harassment behaviour that both authors of this chapter have been subject to because of their published work on this topic). We have been subjected to this disgraceful behaviour for daring to put our heads above the parapet by going into print to more widely disseminate empirical data that seriously questions the honesty and originality of Charles Darwin, arguably the world’s most beloved scientist.
The cultural resistance of the science community to researching this area, or indeed towards others doing so, is manifested by what Merton (1973) called“studied neglect of systematic study of multiples and priority.” Merton (1973 pp.391–392) explains why this is so:
"...charged with blemishing the record of undeniably great men of science; as though one were a raker of muck that a gentleman would pass by in silence. Even more, to investigate the subject systematically is to be regarded not merely as a muckraker, but as a muckmaker."
It follows, we must not be forced by unethical bias and fear of embarrassing exposure of earlier ignorance of wrongdoing by proclaimed experts to ignore important empirical data, because empirical data are necessarily what defines science (Strevens, 2020)."
After Charles Darwin super fan Dr John van Wyhe literally told, a Scottish journalist by email, that the new found empirical data on Darwin's lies and plagiarism were a "conspiracy theory" Dr Mike Sutton outed van Wyhe's email for its author's desperate deluded attempt to bury the facts on his Victorian hero with utter and dishonest nonsense. Doubling down on the same stupidity as van Wyhe, Dr Mike Weale, then of Kings College London, tried to have Dr Sutton disciplined and perhaps worse, suspended or sacked from his senior academic position as Reader in Criminology at Nottingham Trent University.
For the history of science and those interested in the criminology of workplace harassment, here is Dr Weal's ludicrous malicious letter.
Dr Mike Weale has been a prolific editor of the nuance avoidance, fact denial and deliberate misinformation and outright empirical data proven lies about Patrick Matthew that are on the deliberately misleading Patrick Matthew Wikipedia page - as has Julian Derry.
I have newly acquired a violin that is some 100 years old. The instrument, has scribed purfling, and is made of London plane tree wood AKA lacewood). The internal construction and other characteristics are such that it may well have been made in England. However, it has no makers mark or label. Not yet it doesn't. But I'm going to label it "The Charles Darwin Violin".
On the interlaced complexity of Fraud The Charles Darwin Lacewood Violin
 |
| The Charles Darwin Violin before restoration |
 |
| Lacewood: London Plane |
Darwin’s own private notebook of the books he actually read records he read Volumes 7 and 8 of Gardener’s Magazine.. Now, although Darwin’s notebook gives no year for the publication of these two volumes, which is confusing because in every new decade this magazine started a new series with volumes restarting at 1 again.
One volume 7 covers 1831 and anther volume 8 covers 1832. The latter contains Loudon’s all-important review of NTA, in which Loudon (correspondent of Darwin and friend of his best friend's (Joseph Hooker's) father, William Hooker, write that Matthew appeared to have something original to say on the origin of species! Volume 8 also makes reference to observations made by Darwin’s grandfather on pp. 308 and 502 about forest trees—no less!
To be even-handed, however, it seems most likely since Darwin was compiling a list of things to read and things read on March12, 1842 that it was volumes of that decade—Volume 7 of 1841 and Volume 8 of 1842—that he recorded reading in his notebook, although we cannot know that for sure. But even in Volume 7 of 1841 on pp. 440 to 444 Matthew and his 1831 book is the subject of an article by the celebrity arborist Gavin Cree (Cree 1841) on tree pruning. In that volume on p. 216 Charles Darwin is mocked as being delusional regarding his observations on earthworms.
So, whatever decade Darwin was referring to in his notes there is a published reference to Matthew and his 1831 book in both! According to the facts, Matthew was hardly an obscure author of an unread book/theory in the first half of the 19th century.
To underscore the point yet further, Darwin’s private notebooks and his archived library reveal he read at least five publications that either cite or contain articles about Matthew and NTA:
(1) The Athenæum (1839) (block advertisement for Naval Timber and review of Emigration Fields).
(2) Loudon (1831) (citing Matthew in Bibliography).
(3) Loudon (1838) (article citing Matthew).
(4) The Gardener’s Magazine (1841) (article throwing down a challenge to Matthew on tree pruning). Assuming this is the one Darwin refers to and not the 1832 one containing Loudon’s important review of NTA.
(5) Memoirs of the Caledonian Horticultural Society of Edinburgh (1814–1832) (block advertisement for NTA).
This is just one more fact that tells us exactly why Matthew belongs at the very centre of Darwin’s story and not on the fringes, as the Darwin Industry wants you to believe.
The interlaced (like lacewood) facts prove Matthew wasn’t obscure in the 1830s and 1840s, and neither was NTA. Therefore, Darwin’s excuse-claim that Matthew's (1831) was unread is demolished by verifiable facts proving books about Matthew were held in Darwin’s own hands before he replicated the theory in NTA.
A prolific author, fellow of the Linnean Society and the Royal Society, and a corresponding member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Loudon was a friend and correspondent of William Hooker and co-published with Hooker’s close friend and fellow economic botanist John Lindley.
The Gavin Cree to David Low connections to Charles Darwin via the 1831 book of Patrick Matthew
In 1834 David Low was
apparently First to be second into published print (F2B2) with the apparently original Naval Timber and Arboriculture (NTA) phrase “long continued selection” in his book Elements of Practical Agriculture:
Comprehending the Cultivation of Plants, the Husbandry of Domestic Animals and
the Economy of the Farm.
Although he never personally cited Matthew (1831), he was
founding editor of the Quarterly Journal
of Agriculture at the time it published Gavin Cree’s (1832) letter on
pruning that criticised NTA. Thus it
was Low who ruled as editor in favour of Cree against Matthew in that edition
of the journal (Canadian Agriculturalist
1859, p. 32). Low (1844) wrote about naval timber on pp. 583–585 of his book on
“landed property” and did so again on p. 88 of his book on forest trees (Low
1853).
63
Just four years older than Matthew, Low was a highly
esteemed professor of agriculture at the University of Edinburgh. Most
importantly, like many who cited NTA—or
else apparently first duplicated apparently original Matthewisms from NTA—Low was a fellow of the Royal
Society of Edinburgh. He was also a member of the Royal Academy of Agriculture
of Sweden.
Darwin adopted the exact same original NTA Matthewism in his essay of 1842 (Darwin 1842, pp. 32 and 33)
where he writes in secret:
“Now according to analogy of domesticated
animals let us see what would result. Let us take case of farmer on Pampas,
where everything approaches nearer to state of nature. He works on organisms
having strong tendency to vary: and he knows only way to make a distinct breed
is to select and separate. It would be useless to separate the best bulls and pair
with best cows if their offspring run loose and bred with the other herds, and
tendency to reversion not counteracted; he would endeavour therefore to get his
cows on islands and then commence his work of selection. If several farmers in
different regions were to set to work, especially if with different objects,
several breeds would soon be produced. So would it be with horticulturist and
so history of every plant shows; the number of varieties increase in proportion
to care bestowed on their selection and, with crossing plants, separation. Now,
according to this analogy, change of external conditions, and isolation either
by chance landing a form on an island, or subsidence dividing a continent, or
great chain of mountains, and the number of individuals not being numerous will
best favour variation and selection. No doubt change could be effected in same
country without any barrier by long continued
selection on one species: even in case of a plant not capable of crossing
would easier get possession and solely occupy an island.”
Then in Origin
(Darwin 1859, p. 192) he used it again:
“As every one would be surprised if two
exactly similar but peculiar varieties of any species were raised by man by long continued selection, in two different
countries, or at two very different periods, so we ought not to expect that an
exactly similar form would be produced from the modification of an old one in
two distinct countries or at two distinct periods.”
Low published a number if
notable books such as Elements of
Practical Agriculture (1834), The
Breeds of Domesticated Animals (1840), and An Enquiry into the Nature of the Simple Bodies of Chemistry
(1848).
On p. 546 in another of his books On Landed Property, and the Economy of Estates (1844) Low was once again apparently F2B2 with an apparently original NTA expression—once again without citing Matthew. In this later book he uses Matthew’s apparently original phrase “overpowering the less.” This discovery of Low twice replicating Matthew’s unique phrases in different books appears to confirm the veracity of the F2B2 hypothesis, the value of the method in identifying plagiarism of ideas, and the influence that such plagiarism has on others. This conclusion is further confirmed by the fact that in his F2B2 use of this NTA phrase Low replicated Matthew’s exclusive theme that trees grown by means of artificial selection in nurseries were inferior to those naturally selected by nature. The exact same highly important theme that Eiseley (1979) discovered Darwin replicated in his 1844 private essay! Low (1844, p. 546) writes:
“The Wild Pine attains its greatest
perfection of growth and form in the colder countries, and on the older rock
formations. It is in its native regions of granite, gneiss and the allied
deposits, that it grows in extended forests over hundreds of leagues, overpowering the less robust species. When
transplanted to the lower plains and subjected to culture, it loses so much of
the aspect and characters of the noble original, as scarcely to appear the
same. No change can be greater to the habits of a plant than the transportation
of this child of the mountain to the shelter and cultivated soil of the
nursery; and when the seeds of these cultivated trees are collected and sown
again, the progeny diverges more and more from the parent type. Hence one of
the reasons why so many worthless plantations of pine appear in the plains of
England and Scotland, and why so much discredit has become attached to the
culture of the species.”
It is of paramount importance at this juncture to note that
this newly discovered evidence in fact provides Darwin with a defence against
Eiseley’s (1979) claim that Darwin’s use of artificially selected trees to
explain natural selection in his unpublished 1844 essay is clear evidence of
plagiarism directly from NTA.
Although Low almost certainly got it from Matthew (1831), Darwin could just
possibly have got it from reading Low (1844).
Whatever the case, again we see Matthew’s progeny in the
relevant literature as influencing the man who influenced the man. Moreover,
and most importantly, we should note that Low published his book containing the
analogy in 1844, which is the very same year Darwin’s private essay replicated
the exact same highly idiosyncratic tree analogy.
This is strong evidence of NTA influencing Low and passing it on to Darwin, or of NTA directly influencing Darwin, or
both.
Interestingly, in his notebook of “Books Read and Books to
Read” Darwin writes in December 1839, “Advertised. David Low Treatise on Domestic Animals; also
Illustrations of the Domestic animals of Gt. Britain—must be read carefully.”
However, in that same notebook Darwin makes no mention of having read Low’s Elements of Practical Agriculture or of On Landed Property. In Origin, however, we know Darwin went on
to use the same apparently NTA-coined
phrase “long continued selection” as several other writers did following Low’s
1834 first replication of it. Whereas Low
hyphenated the phrase, Darwin used it without the hyphen just as Matthew
had it in NTA. This is suggestive
Darwin got the phrase from NTA, not
from Low, who probably got it from NTA.
But we cannot be sure one way or the other.
Twice replicating phrases apparently first coined in NTA is unlikely to be purely
coincidental given that Low was apparently twice to be first with these
apparently original Matthewisms in different publications and, most
significantly, was a former Perth Academy schoolmate of Patrick Matthew.
Professor David Low of Edinburgh University might even be
the unnamed professor that Matthew (1860a) referred to in the Gardeners’ Chronicle as the professor at
an esteemed university who could not teach NTA’s
heretical hypothesis of natural selection for fear of pillory punishment on the cutty stool.
Conclusion
The evidence of Darwin's science fraud by plagiarism is extremely interlaced, like lacewood. In just this very small snippet of the empirical evidence in "Science Fraud" the book we can see how this complexity has protected Darwin and his fact denial superfans and authoritarian supermyth supporting and facilitation toadies.
The Darwin Lacewood Violin is a perfect tool to help explain the facts.
Get the empirical independently verifiable facts.
Remember you should not simply accept what you read or watch on TV.
The Patrick Matthew Effect in Science. Read the Springier Science published facts and the naming and shaming :
Scientists, and indeed all educators of science and history should not teach as facts their own (or groupthink) mere beliefs or wishful thinking. They should (indeed must) teach verifiable facts only as facts. And it is a verifiable fact that, as opposed to the old mere belief that no one whatsoever/none known to Darwin or Wallace pre-1860 read Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the full and complete theory of macroevolution by natural selection, over 30 people actually read Matthew's book before Darwin's and Wallace's claimed independent replications of Matthew's theory pre-1858/1859. How do we know this? Because they cited it in the literature years before Darwin's and Wallace's work. Moreover several were Darwin's and Wallace's admitted greatest influencers on the topic!
We are currently here at the intersection between the dishonest/delusional art of the Darwin Industry and the genuine science behind history and the fact led history behind science.
Get the facts. read "Science Fraud". Available directly from Curtis Press HERE
The extraordinary claim made by Darwin, after being confronted by Matthew in the press in 1860, and the further exaggerated claims made by Darwin writers since, that no single person read Matthew's 1831 prior published theory before 1860 can be dealt with and debunked as falsehoods by going back to original published evidence sources. And the book "Science Fraud" reveals, by way of the original published letters of Darwin and Matthew in the Gardeners Chronicle in 1860 that Matthew informed Darwin in published print of just who actually did read his theory and why it was deemed heretical and his ideas therefore suffered much brute censorship in in the first half of the 19th century. Furthermore, the new found evidence presented in Science Fraud of who else read and cited Matthew's 1831 book before 1858 is also a series of original accounts representing empirical evidence.
Conclusion
When we look for the extraordinary hard evidence to support the extraordinary claim made by Darwin after 1860, and parroted and exaggerated since by Darwin so-called "experts", that no one read the original ideas in Matthew's prominently published book before 1860, what we actually find is no extraordinary evidence at all. Instead original sources prove the claims to be false. Moreover, the newly discovered evidence that Matthew's 1831 book was cited over 30 times in the published literature pre-1858 literature.
This is is why I claim that on a balance of reasonable probability, and almost certainly beyond reasonable doubt, it can today be shown that Matthew's 1831 theory did influence its replicators Darwin and Wallace to replicate it before they replicated it.
Furthermore, because original sources show he was prior told in print by Matthew in 1860 that others such as John Loudon, and a prominent professor, had read it Darwin lied when he claimed the exact opposite was true. Original sources prove therefore that Darwin was a serial liar about the man whose theory he replicated and thereafter referred to as "my theory" until the day he died.
I was thinking about how so many people have misinterpreted/misunderstood/parroted the myth that the Shrodinger's cat thought experiment proves that any cat in a box with a 50/50 chance of being killed by a toxin inside is both either alive or dead until the outcome is observed by a conscious being. As LiveScience.com explains:
"Schrödinger's cat cut to the heart of what was bizarre about Bohr's interpretation of reality: the lack of a clear dividing line between the quantum and everyday realms. While most people think it provides an example in support of particles lacking clearly-defined properties until they are measured, Schrödinger's original intention was the exact opposite—to show that such an idea was nonsensical. Yet, for many decades, physicists largely ignored this problem, moving on to other quandaries. "
Maybe the use of a human in a Shroedinger influenced thought experiment would help explain the absurdity of applying quantum (subatomic) physics theory to the everyday observable world of larger objects will help things along?
Here goes.: If you wish to misunderstand the Dead Cat thought experiment then consider the idea that Both Darwin and Wallace both did not and did plagiarise Patrick Matthew's prior published full theory of macroevolution by natural selection until the creation of Google's BigData library revealed to the world that on both the legal notion of balance of "reasonable probability" and "beyond all reasonable doubt" the new found empirical data (added to existing already found data) reveals, by way of conscious observation of the empirical data, now beyond all reasonable doubt, that they most certainly did.
Let us call the explanatory analogy "Sutton's Dead Darwin Copycat Thought Experiment".
Empirical facts are facts. They are intrinsic truth. And it is a truism that "truth is truth". Moreover, lies are lies and falsehood are not truth, they are the enemy of truth and the enemy of history and science.
If you want a veracious history of science then you need to stop being boring.
If you think the Darwin Industry, and its crumb from their table begging harassment toadies, are ethical, honest and reasonable people then you are mistaken.
You have to think and then act like an inventive and innovative originator if you wish to overcome the brute censorship of the empirical data in the story of Matthew v Darwin and Wallace.
I am glad to see that the discovery of the Spinach and Iron supermyth has been positively cited in the British Medical Journal in 2023 as an important discovery.
As Springer Science has a book chapter that came out in 20203 on the "Patrick Matthew Effect in Science", it is surely only a matter of time before the Darwin and Matthew supermyth is similarly cited in prestigious journals and the Darwin Industry is compelled to officially distance itself from its current corrupt policy of enabling and facilitating dementedly malicious fact denial harassment zombies on the likes of Wikipedia to attack, with blatant lies and malicious misinformation, anyone daring to write or teach the new found empirical facts on Darwin's science fraud by plagiary and supporting lies.
