ReTweet for Veracity Sake!

Oh for veracity sake! Please don't be misled any longer by 100% disproven 'nonsense on stilts' Please retweet facts pic.twitter.com/PQkMZ0oVGh

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 21, 2015

Patrick Matthew's Memorial Stone in the Carse of Gowry

Patrick Matthew's memorial stone in the Carse of Gowry Scotland: https://t.co/WSHCuYYrBE pic.twitter.com/D12Tk5YZKZ

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) November 18, 2015

To Publish 100 Per Cent Veracity versus Ignoring a 'Stain upon the Silence'

My earliest remembered thoughts on the topic of this blog post began some years ago when I read a British Society of Criminology article entitled: 'Leaving a ‘Stain upon the Silence: Contemporary Criminology and the Politics of Dissent' by Paddy Hillyard*, Joe Sim, Steve Tombs † and Dave Whyte (here   ).

In that 2004 article, the authors noted how the British Home Office funding of certain types of research project aimed, ultimately, at reducing crime quickly with least cost, was diminishing the worth of others that adopted a more critically nuanced view of seeking a longer term solution focused on improving our understanding of both the underlying causes of crime and the various processes whereby offenders enter the criminal justice system. The authors argued that the issue they were raising was seen almost as academic taboo and that, increasingly, the British Home Office was facilitating the imposition of a narrow and pernicious research agenda - in our British universities - that was being funded and sanctioned by the state. They felt that the type of work that interested them most was being slowly silenced.

Used only with express written permission

On which note, when I and my colleague Philip Hodgson first published our article 'The Problem of Zombie Cops in Voodoo Criminology' (Here   ). to show that the arithmetic and reasoning behind the widely cited Home Office claim - and effective orthodoxy - that beat policing was ineffective at preventing crime was nonsense on stilts, I was told by some colleagues, both in and outside my own university, including some very senior academics indeed that (a) I should desist and feel ashamed because I was promoting conspiracy-theory thinking (b) I was playing into the hands of the 'critical - cultural - criminology' school by giving them ammunition to throw at those who were seeking to promote what they describe as a more academically 'vigorous' policy-oriented, hard data driven, crime science (c) that I was wrecking my career chances because I would now be seen as a bitter and wrathful contrarian by those with whom I have worked and collaborated in the past.

Copyright Dr Mike Sutton 2012Used only with express written permission

The exact same arguments have been made regarding my later work on why the current criminological notion of 'crime opportunity' as a cause of crime is utter nonsense because its premises on what constitutes an opportunity and what represents a good causal explanation are 100% wrong. (See: Sutton 2015) .

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

Stepping off the obvious path of criminology last year, I published a book in the field of evolutionary biology. In my book: Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret (here   ), I also absolutely 100% prove that current orthodox 'knowledge' about the history of discovery of natural selection is based on a set of myths that have - following my original research - been completely punctured by hard facts that prove them completely and absolutely untrue. As a result, I have been repeatedly told off for setting the mythical record straight on this topic with hard and, independently verifiable, newly discovered data. The telling off is based upon the reasoning that I should not have written this book because I am (a) giving ammunition to conspiracy theorists and (b) giving ammunition for creationists to throw at Darwinists. The fear of arming creationists with veracious facts comes from those who know the history of academic battle fighting in the American educational system against the teaching of divine species creationism as a compulsory subject or as science. (Sutton 2104).

My own experiences of being criticised by eminent academics for exposing and proposing a solution to tackle such stains upon the silence regarding hard facts in various areas of orthodox 'knowledge' must sit amongst a multitude of others - some probably far more serious and important - that began centuries ago with crimes of heresy, sedition and treason.

That today, following the 18th Century Age of Enlightenment that began in Europe, others - who should know better - still seek to silence veracious independently verifiable hard-fact-based knowledge. I think this is an area upon which we should now be shining an exposing spotlight. And to be absolutely clear, by that I mean we should be producing the evidence that shows who it is who has been making the stain upon the silence.

Used only with express written permission

As the Founding Director of the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crimes, I am aware of how allowing the teaching of absurdities might perhaps lead ultimately - along a spectrum of such'dysology'    (bad scholarship) - to the production of "academic atrocities". I think it might well also play a hand in facilitating violent atrocities. For example, according to many scholars, Adolph Hitler was convinced that the fictional book "The Protocols of Zion" was evidence of a genuine Jewish world domination conspiracy. That fallacious belief byHitler, combined with his pseudo-scientific notions of white Aryan supremacy, played no small part in the arguments made inside his own head and then conveyed to others for carrying out the Holocaust.

Public Domain

Hence, as a hate crimes scholar, I am interested in researching what may possibly be a process by which academic absurdities lead to violent irrationalism of the kind that happened in hit Paris this month.   

I am interested also in other areas where the exposure of stains upon the silence have been criticised.

I am currently reading "The Book of Matt: Hidden Truths about the Murder of Matthew Sheppard' (Here   ). The book (written by the gay journalist Stephen Jimenez) reveals considerable new, hard dis-confirming evidence for the orthodox criminological 'knowledge' that Matthew Shepard was the victim of a homophobic hate crime. Jimenez has been criticised by his detractors for denigrating the official story of the Matthew Shepard killing because the evidence he is presenting provides ammunition for the anti-hate crime lobby, because the Shepard killing was one of two recognised notorious hate crimes that led to the enactment of hate crime legislation in the USA.

One of my colleagues, Claire Cohen recently published a book on male rape: ' Male Rape is a Feminist Issue: Feminism, Governmentality and Male Rape' (Here   ). Her book has received some vitriolic reviews by some academics who argue that her subject matter and arguments draws attention and resources away from the area that they have sought so long and so hard to establish, which is to have rape of women taken more seriously, prosecuted more effectively and treated more fairly - ultimately, with an aim to reduce the currently high incidence and prevalence of rape of females.

In all these cases that I outline in this blog post, I take to my heart and mind the reasoning supplied by Stephen Jimenez for exposing the stain upon the silence about the Shepard killing. He tells us that as a gay man he deserves better than to have the case made for better protection of the rights of the gay community based upon what is in fact discoverable with facts to be a myth.

Conclusion

I am, therefore, seeking out, exposing and tackling stains upon the silence, because the arguments for covering them up are what actually makes them a stain upon the silence in the first place.

Finding David Douglas

I want this DVD: http://findingdaviddouglas.org/buy-film.php

Darwin's Golden Rule: A recipe for plagiarism

Darwin, Francis (Editor). 1887. The life and letters of Charles Darwin, including an autobiographical chapter. London: John Murray. Volume 1.

Charles Darwin wrote: 

'The success of the 'Origin' may, I think, be attributed in large part to my having long before written two condensed sketches, and to my having finally abstracted a much larger manuscript, which was itself an abstract. By this means I was enabled to select the more striking facts and conclusions. I had, also, during many years followed a golden rule, namely, that whenever a published fact, a new observation or thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory than favourable ones. Owing to this habit, very few objections were raised against my views which I had not at least noticed and attempted to answer.'

 Darwin's Golden Rule has been held up by many writers (e.g., Gilovitch 2008, p. 62) as a prime example of him being an incredibly good scientist, who was well aware of the phenomenon of confirmation bias, and so sought to overcome it in his work. But Gilovitch misses something quite profound in the "Golden Rule".

Why, before I. did  no one else ever notice before that far from being an admiral trait, this lop-sided habit of Darwin's would create a bias towards plagiarism of facts he liked?

Sutton (2014) Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret. Thinker Boks. USA:

'Gilovitch failed to spot that Darwin unintentionally admits here that this entire system is flawed in that it leads to a plagiarizing bias. Because, if Darwin tended to better remember facts he liked and so felt no need write them down immediately, he would be more likely to fail to make a written record of who originated those facts.'

This would explain how Darwin had no problem plagiarising Matthew's (1831) prior publication of the full hypothesis of natural selection, probably as he memorised it or jotted down notes, but failed to record the source of his so-called "independent discovery" of natural selection in his "memorandum" of opposing facts. 

Darwin (1861) Lied When he Wrote in The Origin of Species (third edition) that Matthew's original Ideas went Unread

Even after Patrick Matthew (1860) told Charles Darwin about the naturalist Loudon and another, unnamed, who read his original ideas before 1860, Darwin continued with his lie that Matthew's prior-published discovery of natural selection went unread until Matthew brought it to darwin's own attention in 1860,

Who read Matthew's prior published theory of natural selection?

New BigData analysis uniquely proves that it is a myth that no naturalists, and none known to Darwin, read Patrick Matthew's prior published theory of natural selection before Darwin replicated it. Look at the converging ramifications of Matthew's discovery.

Do Darwinists have the intelligence to adapt to the change that the data proves they are named for a plagiarizer?

PatrickMatthew.com - Do Darwinists have the intelligence to adapt to the change brought about by the New Data?

Did Charles Darwin 'borrow' the theory of natural selection?

"He claims to have unearthed a wealth of hidden information which taken together with Darwin’s unpublished notes, prove the naturalist lied. “Contrary to Darwin’s claim that Matthew’s ideas went completely unnoticed, the newly discovered data proves that his book was, in fact, widely advertised and read,” said Dr Sutton. “I have no doubt, based on the weight of new evidence, that Darwin did read Matthew’s book and then went on to replicate his discovery and key themes. "It was Matthew’s work that convinced Darwin of the importance of natural selection. “Darwin was awarded scientific priority for natural selection on the grounds that it is not enough simply to discover something first if you then fail to convince anyone of its importance. But that argument only stands up if Darwin was not influenced by Matthew’s prior discovery. We can now be certain that he was.” 

 Read the story and see the how the Darwinist historian Moore - without so much as bothering to discover that he is actually totally wrong - jumps in feet first to blurt that it is unlikely that anything new has been discovered. Now that's what I call silly cult-like behaviour - or pseudoscholarship! Check it out: Here.

Dishonest Darwinist Dysology

The Darwinist explanation for why they believe Darwin's and Wallace's extraordinary claims to have independently discovered Matthew 's prior published discovery is essentially a paradigm of tri-independent discovery that is built on premises that are now punctured myths:

Sir Gavin de Beer (FRS) wrote in the Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society (de Beer 1962 on page 333):

 '..William Charles Wells and Patrick Matthew were predecessors who had actually published the principle of natural selection in obscure places where their works remained completely unnoticed until Darwin and Wallace reawakened interest in the subject.'

(Darwin 1861: xv-xvi):

'Unfortunately the view was given by Mr Matthew very briefly in scattered pages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardener’s Chronicle…'

Disconfirming evidence that proves Darwin and his Darwinists wrong:

Proof = Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret

Here is what just two naturalists in Darwin's network had to say about Matthew's original discovery.

(1) The economic botanist William Jameson of the East India Company - a correspondent of William Hooker who was the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker and nephew of Darwin's Edinburgh University professor Robert Jameson (purportedly the first person to use the word evolution in biological sense):

  "This opinion regarding the value of sites where Pine trees are grown is not, we are aware, in accordance with those of many: but we here give facts as exhibited in the Himalayas. Matthew in his treatise on naval timber, states that the Pinus sylvestris, if grown on good or rich soil, attains rapidly large dimensions and its best timber properties."               

                                                                                                        Jameson (1853, p. 307).

Here is clear proof of the relevance of Matthew's book and the orignal ideas in it for economic botany. Matthew's work was highly valuable, and its information was being relied upon by naturalists employed by the East India Company, no less! It was so relied upon because it contained important intelligence for what trees might grow best where. And timber drove the industrial revolution - for building, ship building for commercial and colonial armed forces purposes, and for obtaining essential chemicals needed in the woolen industry.

Jameson was referring to a most important area of text taken from the main body of his book (Note: it is a myth that natural selection was just in the appendix of Matthew's book) contained important intelligence for what trees might grow best where. But most importantly, Matthew provided a new explanation as to why that might be (1831, p. 302): 

"The natural soil and climate of a tree is often very far from being the soil and climate most suited to its growth and is only the situation where it has greater power of occupancy than any other plant whose germ is present."

 In that one sentence, Matthew provides a crucial new hypothesis to guide the progress of economic botany, but his claim is heretical because its natural conclusion is that everything is not living where a worshipful and divine creator placed it to be best circumstance-suited to succeed, according to that god's design of everything being placed in its designated place.

(2) The naturalist John Loudon - a noted botanist - who was well known to both William and Joseph Hooker - reviewed Matthew's (1831) book in 1832. He then went on to be editor of the magazine that published two of Blyth's influential articles on organic evolution, which significantly influenced Darwin: 

'An appendix of 29 pages concludes the book, and receives some parenthetical evolutions of certain extraneous points which the author struck upon in prosecuting the thesis of his book. This may be truly termed in a double sense, an extraordinary part of the book. One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of  the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.'

(See Nullius:  Kindle reference 

38).

Visit Patrick Matthew.com for more details.

BRAIN WARNING

Pseudoskepticism: How many celebrated skeptics @michaelshermer lack the brains/ courage to debunk orthodox claptrap? pic.twitter.com/JlRONJY0Wp

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) October 8, 2015