Please click the title above for the latest blog post
Monday 16 May 2016
Might Professor Steve Jones (FRS) perhaps become "knowledge contaminated" about Supermyths?
There has been a "state of denial" canny indifference amongst most of the World's top Darwin scholars to the Supermyth busting "New Data" facts (e.g. Sutton 2016), which puncture the premise underpinning the old Darwinist paradigm of tri-independent discovery of Matthew's prior-published original conception of macroevolution by natural selection.
I wonder, now, will the esteemed leading Darwinist Steve Jones (FRS) be "knowledge contaminated" on the topic of Supermyths - given that he is a noted patron of HealthWatch, which introduces the supermyth concept this month?
You can read my article in HealthWatch here
What makes the Spinach, Popeye, and Iron Decimal Point error Supermyth (SPIDES), possibly, the most exquisitely ironic myth in the history of the world is the fact that, whilst believing it to be true, so many experts used it as an example of the need to check your data before publishing it.
The "New Data" facts are getting in the news
Some will remember Mike Sutton at Teesside SitP last year. He's still working hard for Patrick Matthew. https://t.co/aHSpoGn1aO
— Teesside SitP (@TeessideSitP) May 16, 2016
Why Natural Selection is the Unifying Theory of Biology
@BiologiaPensamt Well here it is: In a nutshell: The unifying theory of biology. Stolen by Darwin from Matthew pic.twitter.com/PiXcbC4N94
— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 16, 2016
Sunday 15 May 2016
A Good Explanation in Science
Good scientific explanations have these two main characteristics. Macro-Evolution by natural selection has both. pic.twitter.com/br8OPilU71
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) May 15, 2016
Wednesday 11 May 2016
Darwin Scholar Donkeys Stop Braying Your Newly Debunked Claptrap and Get the "New Data" Facts
You take a main claim and then match every single one of the supporting "evidences" and "arguments" for it with relevant 100 per cent proven and independently verifiable facts. Sometimes the facts support the "evidences" and "arguments", sometimes they perfectly refute them.
When you are done, if the facts refute the main claim , then all that is left is a braying donkey insisting that the claim is still valid. Today, the facts reveal that Darwin scholars are nought but braying donkeys.
For your courage @RichardDawkins & honesty retweeting link to criticism of your scholarship: https://t.co/pkRXFf97kk pic.twitter.com/12Ns9zNmnf
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 17, 2015
Sales of Richard Dawkins's e-book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret' Top Record 7 Million
WARNING!
For your courage @RichardDawkins & honesty retweeting link to criticism of your scholarship: https://t.co/pkRXFf97kk pic.twitter.com/12Ns9zNmnf— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) February 17, 2015
Tuesday 10 May 2016
Live Experiment with Corrupt Wikipedia Agenda Editor Bias
This is me. I stand firm and challenge the corrupt Darwin Deification Industry with 100 per cent proven facts |
Academic corruption in an area such as the history of science is likely to be subtle. Were it any other way, perpetrators who deliberately hide significant facts from the public and their peers and students, would not be able to get away with it for very long. Subtlety is not evidence of any kind of conspiracy, it is simply the only effective way that so many criminal offences are committed by those who wish to avoid detection. And just as so many legitimate members of society facilitate crimes such as theft by selling highly specialist tools such as crow-bars, bolt cutters lock picks and slide hammers to the general public, so to do many of those involved in what we might name "academic agenda project fraud" work anonymously from the inside, slyly astroturfing , or else simply assisting salaried academics to hide facts from the public by brute censorship in publications where they have power to delete facts that undermine any extremely carefully crafted and orchestrated agenda-view. Such subtle academic fraud, is today, and has for some time been happening, on the Patrick Matthew page on the Wikipedia encyclopaedia. Let me explain and reveal the facts:
Reviews[edit ]
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; it praised Matthew's book in around 13,000 words, highlighting that "The British Navy has such urgent claims on the vigilance of every person as the bulwark of his independence and happiness, that any effort for supporting and improving its strength, lustre, and dignity, must meet with unqualified attention." The review did not mention the appendix to the book.[11] . However, it did, in Part II, on page 457 stridently criticise Matthew's then heretical conception of macroevolution by natural selection, which in fact runs throughout his entire book intertwined with his then seditious chartist politics: "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."
Experiment result 1
Postscript 10th May 2016 15.38
- (cur | prev ) 08:58, 10 May 2016 Dave souza (talk | contribs ) . . (41,646 bytes) (-449) . . (Undid revision 719532504 by 2A02:C7D:9E34:8100:6194:58D7:E3DC:219 (talk ) unsourced, contrary to published source and dubious) (undo )
- (cur | prev ) 07:33, 10
- May 2016 2a02:c7d:9e34:8100:6194:58d7:e3dc:219 (talk ) . . (42,095 bytes) (+449) . . (Added fact from the literature that the United Services journal actually DID mention Matthew's heretical conception) (undo )
Is there one or many people hiding behind this Wikipedia editor name Dave Souza?
.
.Corrupt #Wikipedia #Cult is once again begging the public to help it put misinformation online.
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) August 25, 2021
Proof they are maliciously publishing misinformation to mislead the public: https://t.co/1rvz2T287X pic.twitter.com/FfVmTIv7ET
Sunday 8 May 2016
"The Blind Eye is the Backward Eye": The Social Danger of Darwin Scholar Fact Denial Punterizing Propaganda Techniques
I think that allowing any kind of fallacy and myth to be accepted as veracious might just create an enabling environment in which credulous belief in far more serious myths and fallacies might flourish and lead, ultimately, to significant social harms, with murderous hate crimes and genocide being at the far end of a "states of denial spectrum" .
The dreadful story of August Landmesser - the man who refused to salute Hitler - is an example of the blindsight paradox |
As founding Director for the Nottingham Centre for the Study and Reduction of Bias, Prejudice and Hate Crime, at Nottingham Trent University, I see this as a particularly important topic worthy of further scholarly research.
In the Public Interest
In the public interest, I have been compelled to write a professionally reviewed essay in response to online obscene and misogynistic abuse, other abuse, and claims, which have been submitted to the Scottish press, about my expert and independently peer-reviewed scholarly science journal publication of my original research findings. You can read it here (Sutton 2016).
To avoid mockery and humiliation in a fact fight fuelled scholarly debate, one needs to bring something more than mere unevidenced opinions.
The main aim of this blog post is to encourage readers to not let pseudo scholars punterize the public with their unevidenced mere agenda-driven fact denial opinions. I wish to encourage others to do what I do, which is to insist that fact deniers and concealers provide independently verifiable facts of their own if they wish to challenge the significance, or very existence, of independently verifiable and 100 per cent proven facts, which they find uncomfortable.
'Uncomfortable knowledge, though, can be forgotten without direct state manipulation. Whole societies have an astonishing ability to deny the past - not really forgetting, but maintaining a public culture that seems to have forgotten.The blind eye is the backward eye. When circumstances change - renewed pressure from victims, the chance opening of an archive - then newspaper editorials (without irony) remind us that 'this is what we always knew'.
Please note, contrary to the sly and misleading fallacies written about me by Darwin scholars, I have, in fact, never once claimed it is 100 per cent proven that Darwin and Wallace read Matthew's book, as several of the above scholars have claimed or implied. Instead, I have very plainly and deliberately written that, when all the evidence is weighed together, that I personally believe, subjectively, that it is more likely than not proven beyond
What is 100 per cent proven is that Darwin's friends and influencers, and his and Wallace's influencers and their infuencer's influencers read Matthew's (1831) book (because they cited it and the ideas in it), that Darwin read five books that cited Matthew's (1831) book, knowledge contamination routes from Matthew to Darwin and Wallace are now discovered, Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book, and he told several more lies besides in order to steal Matthew's glory by way of plagiarising science fraud after 1860, and that Wallace lied in his autobiography by deleting incriminating text in his transcription of a letter he sent his Mother. See Sutton 2014 (and 2016) or all these 100 per cent proven facts and their contextual details.
Darwinists have no dis-confirming facts to bring to a fact fight to argue against the newly discovered 100 per cent proof of potential Matthewian knowledge contamination routes of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace
For their part, Darwin apologists have no 100 per cent verifiable proof that Darwin or Wallace conceived the
Sutton (2014) The Bombshell Book that Re-Wrote the History of Discovery of Natural Selection |
What Possible Motives Might Darwin Scholars have for Propagandising to Deny or Hide Uncomfortable New Facts?
I strongly suspect that professional jealousy and fear of ridicule for their own poor scholarship in failing to find what I originally discovered, in equal proportions, drives the shamefully pseudo scholarly propagandising behaviour and cannily indifferent silence of Darwin scholars who are aware of the "New Data" facts.
Dr John van Wyhe attempted to mislead the Scottish people by claiming my peer reviewed science paper (Sutton 2016) is a conspiracy theory |
I challenge any leading Darwin scholar to debate the "New Data" facts with me before an academic audience, the wider public and the press.
The "New Data" facts are chasing dishonest propagandising Darwinists |
Saturday 7 May 2016
More Darwin Worship Fact Denial Propaganda
"One writer has even gone so far as to hail Matthew as the originator of the modern evolution theory (Dempster 1996). Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science ...Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors."
This is one among many instances of Darwin worship propaganda. The independently verifiable facts - as opposed to Bowler's incorrect and misleading assertions - confirm nothing at all of the kind. The facts prove the case otherwise. For example, Darwin's notebooks prove that before 1858 Darwin held in his hands five books that cited Matthew's (1831) book containing the full prior published theory of macroevolution by natural selection.
DON'T BE PUNTERIZED BY BIASED AGENDA-DRIVEN PROPAGANDA: Read "On Knowledge Contamination: New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis." By Mike Sutton (2016)
(Sutton 2016) to see exactly how misleading Peter Bowler is being when it comes down to the actual evidence of what we can really, definitively, with any degree of confidence say about Darwin's private essays and notebooks (footnote references excluded here) :
'As an argument that reliable evidence exists to disconfirm evidence that Matthew influenced Darwin, Bowler argues: “Darwin’s notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors”. Bowler’s seemingly compellingly plausible argument is worthy of further
examination in light of the independently verifiable facts. And, in light of the New Data about who we newly know did read the ideas in Matthew’s book, and most importantly when they read them, these actual facts confirm that Bowler’s argument is rendered redundant.
To begin with, there is little on natural selection, beyond a mere hint at it, in Darwin’s (1837) private “Zoonomia” notebook. 98 Not until his private essays (1842, 1844), do we see Darwin’s acknowledgement of evidence for the general process of natural selection. By 1842, Loudon had cited Matthew’s book many times following his 1832 review. And 1842 was the same year in which Selby cited Matthew. But it was not until Darwin’s jointly presented paper with Wallace that the full hypothesis, which Matthew had prior-published, was written down by Darwin.
Following Matthew’s (1860) first priority claiming letter in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, of 7th April, Darwin wrote on 10th April to his friend Lyell that he had ordered a copy of Matthew’s book. This might be taken as strong confirmatory evidence that Darwin had never read Matthew’s book or been influenced by its original contents. Rationally, it is nothing of the sort. Darwin’s letter to Lyell merely proves, and only then if the proven liar Darwin was then telling the truth, that he did not have a copy of Matthew’s book in his possession in 1860. Darwin could easily have prior-borrowed a copy from an associate and made extensive notes. Or been supplied by others with such extensive notes. He could just have easily borrowed a copy many years earlier from the London Library, which was founded in 1841, the same year Darwin joined, and the year before he penned his private 1842 essay on natural selection. Or Darwin might have borrowed a copy of Matthew’s book years earlier from Mudie’s Library — founded in 1842 — because he was a noted keen member of both lending libraries.
There is no mention of Matthew’s (1831) book in any of Darwin’s (1838) handwritten Books to Read and Books Read private notebooks until Matthew’s (1860) claim to priority letter was published in The Gardeners’ Chronicle. However, the old adage that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, is particularly pertinent in this particular case in light of the new hard evidence unearthed from the publication record of Darwin’s bad faith regarding his account of the readership of Matthew’s book. Rationally, therefore, we should, as objective scholars, no longer simply assume that Darwin did everything in good faith. The fact of the matter is, and it is facts we must now focus on, that there is no proof, other than the dates he wrote on them in the privacy of his own home, that those dates on Darwin’s notebooks and private essays were honestly written and are therefore accurate. Furthermore, it is a fact that Darwin’s notebooks are devoid of many pages — due to them having been torn out — and that much of the remaining text in them has been scribbled out so as to deliberately render it completely illegible.
So what do the facts enable us to know for sure about the latest possible date when Darwin’s private notebooks and essays were written?' See bullet-point timeline in Sutton (2016) for the detailed answers.
Exploiting New Technology to Disconfirm Mere Unevidenced Beliefs With Hard Data
Apparently @denise_tsang I am an Entrepreneurial "creative" type: https://t.co/4iI1BRCj47 pic.twitter.com/ANV3S0mWXU— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 7, 2016
How to Spot Independently Verifiable Fact Denial Biased Agenda-Driven Propaganda
Always ask any"fact deniers" what independently verifiable facts they actually have - if any - to disprove the existence of the uncomfortable facts that challenge their particular professional agenda.
Get a flavour of what is in "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret" - the book that the Darwin deification industry - does not want you to read - by reading my free open-access peer reviewed science journal article on the topic of Darwin's proven lies and glory stealing science fraud. Here (Sutton 2016)Beware @C_MAlexander Agenda-driven fact denying propagandists: Ask for disconfirming facts: https://t.co/oZNTd1uRMQ pic.twitter.com/AtjPGfBqrz
— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 7, 2016
Thursday 5 May 2016
French and Germans Not Fooled by Darwin Scholar Denial Tactics and Pseudoscholarly Propaganda
Meta skepticism now international @danengber French not fooled by propaganda fact denial tactics of Darwin scholars: https://t.co/jIZN6htE1C— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 6, 2016
The French not Fooled by Darwin Scholar Denial Tactics and Propaganda Techniques
Sputnik Germany also: http://de.sputniknews.com/zeitungen/20160504/309624593/vertrauen-kontrolle.html
Like a Veracity Fuelled Pac-Man, the "New Data" facts are Chasing Fact-Denying Propagandist Darwin Scholars. And their Bite is Lethal for the Mighty Darwin Deification Industry. |
What is Sputnik?
Of course, Sputnik might well on many occasions provide a dreadfully biased anti-West view, but - most worryingly for Darwin Scholars - it's coverage of the facts of the Matthew and Darwin story are one step further towards confirming the Frozen Donkey Hypothesis.
Wikipedia Agenda Editor Fraud
Wikipedia Editors control & co-opt pages on behalf of special interest groups https://t.co/WT44jBjxET— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 5, 2016
Explains this: https://t.co/Ium2oNIEYF