Debate the Facts

Answer:Did Patrick Matthew came up with the theory of natural selection before Charles Darwin? https://t.co/ZezsLR5lbs

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Dysology) June 24, 2016

The Ad Populum Fallacy

AD POPULUM FALLACY @TeessideSitP

1, https://t.co/tTzWn7zqS1
2.https://t.co/EEQRXGvTPw
3.https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/QLQAl9MH7X

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) June 23, 2016

Myths about Darwin (No 1.) The Darwin Archive Myth

On my way home from work one evening in May 2016, I happened to glance in the window of a second hand book shop. A small paperback on Darwin had caught my attention. I went in and purchased it for a mere £1.50.

The book is Entitled simply "Darwin". It is authored by Jonathan Howard and published in 1982 as a rather prestigious Oxford University Press paperback.

On opening it I was amazed to find that Chapter One begins by spouting one complete fallacy after another about Darwin.

I have not yet progressed beyond page 1, but decided to I would write a blog post for each fallacy I find in the book and publish them here as I read my way through it

Darwin Fallacy No.1. (page 1, of Howard 1982)

'Darwin then married his first cousin, and the family seems to have thrown practically nothing away ever since... The notes and records of a whole lifetime's scientific work have been maintained virtually intact.'

In reality, we know that several of Darwin's notebooks and essays are missing. His remaining notebooks are missing many torn out pages, he destroyed copies of letters he sent, others are lost or missing and he habitually burned many of the letters he received.

From (Sutton, M. 2014. Nullius in Verba:Darwin's Greatest Secret).

'As Beddall (1968, p. 310) so precisely puts it in her excellent and classic article on the Linnean Debacle: "It seems surprising that all the material relating to the most dramatic (not to say traumatic) moment in his life should disappear." While absence of those letters is not proof of what was in them, we are nonetheless rationally permitted to weigh that absence in the balance when such absence is both markedly peculiar to suspicious events and is explained away by contradictory evidence from Darwin's son. To be specific, Francis Darwin wrote contradictory accounts, claiming that his father saved all his important letters,[175] and then claiming the opposite—that his father habitually burned them (Darwin 1887, p. 119 and page v, respectively).'

Reference

Howard, J. (1982) Darwin. Oxford University Paperbacks.

Holes Found in Darwin's Immaculate Conception Stories in the Holy Darwinite Bible

Holes discovered in holy Darwinite Bible's immaculate conception of natural selection story https://t.co/6x3GgP2Jja pic.twitter.com/pFSDF5KM4u

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) June 19, 2016

The Ad Populum Fallacy Leads to the Angry Twirling of Twisted Knickers

The Fysiks of Twisked Knickers

Thank you Brian

Very much appreciated That you thunk

Rationality can't be beat by kinking up a skunk

Kuhn powerfully predicted

Paradigm shifts fiercely resisted

By pseudo scholars waving knickers

Terribly twisked

Discoverers attacked by garotting muggers

Facts can't help those klaptrap spouting fudgers

Whose twisked knickers cold fuse the tourniquet of 

fascistkin

Stupidly powerin veracity bashin

The Creation of "False Facts", by Ignoring Disconfirming Evidence, Creates a Pseudo Scholarly Enabling Environment for Further Fact Denial Behaviour in Science

Darwinists, who failed to see that Darwin absolutely lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book (see Sutton 2014; and Sutton 2016) created an enabling environment, in the field of the history of scientific discovery, for Darwin deification pseudo scholarship in which a culture of further pseudo scholarly 100 per cent proven fact denial behaviour is currently flourishing in what is now the de facto MacDarwin Corporation

.@SteveHall5582 Yes does appear to be that. And is often fallacious "fact" construction through ignoring presence of disconfirming evidence.

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 18, 2016

Professional Darwinians Have Forgotten What They Once Knew

Today, Pseudoscholarship is the Dark Heart of Dysology, Characterized by Fact Denial, that is Essential for the Darwin Deification Industry's Survival.

 https://www.bestthinking.com/articles/science/biology_and_nature/biological_processes/the-de-facto-macdarwin-industry-and-it-s-member-s-pseudo-scholarly-corporate-denial-of-the-very-existence-of-uncomfortable-new-facts

"Science is not a major or a career. It is a commitment to a systematic way of thinking..." pic.twitter.com/tGmPamHdVp

— Timothy Caulfield (@CaulfieldTim) June 13, 2016

Proof Darwinite Historians of Science and Scientists are Misleading the Public via the Press about New Discoveries

Desperate Darwinites are writing fallacies to misinform the public via the press that I have discovered nothing new in my published research on the history of  discovery of natural selection (see the evidence of their fact denial behaviour here).


So what has, in reality, been newly discovered that eminent professional Darwin scholars apparently don't wish you to know about?

Here are the new, fully and independently verifiable, evidenced bombshell discoveries (Sutton 2014) that rewrite the history of discovery of natural selection. I originally discovered them by following the simplest rule of science "follow the data". Darwinites failed to find the New Data because they have a biased, Darwin deification habit, of ignoring any data that disconfirms their unevidenced belief that Darwin and Wallace discovered natural selection independently of Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of the entire thing.

1. Darwinites can no longer claim - as they did before my book was published - that Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection was unread by any naturalists before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. Because I originally discovered seven who cited the book that contains it in the pre-1859 literature. And Darwin and Wallace, and their influencers, knew four of them well. Hence it is most significantly newly discovered and 100 per cent proven that routes of potential knowledge contamination exist between Matthew's (1831) book to the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace. The date evidence of this newly discovered  publication record now debunks the old Darwinite claim that Darwin's notebooks and private essays prove he independently discovered natural selection.

2.  Darwinites can no longer claim, as they did before my book was published, that Darwin was an honest scientist. Because it is absolutely 100 per cent proven that from 1860 onward, following information provided by Matthew himself, that he lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book and the original ideas in it by other naturalists. Moreover, Darwin told at least seven additional lies in order to convince the scientific community that he independently conceived the idea of natural selection.

3. It can no longer be claimed that Wallace was an honest scientist. Because I originally discovered that he edited one of his letters in his autobiography to conceal his claim that he thought he was owed money and favours by Darwin and his associates for cooperating with the presentation of his replication of the concept of natural selection alongside that of Darwin in 1858.

4. Darwinites can no longer claim that Matthew's conception of natural selection was contained solely in the appendix of his book. I reveal exactly how much is actually contained in the main body of his book and that Darwin lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas were solely contained in the appendix. Because Matthew referred him to just some of the relevant text from the main body of his book and Darwin wrote to admit the fact to Joseph Hooker.

5. Darwinites should no longer claim that Matthew never understood what he conceived on the grounds that he never shouted about it from the rooftops. Because I show how the first half of the 19th century was governed by laws and conventions that forbade anyone from doing such a thing, and others from discussing it. Moreover, Matthew told Darwin as much when he explained his book was banned from Perth public library in Scotland and that an eminent naturalist could not teach the original ideas in it for fear of pillory punishment.

6. Darwin, in 1859, originally four-word-shuffled Matthew's (1831) original term for his original conception from Matthew's (1831) 'natural process of selection' into 'process of natural selection', which is the only possible grammatically correct re-ordering of the four words Matthew used to name his discovery.

7.  Darwin, was the first to replicate Matthew's (1831) powerful artificial versus natural selection analogy of differences to explain Matthew's original hypothesis, whilst claiming it as his own independent discovery. Indeed, Darwin not only replicated Matthew's brilliant analogy in his private essay, he used it to open the first chapter of the Origin of Species.

Veracious knowledge is power. Get the New Data facts in my book (Nullius in Verba) and my latest peer reviewed science article (Sutton 2016)

Don't allow them to punterize you with propaganda. Wise-up and get the proven new facts: https://t.co/Z315DMEuaf pic.twitter.com/AShKpjuhBf

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 12, 2016

Poet Protests Revisionist History, Fact Denial and Other Abuse in History of Scientific Discovery

Writer Sude Dempster takes up her pen against the injustice of the persecution of my reputation and denial of the very existence of my research discoveries by those with a vested professional interest in fact denial.

(C) S. Dempster 2016Attribution

A verse from Targeting by Gaslighting, by Sude Dempster

You can read her poem here on Best Thinking. I think Dempster's poem "Targeting by Gaslighting" might be even more profound were it to be read out aloud and performed in the style of the great Dr John Cooper Clarke

A sample of the fully evidenced behaviour that so concerns the author that she took up her pen in protest, can be found here in an article published on Best Thinking.

Vote to Put an End to Disgraceful Fanatical Revisionist History by the Darwin Worship Industry

Brexit relief - Vote for historical facts over fanatical revisionism
1. Facts: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL

2. Vote: https://t.co/rDE9bSQxqb

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 9, 2016

Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Premier League Liar

Read the science journal article that is driving Darwinites to extreme deviant behaviour: https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI pic.twitter.com/ADZbbjk5FM

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) June 9, 2016

 Hierarchy of Credibility

The hierarchy of credibility is a concept that was coined by Howard S. Becker (1967)  in 'Whose Side are we on?', It explains social inequalities and the moral hierarchy of society. For Becker, those at the top of an organization or a society are seen to be more credible, those at the bottom less so.

Mythomania in the Darwin Industry

Mythomania permeates Darwin Industry. If it doesn't smell right its probably rotten:
1. https://t.co/6K7Wm5UvfI

2. https://t.co/ILPZ04BaXk

— BlessedVirginDarwin (@OnNavalTimber) June 8, 2016

Know the Difference Between "Differences of Opinion" and Proven "Fact Denial"

History teaches us the danger of allowing any "fact denial" behaviour to pass unchecked: https://t.co/BZTDgjpPml pic.twitter.com/NLwSnVzxtz

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 5, 2016

Fortune favours the bold! And fallacies favour the fearful.

They Dethroned Muhammad Ali of his World Champion Title and Imprisoned Him for Refusing to Kill People in the Vietnam War.

They did that because they wanted to disgrace him for telling the truth, for speaking out for justice against the "majority view" that was held by so many idiots in the USA at the time.

Ali's body died today but an immensely inspirational force will stay with us forever. And that is how people become legends. Today a legend was born.

On The "Rubbishing" of My Peer Reviewed Science Journal Article. So Are the New Data Facts Really "Not New"? "Very Silly" and a "Conspiracy Theory?" As Esteemed Darwinite Dr John van Wyhe Informs the Scottish Press? Is There a Single Word of Truth in His Completely Unevidenced Fact-Denying "Rubbishing" of My Scholarship? Find Out for Yourself. You Can Decide the Truth of It. Simply Read My Fully Evidenced New Discoveries

 Trashing my peer reviewed and science journal published research and scholarship by effectively denying the existence of Darwin's and Wallace's independent discovery paradigm changing newly discovered facts that are 100 per cent proven to exist - because they are in print in the newly discovered literature that Darwinist experts failed to find - Dr John van Wyhe's totally unevidenced (and therefore pseudo scholarly) accusations were reported in the Scottish press on May 17th::

'Dr John van Wyhe, a senior lecturer at the Department of Biological Sciences, at the National University of Singapore, said the recent claims by Dr Mike Sutton of Nottingham Trent University were “so silly” and “based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

 So are new facts really not new, so silly & a conspiracy theory as van Whyhe claimed, with zero evidence to support those serious allegations, in his full statement to the press, where he effectively engages in fact denial: 

      'Dr Sutton's allegations about a purported influence of Matthew on Darwin and Wallace are not new. This conspiracy theory is so silly and based on such forced and contorted imitations of historical method that no qualified historian could take it seriously.'

Why would Dr van Wyhe deny the existence of 100 per cent proven, independently verifiable, newly discovered facts that completely overturn prior-knowledge beliefs in his field? Why write such a thing for public consumption about someone else's peer reviewed work? Is he "insanely jealous" or "wilfully ignorant"? What on Earth is the reason for such behaviour? Why deny the existence of 100 per cent proven newly discovered facts?

"Conspiracy theory" "Not new" "very silly" ? Really?  By "rubbishing" my peer reviewed science journal published new discoveries in this way, with zero evidence to back up his public allegations, Van Wyhe is engaging in pseudo scholarly (completely unevidenced) propagandising fact denial about the new discovery of routes of knowledge contamination between Matthew and Darwin and Wallace. 

Please read the newly discovered and fully evidenced paradigm changing facts in my article to decide for yourself: (Sutton 2016).

1. https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy
2, Please Read & judge: https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 3, 2016

The Criminology of Science

Lots of theft & science fraud criminological interest surrounding Darwin's letters
1. : https://t.co/uUTDe11lnu
2. https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) June 3, 2016

Patrick Matthew and the "New Data" facts

English academic says Scots farmer could be true origin of Charles Darwin’s most famous theory -... https://t.co/Cqb60SfXGb via @supermyths

— Perth Top News (@PerthTopNews) May 20, 2016

Don't be Punterized by Career Darwinites who Failed to Find the Facts

Behind the Mask of Respectability, Get the Fully Evidenced Facts Behind Blatant Darwin, Darwinist and Darwinite Fact Denial Behaviour - Here

The World's Top Evolutionary Biologists, Including Richard Dawkins, Admit that Patrick Matthew (1831) Conceived the Full Hypothesis of Macroevolution By Natural Selection Years Before Darwin and Wallace. But, Like Darwin, they Claim Matthew's Bombshell Ideas Went Unread Until After the Publication of Darwin's Origin of Species.  Today the "New Data" facts Prove Them Totally Wrong. They Were Read! And they Were Read By Darwin's and Wallace's Influencers and their Influencers Influencers - Loudon, Selby and Chambers - and by their other Associates and their Associates friends. Routes of Matthewian Knowledge Contamination are thus, Newly, 100 per cent Proven.

The Only Reason we Now Newly know Matthew's ideas were Read by Darwin's and Wallace's Influencers, Years Before Darwin and Wallace Replicated them, Each Claiming them as their Own, and Failing to Cite Matthew, is Because I Originally Discovered That - As opposed to the Old Knowledge Belief of None - Seven Naturalists Did In fact Cite Matthew's Book in the Literature Years Before 1858.

Don't be punterized by those who have built their academic careers out of ignorantly denying the importance of Patrick Matthew. Get the New Data facts, about those naturalists known to Darwin and Wallace, who read and cited Matthew's 1831 book in the literature pre 1858. Naturalists who Darwin scholars failed to find. Decide for yourself. Darwin's proven lies about the prior readership of Matthews ideas, and the newly proven routes of Matthewian knowledge contamination can be read in my latest peer reviewed science journal paper Here.

The full details and explanations, further lieas Darwin told about Matthew and others, Wallace's dishonest editing of one of his letters for his autobiography, a plagiarism text analysis and much more can be found in my book Here.

@BiologiaPensamt Your accusation raises rational questions. Q.1: "Why did no historian of science spot these lies?" pic.twitter.com/4l7d4HaJUI

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 19, 2016

@C_MAlexander The Courier is a paper that is not afraid to cover uncomfortable facts objectively. That's rare today. https://t.co/jeLxlm9Shz

— Supermythbuster (@supermyths) May 20, 2016

Beware of Hacked-Book Sites: Payload More Likely to be Malware

Back onto the subject of "atrotrufing" - which is systematically orchestrated fake grass roots responses to facts, of the kind currently being perpetrated by Wikipedia editors - I think I've spotted another example.

The new case in question is a website that claims to be offering a free (hacked) copy of my e-book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret"

I think the gleeful "look what I got for free" reviewer's pictures and language fails to match-up  to the type of folks who would want to read my book. Moreover pictures of men have girls names and vice versa.

POSTSCRIPT - 1645 GMT 18th May 2016 On second thoughts -  link to the hacked e-book site deleted, as the very link properties (being a php file) might just possibly contain malware. Better to be safe than sorry, I'm told. 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Of course for just a few Pounds/Dollars/Euro etc,  it's available on Amazon - and also on my publisher's website (here), both of which are a much safer bet, I'd say. 

Read the Story, Read the Facts, Weigh the Evidence: Spread the News

Read full story https://t.co/y6D1rl1NIy

Read the New Data facts

https://t.co/E8QuuMzsSL

Then weigh the evidence pic.twitter.com/WxZYtiVSDR

— Dr Mike Sutton (@Criminotweet) May 18, 2016