The Dysology Hypothesis

Letting scholars get away with publishing fallacies and myths signals to others the existence of topics where guardians of good scholarship might be less capable than elsewhere. Such dysology then serves as an allurement to poor scholars to disseminate existing myths and fallacies and to create and publish their own in these topic areas, which leads to a downward spiral of diminishing veracity on particular topics.

Saturday, 13 August 2016

Irony of Cranks in Science


Those who discover paradigm changing and independently verifiable new data are often portrayed by desperately biased scholars, with vested career and in-group establishment interests in the old but newly myth-punctured paradigm, as cranks. But, with painful irony, the real cranks are those who let their bias interfere with their critical reasoning.
Dr Arlin Stoltzfus, referring to discussions between Dr Mike Weale and I on Weale's BlogsiteThe Patrick Matthew Project    explains why Weale's loyal 'belief-based' Darwinite bias cannot trump the fact-based uncomfortable - newly discovered - truth in the story of the history of discovery of natural selection.
'Darwin, by repeating the idea that no naturalist read or noticed Matthew's book, repeated a self-serving statement that he knew to be factually incorrect, because Matthew himself had pointed this out. These facts are not in dispute. Sutton describes these facts by saying it is "100% proved" that Darwin "lied".
In the cited web site, the case made by author Mike Weale is entirely based on quibbling about "lied" and "100 % proved", while bending over backward to give His Holiness Charles Darwin the benefit of the doubt. According to Weale, when His Infallible Holiness Charles Darwin says that "nobody read it", we must interpret this as the kind of harmless exaggeration that occurs every day-- of course His Holiness must have known that the book would have been read by *someone*, so obviously he wasn't intending to be taken literally (*). To accuse his holiness of "lying" would be to impute deception, which cannot be proved "100 %" because it requires an inference of motives (according to Weale).
Thus, Weale's case against Sutton rests on the same kind of scholarly double standard that we are now accustomed to seeing: (1) insisting on a literal interpretation of a rhetorically loaded version of Sutton's argument, while Darwin gets off easy precisely because Weale *refuses to hold Darwin to a literal interpretation*, and (2) insisting that Sutton can't rely on inferences or touch on the issue of intentions by invoking "lied", while Weale is free to defend Darwin precisely by appeal to inferences about Darwin's knowledge and motives (sentence above with *). '
Read the New Data that has so upset the brains of the biased Darwinite community in my latest peer reviewed science journal article on the topic
here
   
. Alternatively, as proof of the simple concept explained in my paper, simply Google (using double speech quotes just as I do here) the term "on knowledge contamination".

The way forward

Please do something (no matter how small) to support veracity in the war for veracity over claptrap in the story of the discovery of natural selection. Because Darwinites currently dominate the scientific community, but they are behaving like an authoritarian religious deification cult.
Modern advanced societies will be harmed by having an inaccurate history of scientific discovery, disseminated through the propagandising machinations of palpably biased salaried academics and other powerful establishment in-group members. Only a crank could not see that.
image
Follow Mike on Twitter
Follow me on Twitter: Here    

Friday, 10 June 2016

The Guardian on my Spinach Supermyth Bust

Thursday, 28 April 2016

Busting the Mythbusters

 I am very much delighted with this account of the Supermyth phenomenon


Wednesday, 29 July 2015

Hey Royal Society: So Where's My Darwin Medal?

The Royal Society is Nought but a Darwin and Wallace Glee Club!


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.'

de Beer just wrote very silly nonsense on the Matthew matter in order to hoodwink his readers. Because Matthew's book did no pass completeltely unnoticed at all.

What the expert Royal Society member Sir Gavin Rylands de Beer, British evolutionary embryologist, Director of the British Museum (Natural History), President of the Linnean Society, and receiver of the Royal Society's Darwin Medal for his studies on evolution
The book that re-wrote the
history of the discovery of
natural selection
never revealed is that Darwin knew the naturalist  John Loudon had reviewed Matthew's book in 1832 and that before 1860 another (a naturalist professor) feared to teach Matthew's heretical idea on evolution.Furthermore,  I have uniquely discovered (see 
Nullius in Verba)  that  at least 25 people actually cited Matthew's (1831) book before Darwin's and Wallace's papers - which replicated (without citing) Matthew's original ideas and explanatory examples - were read before the Linnean Society in 1858, seven of them were naturalists, four known to Darwin and two to Wallace.

So where's my Darwin Medal for being proven a better scholar than de Beer on his own subject?

Royal Society Darwin Medal
Perhaps the Royal Society needs to improve the quality of its membership and medal winners? Linnean society too. The pseudo-scholarly Darwin glee-club shame of it! 

Visit PatrickMatthew.com to learn the truth about the discovery of natural selection.

Tuesday, 21 July 2015

Professor Donald Forsdyke on the Patrick Matthew Supermyth


The Throstles are Coming Home to Roost!


On Mike Weale's Patrick Matthew Project, Forsdyke's research  reveals additional evidence that
confirms Darwin plagiarized Patrick Matthew's prior publication of the theory of natural selection.

More on the Patrick Matthew Supermyth here.

Read all the evidence in Nullius,

Thursday, 16 July 2015

Milton Wainwright

 Professor Wainwright (2008   ) and (2011   ) is the only writer that I am aware of, besides me, (Sutton 2014   ) to have had published a scholarly peer-reviewed academic journal article, which presents weighty, hard-fact, confirmatory evidence in support of (1) Some form of Matthewian knowledge contamination and (2) the possibility/probability that Charles Darwin (1859) plagiarised the prior published discovery of the theory of natural selection from Patrick Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboricul;ture' .
Visit the website PatrickMatthew.com    for more details about Matthew and of the work of Wainwright and others on the topic of his unique bombshell discovery.