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.

Tuesday, 20 January 2015

Open letter to the Royal Society. 20.01.2015

Date: 20.01.2015

Dear Royal Society
Charles Darwin (FRS), Alfred Russel Wallace, and Richard Dawkins (FRS) and others, among whom I include myself, acknowledge that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - published the full theory of natural slection many years before Darwin and Wallace put pen to private notepaper on the topic and 28 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) had their papers read before the Linnean Society.
Matthew uniquely coined his discovery the 'natural process of selection' and 29 years later Darwin uniquely shuffled Matthew's term into his own unique re-coinage the 'process of natural selection'. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to have arrived at exactly the same theory, used the same terminology and the same unique explanatory examples, independently of Matthew and independently of one another.
The purpose of my open letter, therefore, is to request of the Royal Society an official statement to explain whether the Royal Society will affirm that Patrick Matthew, by dint of his achievement at publishing first one of the greatest discoveries in science, should be officially awarded full priority over both Darwin and Wallace for his great unique breakthrough?
I presume the Royal Society has not unofficially changed its views on the rules of priority? In this regard I wish to remind the Royal Society of the Arago Effect to which it has adhered in all other disputes over priority for discovery in science - which is that being first is everything.
Ignoring the convention of priority, and specifically ignoring the Arago Effect, Richard Dawkins (2010)    and others have created a new, unique in the history of scientific discovery, "Dawkins' Demand Rule" , which is that Dawkins demands that Matthew should not have priority over Darwin and Wallace because it was previously their mere un-evidenced 'knowledge belief' that Matthew's unique views went unnoticed. And because Dawkins demands that Matthew should have "trumpeted his discovery from the rooftops" at a time of great social unrest and tension when his political ideas, linked to and including his natural selection discovery, were criminally seditious and heretical. However, newly available Big Data research techniques reveal solid evidence, from the independently verifiable published literature, that Matthew's (1831) book was, in fact, (all pre 1858) cited by other naturalists known to Darwin/Wallace - including Loudon (who edited and published two of Blyth's influential papers), Robert Chambers (who wrote the highly influential book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation) and Prideaux John Selby (who edited and published Wallace's Sarawak paper). (see: my peer reviewed paper for this new evidence http://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf    ).
In sum, would the Royal Society please make an official statement regarding whether or not it has abandoned its former acceptance of the Arago Effect? (see for references to papers on it: http://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/m... )
If the Royal Society is quietly in approval of an unannounced exception to the rule of priority in the case of Patrick Matthew would it be so good as to explain why? And if so, could the Royal Society please go further than remaining publicly silent on this important issue of contested priority by making an official statement regarding whether or not they have adopted a unique and biased Darwinist 'made for Matthew' rule?
Yours sincerely
Dr Mike Sutton (Reader in Criminology and Sociology)
School of Social Sciences
Nottingham Trent University

Thursday, 1 January 2015

Ironically, Professor Nathaniel Comfort Blurts Abuse about New Hard-fact Uncomfortable Discovery


The British Society of Criminology peer reviewed journal article that so upset Darwinist Professor Comfort - a science historian - of John Hopkins University can be read here. It's my paper. I invite all readers of this blog to deploy their gumption and judge its veracity and importance for themselves. After all, the newly discovered facts do dis-confirm Darwin's claim that no naturalists known to him had pre-1858 knowledge of Matthew's published discovery of the full hypothesis of natural selection.

The paper is based on my unique BigData facilitated discovery about who cited Matthew's (1831) book 'On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, which the leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins (2010) admits is the only publication to contain the full hypothesis of natural selection before the work of Darwin and Wallace. Until my unique discoveries it was believed that no naturalist had read Matthew's work prior to his bringing it to Darwin's attention in 1860. I uniquely discovered that 25 people had cited it - seven of whom were naturalists and that three of those naturalists played major roles at the very epicenter of influence on the pre-1860 writings of  Darwin and Wallace on natural selection. If an associate Professor of the history of science believes my unique discovery  that thousands of top Darwinists have been publishing claptrap about the history of the discovery of natural selection is a "piece of crap" then one has to wonder why he wrote what he did. I wonder if perhaps he has been writing and teaching  the same embarrassing Darwinist fallacious 'knowledge belief' claptrap?

When I challenged Comfort  to defend his blurting juvenile Tweet comment, unsurprisingly he fled by cowardly blocking me on Twitter.  I'd rather like to look him up one day and see what he has to say about my unique discoveries - face to face. Meanwhile, I have directly, warmly, and forgivingly, invited him to rationally and politely debate his views on my work on my publisher's moderated website here .

If you found my peer reviewed journal paper interesting, you might like to read my e-book 'Nullius in Verba:  Darwin's greatest secret', which contains an embarrassing (for Darwinsts such as Comfort) uncomfortable wealth of further uniquely discovered new facts that I believe prove beyond all reasonable doubt that both Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew, lied by saying they had no prior-knowledge of it, and in so doing committed the worlds greatest science fraud.

 Nullius in Verba