BAD SCHOLARSHIP, WEIRD BELIEFS AND STRANGELY UNEXPLORED AREAS OF RESEARCH

Identifying strangely neglected areas of research, understanding why orthodox research scholarship and 'knowledge' becomes lopsided, revealing and understanding the reasons for the creation, dissemination and widespread belief in academic and policy oriented research frauds, lies, deceptions, hoaxes, fallacies, myths, braced myths, errors and irrational policymaking.

Tuesday, 28 July 2015

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.'

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 never knew - that I have uniquely discovered (see Nullius in Verba) - is that  at least 25 people actually cited Matthew's (1831) book before Darwin's and Wallace's papers, which replicated 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.
Royal Society Darwin Medal

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

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.

Monday, 27 July 2015

The New Crisis in Darwinism


Progress in search engine technology facilitated original research in Google's Library Project of over 30 million searchable books and other publications.That research led to game changing discoveries, which have transformed the unique anomaly of Darwin's and Wallace's claimed dual independent discoveries of Matthew's prior-published original ideas. That old anomaly was changed by the New Data in 2014 from a vexation into a crisis of credulous deifying Darwinist belief in the double occurrence of paradoxical immaculate conceptions by Darwin and Wallace, miraculously occurring as each logically must, whilst they were surrounded by naturalists who they knew, who influenced them, and whose minds were fertile with Matthew's ideas, having read and then cited the book decades before Wallace (1855) Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1842, 1844 and 1859) replicated the work within it, and decades before Darwin fallaciously claimed no naturalist had read it before 1860.

Consequently, the issue of Patrick Mathew's priority over Darwin and Wallace for his own prior-published and cited discovery is not something that the history of scientific discovery can ethically or sensibly continue to choose to ignore if it is to be of any use in helping us to understand how the discovery of natural selection occurred. Such knowledge is important, because it is fundamental in developing ways to increase the chances of making other great discoveries in the future.

Read more on the Patrick Matthew Website Here

Saturday, 11 July 2015

Is Primary School Attendance Obsession Likely to Kill Children ?

Last year my five year daughter caught chicken pox. We kept her off school until the point at which she was no longer infectious, which is when all the spots had scabbed over. That took ten days. Then we received a letter form the school insisting we meet personally with the headmistress because our daughter's attendance had fallen below their target for all children. A visit to the school sorted that out, but then three weeks ago we received another standard letter - threatening us with consequences unspecified -  after we kept her away from school for three days because she vomited in the classroom and we were asked to collect her. The reason for the second letter - she had been out of school too long when those three days were added to the earlier ten! The morning of the vomiting episode she had complained of a painful tummy. We sent her into school  because of the school pressure and because she was not rolling around in apparent agony.

Here is just one example of the obsession with attendance in primary schools - this is not my daughter's school - but the thinking is the same - Example.

Done for all the right reasons, with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?

It seems to me that this is a recipe for disaster. Surely this obsessive policy is likely to lead overambitious, or fearful, good parents to send in a poorly child to school who may be in the first stages of flu, meningitis or heaven knows what other highly contagious illness leading to the unnecessary death of theirs and other children!  Does that have to happen before this ridiculous unthinking obsession with attendance is bought to a summary halt by government policy?


Tuesday, 7 July 2015

The Gabriel Woods Nottingham Art Collection

The Eleventh Commandment
Norman 2
Amble
Berlin Idol
You Are Leaving
String Measure
Ice 1
Ice 2

Nprman

Lianne
After the Fire
Auf'n Bahnsteig
Israel Flares over Gaza
Immaculate Deception