The New Data facts (Sutton 2014) in the history of discovery of natural selection, most of which are my original discoveries, are proving immensely unpopular with Darwinists at the time of writing, because they have overturned their prior comfortable, yet unevidenced belief system in Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's honesty and originality. For example, as its historical revisions page reveals (see the facts here), at the time of writing, administrator-editors on Wikipedia are systematically deleting them from its Patrick Matthew page.
The facts, discussed in this article, have also been reported in the national press (Caven 2014, and Daily Telegraph 2014) . but were rejected on the Daily Telegraph science editor's, Sarah Knapton's, science blog site by Charles Darwin's biographer, James Moore, on the stated grounds that he merely believed they may not be original discoveries and his mere belief that they have probably been interpreted in the opposite direction. Given his purported expertise in this field, it is strange that Professor Moore is unaware of the fact that the New Data completely punctures the 155 year old Darwinite knowledge claim, started by Darwin's proven lies (see Sutton 2016 for the full peer-reviewed evidence) that Matthew's (1831) original conception of macro evolution by natural selection went unread by any naturalists /anyone at all, before Darwin and Wallace replicated it and claimed it as their own. Of course, as the published facts in fact prove, Moore was completely wrong and so is perhaps most surprised by that today, because my original discovery that other naturalists in fact did read Matthew's prior-existing publication of the original theory of macroevolution by natural selection, before Darwin and Wallace replicated it without citing Matthew, is new and it disproves the prior believed, unevidenced, claims propounded by the world's leading evolutionary biologists that no one at or no biologists, all (e.g. see de Beer 1962 and Mayr 1982) read Matthew's original ideas before 1860.
The facts, discussed in this article, have also been reported in the national press (Caven 2014, and Daily Telegraph 2014) . but were rejected on the Daily Telegraph science editor's, Sarah Knapton's, science blog site by Charles Darwin's biographer, James Moore, on the stated grounds that he merely believed they may not be original discoveries and his mere belief that they have probably been interpreted in the opposite direction. Given his purported expertise in this field, it is strange that Professor Moore is unaware of the fact that the New Data completely punctures the 155 year old Darwinite knowledge claim, started by Darwin's proven lies (see Sutton 2016 for the full peer-reviewed evidence) that Matthew's (1831) original conception of macro evolution by natural selection went unread by any naturalists /anyone at all, before Darwin and Wallace replicated it and claimed it as their own. Of course, as the published facts in fact prove, Moore was completely wrong and so is perhaps most surprised by that today, because my original discovery that other naturalists in fact did read Matthew's prior-existing publication of the original theory of macroevolution by natural selection, before Darwin and Wallace replicated it without citing Matthew, is new and it disproves the prior believed, unevidenced, claims propounded by the world's leading evolutionary biologists that no one at or no biologists, all (e.g. see de Beer 1962 and Mayr 1982) read Matthew's original ideas before 1860.
As this essay goes on to to prove, Darwin's and Wallace's influencers, facilitators and their influencers influencers read matthew's prior published idea because they cited them in the literature before Darwin or Wallace so much as put pen to private notepad on the topic of any kind of organic evolution. Therefore, it is a fact that these New Facts are new and they are facts about what was actually published. It is impossible, therefore, then or now, to interpret them, rationally, in any opposite way. Moore's rejection of this unwelcome 'Darwin and Wallace, Independent Discoverers of a Prior-Published Hypothesis, Paradigm-Busting' New Data was made by him without, apparently, so much as having bothered himself to read a word of it!
Similarly proven wrong (see Sutton 2016), is the Darwinist historian, Peter Bowler's now redundant belief that Darwin's private notebooks and essays prove he took nothing from Matthew. Both Moore and Bowler are wrong because I, (Sutton 2014) originally discovered, that Darwin's private notebooks and private essays were started after or in the same year Darwin's associates and influencers, and his influencers' influencers actually read Matthew's ideas and then cited his book in the literature. The hard fact-based evidence that what has been discovered, about the pre-1858 readership of Matthew's original ideas is new, original, independently verifiable and significant is published in my peer reviewed philosophy of science article on this topic (see Sutton 2016).
The unwelcome New Facts are revealed in greater detail in this essay.
Many writing on the history of the discovery of natural selection and Patrick Matthew, including Charles Darwin (1860, (1861), Alfred Russel Wallace (1879), Cock and Forsdyke (2008) Milton Wainwright (2008), Christopher Hallpike (2008), Richard Dawkins (2010), William James Dempster (1983), Mike Sutton (2014), and Mike Weale (2015) conclude that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture - published the full hypothesis of macroevolution by natural selection many years before Darwin and Wallace put pen to private note paper on the topic and 27 years before Darwin and Wallace (1858) had their papers read before the Linnean Society.
Dempster (1983), Dawkins (2010) , Sutton (2014) and Weale (2015) conclude that only Matthew got the entire complex theory of macroevolution by natural selection before Darwin and Wallace (1858) and Darwin (1959) replicated it. Matthew, the proven originator of this, the unifying theory of biology, took his original ideas on natural selection forward for humankind in his second book Emigration Fields (1839), which was even recommended in the national press of New Zealand as essential reading for Captain Fitzroy of the HMS Beagle (Sutton 2016).
Matthew's orignal work was followed in print by Wallace and Darwin in 1858, who never cited him and excused themselves for not doing so by writing that Matthew's original ideas went unread until Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860. However, the facts of the historic publication record, as this essay demonstrates, prove that excuse to be a fallacy. Moreover, it is revealed that the facts prove Matthew to have been a multiple victim of science fraud by Darwin's plagiarising glory theft.
Matthew's orignal work was followed in print by Wallace and Darwin in 1858, who never cited him and excused themselves for not doing so by writing that Matthew's original ideas went unread until Matthew brought them to Darwin's attention in 1860. However, the facts of the historic publication record, as this essay demonstrates, prove that excuse to be a fallacy. Moreover, it is revealed that the facts prove Matthew to have been a multiple victim of science fraud by Darwin's plagiarising glory theft.
Matthew uniquely coined his discovery the 'natural process of selection', and 28 years later Darwin (1859), in the Origin of Species, uniquely shuffled Matthew's term into his own unique re-coinage the 'process of natural selection'. Darwin and Wallace each claimed to their graves to have arrived at exactly the same theory, independently of Matthew and independently of one another.
As Robert Merton (1957) made clear in the classic and authoritative text on priority in science, the Royal Society has not officially changed its position on the rules of priority since those rules were established in the first half of the 19th century. Since that time, the Arago Effect (Strevens 2003), is the rule that has always been seen as a totally inflexible principle and has been followed as such in all other disputes over priority for discovery in science, except in the Matthew, Darwin and Wallace case. The Arago Effect, described by Merton, and also by Strevens, as a norm in cases of scientific discovery, is that being first to publish to the public, and most importantly in print, is everything when it comes to deciding who has priority for an idea or discovery in cases where one scientist claims to have made the same discovery independently of another.
Totally ignoring the Arago Effect convention of priority for scientific discovery, Richard Dawkins (2010) has built upon prior rationale for denying Matthew full priority over Darwin, for his own prior published idea and as an original great thinker and influencer in science, by creating a new, unique in the history of scientific discovery, "Dawkins's Demand Rule". Effectively, Dawkins demands that Matthew should not have priority over Darwin and Wallace, and his reasoning for that view is based upon the recently proven fallacious premise (Sutton 2014) that Matthew's unique views went unnoticed. Moreover, Dawkins demands also that Matthew should have and would have "trumpeted his discovery from the rooftops" if he understood it properly. However in making this post-hoc demand, Dawkins does not, as other writers (e.g. Desmond and Moore 1991 and Secord 2000) have done with regard to the fears and difficulties of writing on natural selection at this time, which faced Darwin and Chambers, explain that the first half of the 19th century was a time of great social unrest, tension and violent rioting, which made writing on the topic of natural selection a great threat to the social controlling interests of natural theology. Is Dawkins willfully ignorant of the fact that in the year 1794 Pitt passed his notorious Two Acts against 'Seditious Meetings' and 'Treasonable Practices'? In particular, the former curtailed topics of discussion at institutional scientific societies by requiring them to be licensed and proscribing discussion of either religion or politics (Sutton 2015a). Perhaps it is for reasons of historical ignorance that Richard Dawkins, whilst holding forth as an expert on the history of science, fails also to address the issue that Matthew's Chartist political ideas were in his book and that he linked these seditious ideas quite clearly to the implications of his heretical natural selection discovery. Consequently, it should go without saying, that this meant his unique ideas were especially both seditious and heretical in the 1830's and 1840s. How then was Matthew meant to trumpet his discovery when he had effectively silenced himself from doing so under the scientific conventions that followed in the wake of the laws of the land? Matthew explained this very fact to Darwin in 1860, in his second letter in the Gardeners' Chronicle (Matthew 1860b) when he explained that a respected naturalist of an eminent university feared to teach his bombshell ideas for fear of pillory punishment, and that his book was banned by the public library of Perth for the same reasons. Moreover, leading Darwinists in the field of evolutionary biology and many others are wrong to simply follow Darwin's lead in the Gardeners' Chronicle and in every edition of the 'Origin of Species' after 1861 by claiming that Matthew's (1831) original ideas on natural selection were unread by any naturalists or more specifically any biologists, because newly available Big Data research techniques reveal concrete evidence form the historic 19th century publication record, from the independently verifiable published literature, that Matthew's (1831) book was, in fact, (all pre 1858) cited by a total of seven naturalists, and four of them were known to Darwin/Wallace - including Loudon (1832), who - after writing that he was far from certain that Matthew did Matthew have something original to say on the subject of 'the origin of species', no less, edited and published two of Blyth's influential papers, Blyth (1835) and (1836). Blyth was reported by Darwin (1861) from the third edition of the Origin of Species onwards to be his most prolific and helpful correspondent on the topic of organic evolution of varities. Robert Chambers (1832) also cited Matthew, and he then went on to write (anonymously) the highly influential book on evolution, the Vestiges of Creation, which ran to 12 editions after being first published in 1842 (Chambers 1842). Prideaux John Selby (Selby 1842), who was the Chief Editor of the journal that published Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper, on evolution, no less, also cited Matthew's 1831 book, And Selby commented also upon text in Matthew's book on the natural selection relevant subject of pine trees thriving in rich non-native soils if there are no deciduous competitors, as did Jameson (1853), a botanist of the East India Company and regular correspondent of William Hooker - the father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker.
There is no direct evidence that Darwin read Matthew's book pre-1860. The fact that he wrote that he sent out for a copy after Matthew's (1860) complaint in the Gardeners Chronicle, only if true, meant that he did not have a copy in his extensive library or easy access to it elsewhere in 1860. But it is a fact Darwin was dishonest, because he did write falsehoods (Darwin 1860; 1861) about the lack of readership of the original ideas in Mathew’s book. The fact Darwin knew he was writing self-serving falsehoods about Matthew's readership is confirmed by the fact that Matthew (1860a), in his first letter to the Gardeners' Chronicle, claiming priority for his discovery of natural selection, informed readers that his book had been: ‘… reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity… by Loudon, who spoke of it as the book…’. Loudon was a famous naturalist. Darwin knew this, because the ‘books read’ section of his notebook of ‘books read and books to read’ (Darwin 1838) proves he read and heavily annotated at least six botanical publications authored by Loudon. Yet, in his published reply to Matthew’s letter, Darwin (1860) wrote the falsehood:
‘I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew's views.’
Significantly, the naturalist Loudon, had written in his 1832 review of Matthew’s (1831) book:
‘'One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.’
‘I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew's views.’
Significantly, the naturalist Loudon, had written in his 1832 review of Matthew’s (1831) book:
‘'One of the subjects discussed in this appendix is the puzzling one, of the origin of species and varieties; and if the author has hereon originated no original views (and of this we are far from certain), he has certainly exhibited his own in an original manner.’
Hence, new analysis of the literature, therefore, robustly calls Darwin's legendary honesty into question with reference to the weirdly neglected disconfirming evidence of the publication record.
I (Sutton 2014, 2016) present published evidence from Matthew's and Darwin's 1860 letters in the Gardeners' Chronicle that Darwin published two falsehoods, by way of claiming in the Gardeners' Chronicle that no naturalist had read Matthew’s ideas and by claiming from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward that Matthew's original ideas went unread, because, to repeat the obvious and significant fact already relayed, Matthew had already informed Darwin in print in the Gardeners' Chronicle in 1860 that his original ideas on natural selection were read by the naturalist John Loudon, who reviewed his book in 1831. Then, in his second 1860 letter in the Gardeners' Chronicle,, Matthew (1860b) directly corrected Darwin’s fallacious claim that no naturalists had read his book, by informing Darwin that an unnamed naturalist, a professor of an unnamed prestigious university, had informed him that he feared pillory punishment if he were to teach Matthew's ideas on natural selection. In that second published letter, Matthew further informed Darwin that his book was banned by the public Library of Perth, referred to by Matthew by its nickname in Scotland: "the Fair City". See Sutton 2016for a peer reviewed account of the fact and significance of these plagiarism by glory-theft lies that were written by Darwin, as an excuse for his replication without citation of Matthew's prior-cited orignal ideas.
I (Sutton 2014, 2016) present published evidence from Matthew's and Darwin's 1860 letters in the Gardeners' Chronicle that Darwin published two falsehoods, by way of claiming in the Gardeners' Chronicle that no naturalist had read Matthew’s ideas and by claiming from the third edition of the Origin of Species onward that Matthew's original ideas went unread, because, to repeat the obvious and significant fact already relayed, Matthew had already informed Darwin in print in the Gardeners' Chronicle in 1860 that his original ideas on natural selection were read by the naturalist John Loudon, who reviewed his book in 1831. Then, in his second 1860 letter in the Gardeners' Chronicle,, Matthew (1860b) directly corrected Darwin’s fallacious claim that no naturalists had read his book, by informing Darwin that an unnamed naturalist, a professor of an unnamed prestigious university, had informed him that he feared pillory punishment if he were to teach Matthew's ideas on natural selection. In that second published letter, Matthew further informed Darwin that his book was banned by the public Library of Perth, referred to by Matthew by its nickname in Scotland: "the Fair City". See Sutton 2016for a peer reviewed account of the fact and significance of these plagiarism by glory-theft lies that were written by Darwin, as an excuse for his replication without citation of Matthew's prior-cited orignal ideas.
From the third edition of the The Origin of Species onwards, Darwin (1861) acknowledged Matthew's earlier work, stating that Matthew :"...clearly saw...the full force of the principle of natural selection",but wrote an outrageous falsehood where he continued: "Unfortunately the view was given by Mr. Matthew very briefly in scattered passages in an Appendix to a work on a different subject, so that it remained unnoticed until Mr. Matthew himself drew attention to it in the Gardeners' Chronicle, on April 7th, 1860." Because we know Matthew in 1860 told him otherwise, at length and in detail in his two letters to the Gardener's Chronicle. Moreover, the natural selection relevant text that Matthew published from his book came from its main body as well as its Appendix. It is a myth started by Darwin that he hid all his ideas in the book's appendix. Darwin knew the truth was otherwise, despite starting the Matthew Appendix Myth, because he wrote to Joseph Hooker admitting it (Darwin 1860b): "The case in G. Chronicle seems a little stronger than in Mr. Matthews [sic] book, for the passages are therein scattered in 3 places. But it would be mere hair-splitting to notice that."
From 1860 onward, Matthew would claim credit for originating the concept of natural selection, but it is an unevidenced legend that he had calling cards printed with "Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection" on them. The closest reality comes to this myth is the fact that the opening page of his second book contains the strapline 'By Patrick Matthew, author of "Naval Timber and Arboriculture"(Matthew, 1839). And he proclaimed himself as “Solver of the problem of species” on the title page of his political pamphlet “Schleswig-Holstein” (Matthew, 1864).
Matthew was multiply victimised by Darwin and Wallace and their friends. For 13 years, Professor John Lindley, a correspondent of both Darwin and Wallace and best friend of William Hooker, father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker, perpetuated the myth, which he first created, that Lobb was first to introduce the greatly admired and internationally famous California giant redwood trees into Britain, when in fact it was Matthew's son John who first introduced them and named them Wellingtonia (Gardener's Chronicle 1853. See also Sutton 2016a) and it was Patrick Matthew, not Lindley, who was to first to propagate those trees in Britain. For 13 years, Lindley's Journal had the letter proving this fact. The highly suspicious facts of Lindley's bogus claims came to light only a year after his death, which is six years after Darwin replicated Matthew's ideas and excused himself by describing Matthew as an obscure Scottish writer on Forest Trees (Darwin 1861a) Lindley's highly suspicious glory-theft was first discovered by Sutton (2016a). From the perspective of some form of probableMatthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 brains of Darwin and Wallace, the fact that Lindley was the best friend of William Hooker, father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker, and the fact that William Hooker was Alfred Wallace's mentor and correspondent before he headed off as a specimen collector and before he claimed to have conceived Matthew's prior published hypothesis in a miraculous and unique fit of cognitive enhancement, occurring in a state malarial delirium, should not pass unnoticed. Moreover, it should not pass unnoticed that Lindley was a friend and co-author with Loudon.
A typology of knowledge contamination
By way of a proposed typology of possibilities of “knowledge contamination” (Sutton 2016), all of which we now know could have occurred in Darwin’s case, prior published unique ideas may contaminate the minds and work of others in three main ways:
A typology of knowledge contamination
By way of a proposed typology of possibilities of “knowledge contamination” (Sutton 2016), all of which we now know could have occurred in Darwin’s case, prior published unique ideas may contaminate the minds and work of others in three main ways:
- Innocent Knowledge Contamination: The spread of original ideas in a prior-publication via (a) subsequent published sources on the topic, which failed to cite the Originator as their source, or (b) word of mouth and/or correspondence to the replicator by those who read the Originator’s work or communicated with others who did — understood its importance in whole or simply in part — but failed to tell the replicator about its existence.
- Reckless or Negligent Knowledge Contamination: (a) The replicator reads the original publication, absorbs information such as original ideas and examples and terms, but forgets having read it — and never does remember. (b) The replicator reads the original publication and takes notes, but forgets the source of the notes. (c) The replicator is told about original ideas in a publication by someone — who understands their importance in whole or simply in part — who explains they come from a publication, but the replicator fails to ask the name of the author and title of the publication.
- Deliberate Knowledge Contamination (science fraud): The replicator reads the original publication, or is told about its contents, takes notes, or is given notes, remembers this, but pretends otherwise.
In 1860, after Darwin admitted Matthew had priority for first publishing the full principle of natural selection, his friend and Correspondent David Anstead mocked Matthew, essentially portraying him as a delusional and unoriginal crank in the Dublin University Magazine (Anstead 1860), In a gushing review of Darwin's Origin of Species. Charles Dickens's Magazine 'All the Year Round' (1860) quoted a paragraph of Matthew's (1831) original prose yet never cited Matthew as its source . Dickens and Darwin were fellow members of the Athenaeum Club, both joined on the same day (see Sutton 2014). In 1867, Matthew was platform blocked at the Dundee meeting of the British Association for Advancement of Science. Darwin's great friend Charles Lyell was guest of honour and papers on natural selection were given at the meeting by Wallace and by Chambers. Matthew's Published Letter - complaining at this gross injustice - was addressed to the Editor of the Dundee Advertiser (see Dempster 1983).
A most telling question in the story of Matthew, Darwin and Wallace is: why did Darwin lie in his 1860 letter in the Gardeners' Chronicle when he claimed no naturalist had read Matthew's unique ideas after Matthew (1860) informed him in that very same publication that John Loudon (one of the most famous botanical naturalists of the first half of the 19th century) had reviewed it? Moreover, why did the botanist Joseph Hooker - who knew the botanist Loudon well, and whose botanist father and botanist friends such as John Lindley knew him very well indeed - approve Darwin's defense letter before sending it on (re-dated) to the Gardeners' Chronicle in which Darwin claimed in his defense that no naturalist had read Matthew's book pre 1860 - when Hooker had earlier read Matthew's letter telling Darwin that Loudon had reviewed it? Why, despite knowing about Loudon, and another (unnamed) naturalist that Matthew told Darwin about in his second letter in the Gardeners' Chronicle did Darwin go on to write the following year, in 1861, in his famous "Historical Sketch", of his precursors and influencers, in third edition of the Origin of Species, and in every edition of it thereafter, that Matthew's (1831) unique ideas on natural selection had gone unnoticed? Moreover, why did he lie about Matthew's ideas being unread to the famous French naturalist Quatrefages de Bréau in his letter of April 25, 1861 when he wrote:
"I have lately read M. Naudin's paper; but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not shew how Selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book."?
"I have lately read M. Naudin's paper; but it does not seem to me to anticipate me, as he does not shew how Selection could be applied under nature; but an obscure writer on Forest Trees, in 1830, in Scotland, most expressly & clearly anticipated my views—though he put the case so briefly, that no single person ever noticed the scattered passages in his book."?
The rules and conventions for determining who has priority for discovery in science have been weirdly ignored in the telling of the story of the discovery of natural selection. According to the Arago effect, Patrick Matthew has full priority over Darwin and Wallace; even if the latter pair did discover natural selection independently of the Originator, Patrick Matthew. Moreover, the fact that the three naturalists, Loudon, Chambers and Selby played such influential roles at the epicenter of influence and facilitation of the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace is arguably sufficient to claim that some kind of knowledge contamination from Matthew to Wallace and Darwin appears more likely than not. That apparent likelihood is surely increased by the fact that Loudon was part of William and Joseph Hooker's friendship network of botanists. In particular he was great friends with John Lindley, who was the best friend of William Hooker. And we know Lindley, most suspiciously, perpetrated the 'first fallacy fuelled glory theft' against Matthew before Lindley's correspondents Wallace and Darwin multiply victimised him by replicating his original ideas on natural selection without citing him and then falsely claiming in their defence that those ideas were unread before 1860. Moreover, Joseph Hooker, being Darwin's best friend once wrote once that Loudon was better than a dozen other naturalists put together and along with Lindley wrote a stunning review of one of Loudon's many botanical books - Arboretum Brittannicum. For his part, Robert Chambers was a geologist associate of Lyell - Darwin's good friend and geological mentor. As early as 1847 Lyell knew Chambers to be the anonymous author of the Vestiges (Klaver 1997) , Chambers and Darwin met and corresponded in 1847 and thereafter engaged in correspondence. In 1847 Chambers gave Darwin a copy of the Vestiges, leading Darwin to write to his friend Joseph Hooker that he knew Chambers was its secret author. And Prideaux Selby was a good friend of many of Darwin's friends, including Darwin's father (seeSutton 2106 for the fully referenced evidence).
Despite the numerous strained arguments in that direction made by George Beccaloni (2016) in the comments section of the Patrick Matthew blog, the fact that Matthew was himself more likely than not influenced by earlier thinkers on organic evolution (see Sutton 2015 for the evidence) is not any kind of rational argument against the evidence that Darwin and Wallace were probably knowledge contaminated by Matthew's prior publication of the full complex hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. Moreover, the fact that Darwin uniquely four-word shuffled Matthew's unique name for his conception from Matthew's (1831) "natural process of selection" into "process of natural selection", and that both Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's artificial v natural selection analogy of differences and more besides. See Sutton 2016 for the fully cited evidence and for greater details of the naturalists in Darwin's and Wallace's social networks who, it is newly discovered, read Matthew's book before 1858.
The Missing Smoking Gun
Some commentators on the new data have rightly noted that there are no classic 'smoking gun' objects of physical evidence in the form of a letter or note in a diary etc that Darwin or Wallace definitely read and copied the work of Matthew, or were definitely told about Matthew's work re-1858. However, we do have some significant better then smoking gun evidence, because have two important items of better than smoking gun evidence of Matthew's pre-1858 influence on Darwin's and Wallace's work on natural selection.These are points 1 and 2 below. And we have smoking gun evidence (point 3) of who really did read Matthew's ides pre-1858:
Despite the numerous strained arguments in that direction made by George Beccaloni (2016) in the comments section of the Patrick Matthew blog, the fact that Matthew was himself more likely than not influenced by earlier thinkers on organic evolution (see Sutton 2015 for the evidence) is not any kind of rational argument against the evidence that Darwin and Wallace were probably knowledge contaminated by Matthew's prior publication of the full complex hypothesis of macro evolution by natural selection. Moreover, the fact that Darwin uniquely four-word shuffled Matthew's unique name for his conception from Matthew's (1831) "natural process of selection" into "process of natural selection", and that both Darwin and Wallace replicated Matthew's artificial v natural selection analogy of differences and more besides. See Sutton 2016 for the fully cited evidence and for greater details of the naturalists in Darwin's and Wallace's social networks who, it is newly discovered, read Matthew's book before 1858.
The Missing Smoking Gun
Some commentators on the new data have rightly noted that there are no classic 'smoking gun' objects of physical evidence in the form of a letter or note in a diary etc that Darwin or Wallace definitely read and copied the work of Matthew, or were definitely told about Matthew's work re-1858. However, we do have some significant better then smoking gun evidence, because have two important items of better than smoking gun evidence of Matthew's pre-1858 influence on Darwin's and Wallace's work on natural selection.These are points 1 and 2 below. And we have smoking gun evidence (point 3) of who really did read Matthew's ides pre-1858:
- We 100 per cent know that the orignal ideas in Matthew's (1831) book were read by Darwin's and Wallace's influencers and their influencers before Darwin and Wallace replicated them. This is better than 'smoking gun' evidence, because it absolutely disproves the 'no naturalist read Matthew pre-1859' premise that underpins the old Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's dual independent conceptions of Matthew's prr-published hypothesis.
- We 100 per cent know Darwin lied when he claimed no naturalist /no one at all read Matthew's prior-published ideas before he replicated them.This is also better than 'smoking gun' evidence, because it completely disproves the honest Darwin premise that also underpins the Darwinite paradigm of Darwin's independent conception of Matthew's prior-published hypothesis.
- Due to our rational understanding of the concept and typologies of of 'knowledge contamination' we have a lot of smoking gun, evidence that those who read Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas had many opportunities to influence Darwin and Wallace and influence their influencers with Matthew's original ideas may years before 1858. This represents "gun smoke evidence" that such knowledge contamination took place.
- We have no smoking gun evidence that Darwin and Wallace did copy Matthew's orignal ideas or were knowledge contaminated by them pre-1858.
From this four-point analysis, it can be argued that insistence upon smoking-gun evidence to substantiate claims of Darwin's and Wallace's probable Matthewian 'knowledge contamination' is based upon a misunderstanding of the better than mere smoking gun paradigm busting facts of the New Data in this story and of the gun-smoke significance of the multiple examples of newly discovered clear routes for Matthewian knowledge contamination of the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace.
Conclusion
The paradigm of Darwin's and Wallace's supposedly dual independent conceptions of Matthew's prior-published orignal conception of macro evolution by natural selection is bust and completely overturned by the newly discovered fact other naturalists in fact did read and cite Matthew's book, containing the orignal conception of macro evolution by natural selection. The old Darwinite paradigm of tri-independent discovery of this, the unifying theory of biology, was built on the now newly fact-punctured premise (eg. de Beer 1962 Mayer 1982), which was started by the lie told by Darwin that became the credulously parroted myth that no naturalist read Matthew's (1831) orignal ideas before Darwin and Wallace replicated them and claimed them as their own independently conceived ideas. In fact, as the New Data 100 er cent proves, as opposed to none, Darwin's and Wallace's influencers, and their influencer's influencers did read and cite Matthew's book, and the orignal ideas in it, before either Darwin or Wallace put so much as private pencil to private notepad on the the topic of organic evolution.
Discussion and the way forward
In Mazur (2015), The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing the hegemony of the culture of Darwin, citing Kuhn, James Shapiro explains how paradigm changes in the study of are first met with resistance by those with a vested interest in old debunked paradigms. But the themes he mentions of the power of human nature as driven by love and the love of power are most fitting to resistance paradigm changes in the history of scientific discovery:
'...over time and as technology develops, partly as a consequence of what the scientific enterprise is doing, new phenomena come up and can't be explained away any longer in the same way. In the end there are always a group of people who defend the existing belief system more than is justified by the empirical observations.'
References
Anstead, D. (1860) The Dublin University Magazine, Vol. 55, January to June, 717-718
All the Year Round, Volume 3 edited by Charles Dickens, June 1860, p. 177
Blyth, E. 1835. An attempt to classify the “varieties” of animals. The Magazine of Natural History. (8) (1), Parts 1-2.
Blyth, E. (1836) Observations on the various seasonal and other external Changes which regularly take place in Birds more particularly in those which occur in Britain; with Remarks on their great Importance in indicating the true Affinities of Species; and upon the Natural System of Arrangement. The Magazine of Natural History: Volume 9. p. 393 – 409.
Caven, B, (2014) Did Darwin copy ideas for Origin of Species. The Scottish Daily Mail. April 11th. p. 21.
Chambers, W. and Chambers, R (1832). Chambers's Edinburgh Journal. William Orr. Saturday March 24th . p. 63.
Chambers, R. (anonymous) (1844) Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. New York. Wiley and Putnum."
Cock, A. G. and Forsdyke, D. R. (2008). Treasure your Exceptions: The Science and Life of William Bateson. Springer.
Darwin (1838) "Darwin’s Notebooks of Books to Read and Books Read"
Darwin, C. R. and Wallace, A. R. (1858) On the tendency of species to form varieties; and on the perpetuation of varieties and species by natural means of selection. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London. Zoology 3 (20 August) pp. 45-50.
Darwin, C.R. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, First Edition, London. John Murray.
Darwin C. R. (1860). Natural selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette no. 16 (21 April): 362-363.
Darwin, C.R. (1860b) Letter to Hooker. 13th April, Darwin Correspondence Project, Available at: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-2758
Darwin, C, R, (1861) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, First Edition, London. John Murray. Third Edition.
Darwin, C. (1861a) Letter to Jean Louis Armand de Quatrefages de Br´eau. 25 April
Dawkins, R. (2010). Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection In Bryson, B (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London Harper Collins.
de Beer, G. (1962)- Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society page 333.
Dempster, W. J. (1983) Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection. Edinburgh. Paul Harris Publishing.
Desmond, A. and Moore, J. (1991). Darwin. London. Penguin Books.
The Gardeners' Chronicle, 1853 , July, Vol. 14 page 373.
The Gardeners' Chronicle & New Horticulturist, 1866 Volume 26 p. 1191
Hallpike, C. R. (2008) How We Got Here: From Bows and Arrows to the Space Age. Author House. Milton Keynes.
Klaver, J. M. I. (1997) Geology and Religious Sentiment: The Effect of Geological Discoveries on English Society and Literature between 1829 and 1859. Brill publishing. (see page 66 footnote 16.)
Dawkins, R. (2010). Darwin’s Five Bridges: The Way to Natural Selection In Bryson, B (ed.) Seeing Further: The Story of Science and the Royal Society. London Harper Collins.
de Beer, G. (1962)- Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - Wilkins Lecture for the Royal Society page 333.
Dempster, W. J. (1983) Patrick Matthew and Natural Selection. Edinburgh. Paul Harris Publishing.
The Gardeners' Chronicle, 1853 , July, Vol. 14 page 373.
The Gardeners' Chronicle & New Horticulturist, 1866 Volume 26 p. 1191
Hallpike, C. R. (2008) How We Got Here: From Bows and Arrows to the Space Age. Author House. Milton Keynes.
Klaver, J. M. I. (1997) Geology and Religious Sentiment: The Effect of Geological Discoveries on English Society and Literature between 1829 and 1859. Brill publishing. (see page 66 footnote 16.)
Loudon, J.C. (1832) Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardeners' Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.
Matthew, P. 1831. On Naval Timber and Arboriculture: With a critical note on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting. Edinburgh. Adam Black. London. Longman and Co.
Matthew, P. (1839) Emigration fields: North America, the Cape, Australia, and New Zealand; describing these countries, and giving a comparative view of the advantages they present to British settlers. Adam Black. Edinburgh. Longman and Co.London.
Matthew, P. 1860a. Letter to the Gardeners Chronicle. Nature's law of selection. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette (7 April): 312-13.
Matthew, P. (1860b) ‘Letter to the Gardeners' Chronicle. Nature's law of selection’, Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette, (12 May) p. 433.
Matthew, P. (1864) Schleswig-Holstein. Spottiswoode and Co. London.
Mayr, E. (1982) - Royal Society Darwin Medal winner - The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. p.499. Harvard University Press.
Mazur, S (2015), The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing the hegemony of the culture of Darwin, Caswell Books, New York.
Merton, R. K. (1957) Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science. American Sociological Review. Volume 22. No.6. December. pp. 635-659.
Secord. J. A. (2000) Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago and London. The University of Chicago Press.
Selby, P. J. (1842) A history of British forest-trees: indigenous and introduced. London. Van Voorst.
Strevens, M. (2003) The Role of Priority in Science. Journal of Philosophy. pp:55-79.
Sutton, M. 2014 Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Cary NC. USA. Thinker Media inc.
Sutton, M. (2014a) The hi-tech detection of Darwin’s and Wallace’s possible science fraud: Big data criminology re-writes the history of contested discovery..Note: This is a peer reviewed British Society of Criminology journal article.
Sutton, M. (2015) On Knowledge Contamination:New Data Challenges Claims of Darwin’s and Wallace’s Independent Conceptions of Matthew’s Prior-Published Hypothesis. Philosophical Aspects of Origin Volume 12.
Sutton, M. 2015a Darwinist Defenses Simply Can't Stand Against the Powerful New Data.
Sutton, M. (2016a) Race for Giant Redwoods Fame. The Patrick Matthew Blog.
Telegraph (2014) Darwin "Stole" Theory of Natural Selection. The Daily Telegraph, page 12. May 28th 2014
Wainwright, M. (2008) Natural Selection: It’s Not Darwin’s (Or Wallace’s) Theory. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 15 (1) 1-8 June, 2008.
Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196.
Wallace, A. R. (1855) On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History. Series 2. 16. 184-196.
Wallace, A.R. (1879) 9 May. Letter to Samuel Butler. Unique WCP identifier: WCP1586. Wallace Letters Online. Natural History Museum.
Weal, M. (2015) Patrick Matthew's Law of Natural Selection. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society.
No comments:
Post a Comment