Do You Really Believe You Can Magically Change the Rules on Scientific Priority?
Charles Darwin (FRS), Alfred Russel Wallace, and Richard
Dawkins (FRS) and many others, deceased or alive, amongst whom I include myself,
such as Samuel Butler, Raphael Zon, James Dempster, Brian J. Ford, Michael Rampino,
Milton Wainwright, Hugh Dower, Loren Eiseley, Ton Munnich, and the Royal
Society Darwin Medal Winners Sir Gavin de Beer and Ernst Mayr, have published our
full acknowledgement, and the independently verifiable evidence to support it,
that Patrick Matthew (1831) - in his book On Naval Timber and Arboriculture -
published the full theory of natural selection 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 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 the
Royal Society publish 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?
In this regard, I presume the Royal Society has not
unofficially changed its views on the rules of priority? Perhaps it is necessary
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 into published print with a discovery is
everything.
Maybe you have uniquely re-written the rules on priority for
scientific discovery, but are keeping that a secret whilst facilitating plagiarism?
If so, does that explain why the Royal Society has now plagiarised the unique
scientific discoveries of Brian J. Ford? Here are the fully evidenced and independently
verifiable toe-curlingly guilty facts on that new debacle. It is called “Watching
Integrity Die” and the Royal Society plays a shameless leading role in doing
just that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWA1tLKQ2L4&feature=youtu.be
Ignoring the convention of priority - specifically ignoring
the Arago Effect - Richard Dawkins and others have created a new, unique in the
history of scientific discovery - "Dawkins' Demand" that Matthew
should not have priority over Darwin and Wallace because it was previously
their 'knowledge belief' that Matthew's unique views went unnoticed. However,
newly available Big Data research techniques reveal 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 papers for this new evidence: http://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf and
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42392608.pdf).
As for Brian J. Ford, he has published hundreds of articles
on the research the Royal Society plagiarised!
So, please explain, what is your excuse in his case? Surely
the Royal Society is not plagiarising Brian J. Ford because he has acknowledged (here) your precious
plagiarist Charles Darwin plagiarised Patrick Matthew are you? No, surely not!
In sum, would the Royal Society please make an official
statement regarding whether it has abandoned its former acceptance of the Arago
Ruling? Here is a reminder, just in case you have forgotten it: http://www.strevens.org/research/scistruc/Prioritas.pdf
If the Royal Society is making an exception to the rule of
priority in the cases of Patrick Matthew and Brian J. Ford could it be so good
to please explain why and make an official statement to the effect that this is
not simply a biased Darwinist 'made for Matthew' and Royal Society ‘Made for
Ford’ rule?
Now, perhaps also because I have published new bombshell research on the fully evidenced heresy that Darwin and Wallace knowingly plagiarised Matthew's theory, the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society is repeat victimising me by multiply plagiarising my original research and, whilst using it to fraudulently mislead its readership, refusing to do anything about that. The fully evidenced verifiable facts on that disgraceful nonscience behaviour, with proof that plagiarism is malicious, can be found here: https://patrickmathew.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-worlds-most-ironic-story-of.html
Yours sincerely
Dr Mike Sutton (Author of Nullius
in Verba: Darwin’s greatest secret)
