Plagiarising Science Fraud

Plagiarising Science Fraud
Newly Discovered Facts, Published in Peer Reviewed Science Journals, Mean Charles Darwin is a 100 Per Cent Proven Lying, Plagiarising Science Fraudster by Glory Theft of Patrick Matthew's Prior-Published Conception of the Hypothesis of Macro Evolution by Natural Selection

Tuesday, 15 August 2017

Darwin Cult Marketeers

Monday, 14 August 2017

Darwin Emoji

Scholarly Journal Cites a Best Thinking Article as Busting the Cohen Coined Moral Panic Myth

My incredibly simple BigData IDD method that has bust so many academic myths in recent years - including "Charles Darwin's Slyly Coined Patrick Matthew Myth   " - is once again cited in a scholarly peer reviewed academic journal article.
In this latest case, my Best Thinking article, which blew the myth that Stan Cohen coined the term and most basic concept of moral panic is here.. It is cited by Mark Horsley of Teesside University. in his article: Forget 'Moral Panics'.- it can be read here    in the Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology.
Never underestimate the ability to search 35 million publications in seconds. The method - which involves making Google do what Google does not want you to do - is fully explained in my expanded full 600 page Thinker Media e-book Nullius in Verba Darwin's greatest secret.   



Sunday, 13 August 2017

Steve Hall on Knowledge Suppression

Saturday, 12 August 2017

Monday, 7 August 2017

#CharlesDarwinHahaha

+

Poem for a plagiarist

Saturday, 5 August 2017

On A.N. Wilson's Evening Standard Article on Darwin

A Sign For Intellectual Lemmings


Knowledge Contamination

Thursday, 3 August 2017

Royal Society has Long History of Rewarding Sly Plagiarists who Toady to the "Establishment"

+

Vae Victus

Tuesday, 25 July 2017

The Slaying of the Beautiful Myth of an Honourable and Original Thinker

+

Thursday, 20 July 2017

A Paperback Bombshell for the History of the History of Science



image
(c) All Rights Reserved the Vae Victus group. (c) Mike Sutton. (c) Andy SuttonUsed only with express written permission
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret. Second edition, Paperback.
Taking advantage of new print-to-order technology, I have published the second edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret as a paperback only publication. This second edition is a 200 page abridged and updated book. The paperback book, including its cover, is a product of the endeavours of the Vae Victus group, which is a newly formed and independent affiliation of university academics, artists and experienced publishers.
Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret reveals independently verifiable, newly discovered, evidence that punctures the established paradigm of Charles Darwin's and Alfred Wallace's supposed independent conceptions of Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published conception of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection.
Until the publication of the 1st edition of Nullius in 2014    by Thinker Media Inc as an e-book, leading scientists believed Darwin's newly proven deliberate and various private letter penned and prominently published lies that apparently no naturalist/no single person/no one whatsoever read Matthew's breakthrough untill after Darwin and Wallace replicated it in print in 1858 and after Darwin did so in more detail in 1859. In reality, as Nullius newly and originally reveals and proves, Matthew's (1831) original breakthrough was cited by a total of at least seven naturalists pre-1858. Four were known to Darwin/Wallace and three played major roles at the epicenter of facilitation and influence of their pre-1858 work on evolution and of that of their influencer's influencers and facilitators.
This second edition (abridged and updated) of Nullius reveals a wealth of detail about the work and associations with Darwin and his influencers of those naturalists who cited Matthew's book pre-1858. By way of just one example of the seven influential naturalists who cited Matthew pre-1858, Robert Chambers (1832, p. 63) is most interesting: Here.   
The column of text is cited as: -Matthew On Naval Timber.
image
Chambers (1832) citing Matthew (1831)
If you click the image above it will be slightly easier to read.

Arguably, there can be no reasonable room for rational doubt that Chambers himself wrote this cobbled together information from Matthew's book, in this earliest Vol. 1 of Chambers' Edinburgh Journal, because Chambers famously did that sort of thing as a matter of routine and cited so many books and other publications, using a dash and italics in this exact same way, just as he did for the -Quarterly Review on the very same page and on the following page (64) for -Elliot's North Europe. etc. Furthermore, as confirmatory evidence, C. H. Layman (1990, p.175) informs us in a biography on Robert Chambers, on the topic of the workload he shared with his brother William, that when it came to Chambers' Edinburgh Journal: 'Robert... offered all possible literary assistance - which at first amounted to writing almost the whole of the journal himself.'

The hard and independently verifiable facts 100 per cent prove that Robert Chambers cited Matthew (1831) in 1832.The independently verifiable hard-print evidence in the publication record 100 per cent proves it. If you doubt that audacious statement is true, then try the following experiment: cover the published text with your hand and remove it 100 times. You will note it never changes. What is published in the publication record is as proven to exist as fossils in the geological fossil record. Explaining them is another matter, of course

In detail, the various possible reasons for why Chambers most likely despised Matthew, and other possible reasons for why he did not cite him anywhere on the topic of his breakthrough conception are discussed in my new paperback abridged edition of Nullius in Verba (Sutton 2017).
Staying on the topic of objective and independently verifiable fact-enlightened rationality, as opposed to mere subjective wishful thinking, we must ask the following most telling question:
Is it a mere coincidence, as part of a snowball, or else unconnected collection, of nothing more than mere multiple coincidences perhaps, that Chambers was fascinated by trees and arboriculture, that within a decade of 1832 he had written his own guide on arboriculture and cited Matthew's (1839) second book, that in the next decade he wrote his own best selling book on evolution - the Vestiges of Creation, that he both met with and corresponded several times with Darwin in the 1840's? Of course coincidences happen, which is exactly why we have a word for the phenomenon, but how many coincidences of this kind in the history of the publication of a bombshell breakthrough in science, and the citation of its published source by other influential scientists, I wonder, are required to sum to a probability that they are not merely coincidental, not unconnected?
Rationally, mere multiple coincidences of this kind seem unlikely when we are dealing with the impact on others of a prior published bombshell breakthrough in science. Clearly, Chambers represents a potential route of Matthewian Knowledge Contamination to Darwin's pre-1858 brain; as do the other naturalists we now newly know (Sutton 2014) actually cited Matthew's (1831) book before 1858; cited the very book that contains his original bombshell breakthrough of the unifying theory of biology.

As if that is not enough, in his 1859 review of Darwin's Origin of Species, Chambers was apparently "first to be second" in published print (at least out of the 35 million books and other publications scanned by Google to date) with Matthew's apparently original term "natural process of selection". That is highly significant, because Darwin was apparently first to re-shuffle those exact same four absolutely essential words to "process of natural selection." Matthew's original term containing the exact same three most crucial words that are in that Darwin-shuffled term are crucial. They are crucial to the theory of macroevolution by natural selection because natural selection occurs as an unthinking "process", and because it is "natural" as opposed to artificial "selection". Arguably, that is most likely why Darwin was compelled to replicate them in his four-word shuffle of Matthew's (1831) original published useage, along with replicating Matthew's superb origination of his natural versus artificial selection analogy of differences to explain the process.
Notably, Loren Eisley discovered that in his private penned essay, Darwin replicated Matthew's precise and highly idiosyncratic forrester explanatory analogy of differences between trees grown in nurseries and trees grown in the wild to explain natural selection. In the following decade, Darwin (1859) opened Chapter 1 of the origin with this same analogy of differences, only by then he never used trees as an example. "Why not?", is the obviously telling question. Moreover, it was Chambers who famously convinced "Darwin's Bulldog", Huxley" to return to the famous Oxford debate with Bishop Wilberforce in order to defend Darwin's "Origin of Species". Clearly, Chambers was in the "thick of things" when it comes to Matthew's bombshell breakthrough and Darwin's replication of it -Sutton Nullius in Verba   .
image
(c) Andy Sutton (c) Mike Sutton. All Rights ReservedUsed only with express written permission
Second Edition of Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret
The cover of the second edition of Nullius is by Andy Sutton of the Vae Victus group (incidentally, no relative of mine). Andy has taken and masterfully adapted the original artwork of Tissot. On the cover we see Darwin sitting atop Matthew's (1831) On Naval Timber and Arboriculture. The book is both concealed by Darwin and it makes him appear bigger than he really is. From beyond the grave, Tissot gifted Andy the ability to have Darwin hold the title of the book that proves he committed lying, plagiarizing science fraud by glory theft as well as the name of the author who "got him!"
The newly released abridged and updated paperback is available at all Amazon stores, e.g. Amazon.com    and Amazon.co.uk    etc
Following the publication of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret' the history of scientific discovery now has a number of original bombshell new discoveries that rewrite the history of discovery of natural selection:
1. Darwinites can no longer claim - as they did before my book was published - that Patrick Matthew's prior published conception of macroevolution by natural selection was unread by any naturalists before Darwin and Wallace replicated it. Because I originally discovered seven who cited the book that contains it in the pre-1859 literature. And Darwin and Wallace, and their influencers, knew four of them well. Hence it is most significantly newly discovered and 100 per cent proven that routes of potential knowledge contamination from Matthew's (1831) book into the pre-1858 minds of Darwin and Wallace most certainly do exist. The date evidence of this newly discovered publication record now debunks the old Darwinite claim that Darwin's notebooks and private essays prove he independently discovered natural selection.
2. Darwinites can no longer claim that Darwin was an honest scientist. Because it is proven that from 1860 onward, following information provided by Matthew himself. that he lied about the prior readership of Matthew's book and the original ideas in it by other naturalists. Darwin told at least seven other lies in order to convince the scientific community that he independently conceived the idea of natural selection.
3. It can no longer be claimed that Wallace was an honest scientist. Because I originally discovered that he edited one of his letters in his autobiography to conceal his claim that he thought he was owed money and favours by Darwin and his associates for cooperating with the presentation of his replication of the concept of natural selection alongside that of Darwin in 1858.

4. Darwinites can no longer claim that Matthew's conception of natural selection was contained solely in the appendix of his book. I reveal exactly how much is actually contained in the main body of his book and that Darwin lied when he wrote that Matthew's ideas were solely contained in the appendix. Because Matthew referred him to just some of the relevant text from the main body of his book and Darwin wrote to admit the fact to Joseph Hooker, but wrote that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth of the matter!

5. Darwinites should no longer claim that Matthew never understood what he conceived on the grounds that he never shouted about it from the rooftops. Because I show how the first half of the 19th century was governed by laws and conventions that forbade anyone from doing such a thing, and others from discussing it. Moreover, in 1860, in the Gardeners' Chronicle, Matthew told Darwin as much when he explained his book was banned from Perth  public library in Scotland and that an eminent naturalist, from an eminent university, could not teach the heretical orignal ideas in it, or communicate them in other ways, for fear of pillory punishment.


image
Nullius in Verba

+
+

Nullius in Verba in paperback (second edition) now out

Monday, 17 July 2017

Big Data Proves Experts are Spreading so called "Bullshit" about Alfred Wallace


According to Harry H. Frankfurt, the Princeton University expert philosopher of  "On Bullshit", the difference between a liar and a bulshiiter is that the former is concerned with the truth but the other could not give a.... (ahem) care. The liar knows what the truth is and wishes to convince us that the opposite position is true. The bulshitter, however, does not care what is true when making a claim, only that you believe what they say is true.

In yesterday's Guardian newspaper you can find an article on Alfred Wallace. It's, arguably, a load of grade-F philosophical-grade bullshit, because it studiously ignores the fact Matthew - not Wallace or Darwin originated the theory of macroevolution by natural selection (see: Sutton 2015). But the greatest dollops of bovine incontinence come with the claims in the Guardian that:
  1. Alfred Wallace coined the term "Natural Selection."
  2. Alfred Wallace coined the term "Darwinism"
OK, so let's look at the independently verifiable facts. The earliest so far discoverable published use of the term "Natural Selection" in a biological/actuarial/sense is by Corbaux (1833). At that time Wallace was just 10 years of age. See Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret for other independently verifiable  earlier and later examples of published use of this term - all published before Wallace wrote a word on the topic!

Wallace did not coin the term Darwinism. In reality, the modern usage of the term was coined by Huxley in 1860 (see here) . The term was also used to refer to Charles Darwin's grandfather as early as 1840 (see here).

So that's several more piece of bullshit bagged and dropped in the dysology bin.

Moreover, when Wallace was just 9 years old, in 1832, John Loudon wrote of Patrick Matthew's (1831) origination of the theory of macroevolution by natural selection that he appeared to have something orignal to say on "origin of species" no less!  (see: Loudon, J.C. 1832. Matthew Patrick On Naval Timber and Arboriculture with Critical Notes on Authors who have recently treated the Subject of Planting. Gardener’s Magazine. Vol. VIII. p.703.). 

Among seven naturalists who cited Matthew (1831) pre-1859 Loudon went on to edit two influential papers on evolution written by Blyth, who was a great influence on both Darwin and Wallace. This is just one of several routes for Matthewain knowledge transfer that have been newly discovered (see Sutton 2015 for more information).

Perhaps the Guardian should at least bother to fact-check claims before going into print to spread even more myths on the topic of the discovery of the unifying theory of biology.

An article in the Guardian on the genuine originator, Patrick Matthew would perhaps help to set the factual record straight in the press. Here is some real news! And also here.


Conclusion

That sloppy mythmongering article in the Guardian confirms 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.

+

Dear Snoozepapers: Please do try to keep up with the news

+ +

Sunday, 16 July 2017

The Guardian Publishes Fake Facts about Wallace

Friday, 14 July 2017

Lies

+

Royal Society want's a book recommendation

Wednesday, 12 July 2017

The Facts are Friends of Science Whether or not Some People Hate Them

+

Coming soon.Paperback Vol 1 of Nullius (abridged and updated)

Sunday, 25 June 2017

Lies your biology professor told you

+
 Don't be fooled again. Get the independently verifiable disconfirming facts for their lies and propaganda here: PatrickMatthew.com

Saturday, 24 June 2017

On Heritage and Sustainability in Scotland

Sunday, 28 May 2017

Proof Darwin was a serial liar and glory thieving plagiarist

A simple chronological presentation of significant and neglected historic facts that prove Darwin lied about the prior readership of Matthew’s discover and that Darwin’s same lies have been credulously parroted ever since by the world’s Darwin Scholars

John Loudon, the famous botanist naturalist, reviewed Patrick Matthew’s (1831) book ‘On Naval Timber and Arboriculture’, which is now acknowledged by the world’s leading Darwinists to contain the first publication of the full conception of macro evolution by natural selection. See: Gardener’s Magazine 1832, vol. VIII, p. 703.

'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.'

Patrick Matthew (1860): 1st open letter to Charles Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 7 April 1860, pp. 312-313 Reveals that the famous naturalist botanist John Loudon Reviewed Matthew's book.

'This discovery recently published by Mr. Darwin turns out to be what I published very fully... as far back as January 1, 1831... reviewed in numerous periodicals, so as to have full publicity... by Loudon …and repeatedly in the United Service Magazine for 1831 etc.'

Charles Darwin (1860): Reply to Patrick Matthew in the Gardeners’ Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 21 April 1860, no. 16, pp. 362-363

‘I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, had heard of Mr Matthew’s views…’

Patrick Matthew (1860): 2nd open letter. Reply to Charles Darwin in the Gardener's Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 12 May 1860, p. 433

'He is however wrong in thinking that no naturalist was aware of the previous discovery. I had occasion some 15 years ago to be conversing with a naturalist, a professor of a celebrated university, and he told me he had been reading my work Naval Timber, but that he could not bring such views before his class or uphold them publicly from fear of the cutty-stool, a sort of pillory punishment… It was at least in part this spirit of resistance to scientific doctrine that caused my work to be voted unfit for the public library of the fair city itself. The age was not ripe for such ideas…’

Charles Darwin (1861) , Letter to Quatrefages de Bréau, J. L. A. De. 25 April :

‘…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…’

Charles Darwin, (1861) ‘On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’, 3rd ed:

'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. 95'


DARWIN'S LIES HAVE BEEN CREDULOUSLY PARROTED AS "TRUE" EVER SINCE

Gavin de Beer (1962), “The Wilkins Lecture: The Origins of Darwin’s Ideas on Evolution and Natural Selection”, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. vol. 155, no. 960, pp. 321-338.

‘…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.'

Ernst Mayr (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 499

‘The person who has the soundest claim for priority in establishing a theory of evolution by natural selection is Patrick Matthew … His views on evolution… neither Darwin nor any other biologist had ever encountered them until Matthew bought forward his claims in an article in 1860 in The Gardeners’ Chronicle'
+

Saturday, 20 May 2017

Hopping Mad Darwin Worshippers

+ + + +

Saturday, 13 May 2017

A Credulous Face-Value History versus Actual Facts

Gandhi's Four Stages of Veracity Acceptence

Thursday, 11 May 2017

Latest News on Patrick Matthew from Scotland

Anyone wishing to disseminate the truth is welcome to take and use the following information:

It is essential that we use the veracious power of independently verifiable facts only in tackling those who wish to keep Matthew buried in oblivion with mere unevidenced rhetoric, cherry picking dysology, fallacies, myths and outright, and de facto, fact denial behaviour. And that we make it clear that is how we will argue for a veracious history of scientific discovery and influence of the unifying theory of biology. Otherwise - in my experience with them to date - Darwinians will seek to confuse the world further with mere unevidenced opinions to support their newly punctured paradigm of tri-independent discovery of macro evolution by natural selection by Matthew, Darwin and Wallace.  

Please do feel free to use the bullet points below anywhere in any way you see fit. 

What follows are bulletproof, independently verifiable, facts.

Here are the independently verifiable facts. All are fully referenced to their published sources in my open access peer reviewed science article HERE http://www.nauka-a-religia.uz.zgora.pl/index.php/pl/czasopismo/46-fag-2015/921-fag-2015-art-05

1.  Darwin fully (1860, 1861) admitted that Matthew got the entire full theory of evolution before he and Wallace.
2. Darwin (1860, 1861) lied when he wrote that no naturalist and no one at all had read Matthew's prior-published work, because Matthew twice informed Darwin in published print in the Gardener's Chronicle that the exact opposite was true. Matthew explained to Darwin that his work was heretical in the first half of the 19th century and that even a professor of an esteemed university feared to teach it for fear of the "cutty stool" (being pilloried in church), and that Perth public library banned his book for the same reason.
3. Matthew's ideas were not buried solely in the appendix of his (1831)  book. Darwin lied when he made that claim in every edition of the Origin of Species from the 1861 3rd edition onward. Because Matthew's (1860) first letter to the Gardener's Chronicle on this issue included swathes of text from the main body of his (1831) book on natural selection.  Darwin wrote to his best friend the famous economic botanist Joseph Hooker that it would be "splitting hairs" to admit the truth of that matter. 
4. My original research  (Nullius in verba: Darwin's greatest secret 2014) uncovered the fact that - as opposed the the myth started by Darwin as the premise to support his and Wallace's claimed independent discoveries of Matthew's prior published hypothesis - other naturalists in fact did read Matthew's original conception before he brought it to Darwin's attention in the Gardener's Chronicle in 1860.
5. In fact, as opposed to none at all - 25 people cited Matthew's book in the literature pre 1858. Seven naturalist read those ideas, because they are among the 25 who cited Matthew's book in the literature. Darwin knew four of those naturalists.  
6. Three of those four naturalists played major roles at the epicentre of influence on Darwin and Wallace and on their friends, influencers and influencer's influencers. 
7. Those three are John Claudius Loudon. Prideaux John Selby and Robert Chambers.
8. Loudon - who was best friends with the botanist John Lindley and William Hooker (father of Darwin's best friend Joseph Hooker) went on to be owner chief editor of the journal that published two of Blyth's most influential papers on organic evolution. Darwin fully admitted from the 3rd edition of the Origin of Species (1861) onward that Blyth was his most useful and prolific informant on the topic. Lindley went on to lie in order to steal Matthew's right to national fame as the first to import and propagate giant Californian redwoods in Britain.
9.  Selby was a friend of Darwin's father and best friend of Darwin's great friend and most prolific correspondent Leonard Jenyns. Most importantly, Selby was chief editor of the journal that published Wallace's (1855) Sarawak paper on organic evolution. 
10. Chambers was the anonymous author of The Vestiges of Creation. That is the book attributed by Darwin scholars with "putting evolution in the air" in the first half of the 19th century. Darwin and Chambers corresponded and met pre-1858. Both Darwin and Wallace admitted its influence on society and their own work. Wallace wrote that Chambers was his greatest influencer.
11. Wallace would later write that Matthew was one of the most original thinkers of the first half of the 19h century. Wallace should know the truth of that matter. Wallace's recognition of Matthew's originality means - logically - that Matthew was one of the most original thinkers of the entire 19th century. And that makes him one of the most original thinkers of all time.  

So why is the scientific establishment keeping up the sly old silent treatment about Matthew? Please disseminate the facts. We deserve a veracious history of the discovery of the unifying theory of Biology.

Friday, 5 May 2017

Silly Old Darwinists

Thursday, 4 May 2017

Artist Wanted. No Robots!

The world is changing rapidly. The middle classes are becoming extinct and the working class is being overtopped by robots. The pocket university education looms over the horizon.
In areas such as law, medical diagnostics and even teaching great Artificial Intelligence (AI) breakthroughs are being made. As our hospitals, schools and universities fall foul of corporate management creep, the moving target obsessed managerial classes will move from the current human resources (HR) de-professionalisation philosophy to replace humans altogether with AI interplaying with high quality recorded and licenced human content. The digitized, debt free,
Donald Trump's regression to dirty coal, filthy oil and similar promises of silly wall building projects is symptomatic of this change across the entire employment sector. He can no longer hold back the tide of change than King Canute's delusional orders could stop the inevitable tide from coming in. Those who voted for Trump failed to see that. they are already the walking dead    of the zombie horde. Like those apocryphal zombies of modern entertainment culture, they just don't know it.
Change brings new opportunities. Those able to adapt to perceive and then exploit the opportunities presented by new technology will more likely thrive. New technology allows us to cut out the middleman and choose ourselves    to take control of our intellectual content and reap more of the rewards of our original endeavours.
I'm currently working on the second edition of my book 'Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret'. This will be an updated and abridged paperback,.Create Space   , print to order, version of the larger 600 page-e-book published by ThinkerMedia of Best Thinking. The orignal e-book will remain for sale    to those requiring the extra and orignal data on Darwin's and Wallace's plagiarizing science fraud. I think the best place for 600 pages is in an e-book. That's better for the environment. And since so many people prefer to hold a paper book, print to order is a better option than printing and storing large numbers of smaller books in advance.
I have some ideas of what I would like for a front cover of my book, but it pays to know one's limitations. I need an expert artist who won't charge the Earth to design the front cover, spine and back cover for me.
Here is an area where artificial intelligence immigrants are unlikely to take human jobs. Robots need not apply, well at least not for now anyway. Any offers, ideas or advice greatly appreciated via the comments section.
image
Mike Sutton and ThinkerMediaUsed only with express written permission
Some loose ideas for a cover design for the second edition of Nullius
Clearly, I need an expert book cover artist. I'm prepared to pay and to promote their work. There are many such artists advertising online. I've not yet found one that appeals to me. But I will.

Wednesday, 3 May 2017

Crohn's disease or anxiety of being found out? Or both?

Monday, 1 May 2017

Hoisted by his own petard


How does the world really work?

Saturday, 22 April 2017

Thursday, 20 April 2017

On Pinker and Big Data Discovered Lies

Tuesday, 18 April 2017

Saturday, 15 April 2017

100% Independently Verifiable Facts About Lies Don't Lie!

Saturday, 8 April 2017

Matthew in the News

Facts don't die

Tuesday, 4 April 2017

Claimed Multiple Coincidence Conundrum

Monday, 3 April 2017

Carse of Gowrie Sustainability Group

Thursday, 23 March 2017

The First Pave the Way for The Rest

Friday, 17 March 2017

Defending Stupidity Reveals a Lot About You

Royal Society Silent on Dawingate

Wednesday, 15 March 2017

Saturday, 11 March 2017

Thursday, 9 March 2017

On Richard Dawkins and Darwinism

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Nominations for my prize for questioning authority?

I see MIT are offering a prize for those who break the rules: "You don't get a Nobel Prize for doing what you're told, you get it for questioning authority,"

 What about the rules of  Darwin worship in science. I broke those with cold hard newly discovered facts that bust the paradigm of  Darwin and Wallace as independent discoverers of an unread prior-published theory see:  Sutton 2014 and Sutton 2016.

Were you to nominate my paradigm changing orignal research discoveries for any prize in science what outcome should we expect? Why?

 ++