Thursday, 4 December 2014

The slippery slope in Darwin-plagiarism theories

The Slippery Slope argument is a logic fallacy (a non sequitur), in which the proponent argues that, once the first step is undertaken, a second or third step will inevitably follow, much like the way one step on a slippery incline will cause a person to fall and slide all the way to the bottom. However, this sort of thinking does not allow for any possibility of stopping the process. It simply assumes that, once the nose is in, the rest must follow--that the sheik can't stop the progression once it has begun--and thus the argument is a logical fallacy.

One of the most disingenuous strategies employed by Darwin-plagiarism theorists is the following.

1. Evidence on the reception of Matthew (1831. On Naval Timber and Arboriculture) by various contemporaries is taken for a claim about the likelihood that Darwin and Wallace had heard of it before 1858. For example: "It is more likely than not."
2. From there you slide to claims about the likelihood that they had read it before 1858.
3. And from there you slide to claims about the likelihood that they had received the idea of natural selection from it before 1858.
4. You then replace the likelihood claim with one of absolute certainty ("100% proven"). But you change the content of the claim, underhand, from Darwin and Wallace having had knowledge about Matthew (1831) prior to 1858 to various contemporaries having read and reviewed Matthew (1831) before 1858.

Here it reads like this:


"... evidence - that it is now more likely than not that Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew's prior published hypothesis and that each lied when they claimed no prior knowledge of it."
"Wallace and Darwin claimed not to have read Matthew's (1831) book and have been newly proven 100% wrong (by me) in their claim that no naturalists known to them read it!"

Did you notice how the content of the claim changed underhand?

From: "Darwin and Wallace plagiarized Matthew's"
to: "Darwin and Wallace claimed not to have read Matthew's (1831) book"
and from there to: "their claim that no naturalist known to them read it!"

Or did you instead gather that the plagiarism is now claimed to be 100% proven?

5 comments:

  1. Excellent work. For your great and desperately superb bleating pseudo-scholarship in 2014 you have been personally praised in a sermon by the Church of the Immaculate Conception of a Prior Published theory. Please keep up your sterling anonymous (well not quite) work in 2015: http://www.bestthinking.com/thinkers/science/social_sciences/sociology/mike-sutton?tab=blog&blogpostid=22572

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here is your next religious assignment 2015 - tackle the dreadful fact that my unique and groundbreaking new-painfully- disconcerting-evidence-led work is getting into peer reviewed journals: http://britsoccrim.org/new/volume14/pbcc_2014_sutton.pdf

    Oh some further good (oops sorry I meant bad) news is that I am now co-authoring a book on Robert Chambers (who I uniquely discovered cited Matthew in 1832) with an eminent professor of Biology from Cambridge. So there will be plenty for you to troll about in the years to come.

    Happy new year old chap. Keep up the sterling Darwin worshiping in these trying times.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I find your britsoccrim paper far more palatable than your book. Not yet acceptable in certain claims, but better than your book by far. But that, again, shows your double-tonguednees. You take up the criticism, mine and others' I guess, and improve your writing. But then come back here to spill this bullshit about me being religiously devout to Darwin or something of the sort.

    Or else, the peer reviewers have done a good job punching some of the worst slander out of your paper, but you are the same bugger as ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joachim you are as daft as a brush. Nothing you write anywhere influences anyone other than your own multiple identities,

      Delete
  4. I particularly liked the following passage, because you came very close to the conclusion that suspending judgment is the only descent thing to do with the evidence we have.

    "Of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy to
    hide it. Such thinking is irrational. But neither is it rational to believe that
    absence of evidence from the Darwin and Wallace archives is reliable
    evidence that either man did not know something, did not correspond with
    or did not meet any particular person not mentioned in what remains in
    those archives. In short, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in
    such cases."

    Unfortunately, you fall back into the habit of those, bred in the cultural soup of jurisprudence rather than science, to return a verdict no matter what the evidence may be like. Litigation has rules for pronouncing verdicts, when there is no evidence, when there is only circumstantial evidence, on how to weigh that circumstantial evidence, on how much of circumstantial evidence is needed to find someone guilty etc. You just cannot wrap your mind around the concept of suspending judgement, I guess.

    And you keep waving Chambers and Selby as circumstantial evidence for Darwin's fraud, when they are the opposite. If the "Vestiges of Creation" and Selby's book on forest trees prove anything, then that their authors did not receive the idea of natural selection from their lecture of Matthew (1831). Is that so hard to understand?

    ReplyDelete