Michael Shermer is a very plausible individual but I have some concerns about the way his mind mind works. It's clearly not always logical and appears to me at least have something of the empirical fact and observed and agreed reality smogging endeavours of a "flim flam man" about it.
In my new book book "Science Fraud: Darwin's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew;'s theory" I criticise Shermer accordingly for his disappointing, irrationally un-skeptical and misleading dysology:
"The fact Darwin claimed no prior knowledge of Matthew's theory and declared that no other naturalist was aware of it is ignored by Darwinist and founding director of the so-called Skeptics Society Michael Shermer. Instead, Shermer sidetracks people from this fact by telling them another fact that is widely accepted. Namely, that most originators have their known influencers. Shermer does this to argue we should not think there is anything unusual about Darwin’s replication of Matthew’s hypothesis (Shermer 2002, pp. 147–149). He tells us the influence of any other thinker on Darwin is not therefore a zero-sum question.
With skeptical respect, the politest thing I can say about Shermer’s argument is it is flim-flam for the simple reason Darwin claimed Matthew had zero influence on him and zero influence on any other naturalist. In other words, Darwin claimed it was a zero-sum game, and he did so to avoid being accused of plagiarism.
So, what is Shermer doing in the middle of the history of science burying Matthew’s rightful priority with a bent shovel by claiming we should not think of the question of Matthew's influence as a zero-sum game? Here is a clue. In his very same Darwin Industry book Shermer (2002) spreads the powerful disinformation supermyth, started by Darwin and as we have just seen parroted by Darwinites ever since, that Matthew’s hypothesis was hidden away solely in an appendix of an obscure book and ignored. That fixed false-belief came from a lie told by Darwin. Natural selection theory is not solely in the appendix of NTA. Much of it including Matthew’s name for it, his use of artificial selection to explain it, and his call for others to look for evidence to confirm it, is all in the main body of the book. Small wonder Darwin invented the “appendix myth” to steer others, like Shermer, away from those facts.
It’s a zero-sum game for the likes of Bowler and Shermer. They either admit they have spread misinformation about Matthew’s priority or they don’t. What side are they on? The rationally skeptical side of independently verifiable facts? Or the side of Darwin’s proven lies? It looks like the Darwin Industry can’t see the wood for the trees. Or is it that they can’t see the trees for the wood because they are as “thick as two short planks”? Or maybe they can’t see either because they can’t see further than the end of Darwin’s dissembling pen?
Facts speak volumes. Quite justly, Dempster (2005, p. 10) wrote one of the greatest understatements in history to explain why the facts are getting the silent treatment or else being misrepresented by the Darwin Industry":
“The suppression of the work of Patrick Matthew since 1831 raises doubts about the so-called intellectual integrity of many scientists.”
Hi Shaun
ReplyDeleteMichael Shermer is a very plausible individual but I have some concerns about the way his mind mind works. It's clearly not always logical and appears to me at least have something of the empirical fact and observed and agreed reality smogging endeavours of a "flim flam man" about it.
In my new book book "Science Fraud: Darwin's plagiarism of Patrick Matthew;'s theory" I criticise Shermer accordingly for his disappointing, irrationally un-skeptical and misleading dysology:
"The fact Darwin claimed no prior knowledge of Matthew's theory and declared that no other naturalist was aware of it is ignored by Darwinist and founding director of the so-called Skeptics Society Michael Shermer. Instead, Shermer sidetracks people from this fact by telling them another fact that is widely accepted. Namely, that most originators have their known influencers. Shermer does this to argue we should not think there is anything unusual about Darwin’s replication of Matthew’s hypothesis (Shermer 2002, pp. 147–149). He tells us the influence of any other thinker on Darwin is not therefore a zero-sum question.
With skeptical respect, the politest thing I can say about Shermer’s argument is it is flim-flam for the simple reason Darwin claimed Matthew had zero influence on him and zero influence on any other naturalist. In other words, Darwin claimed it was a zero-sum game, and he did so to avoid being accused of plagiarism.
So, what is Shermer doing in the middle of the history of science burying Matthew’s rightful priority with a bent shovel by claiming we should not think of the question of Matthew's influence as a zero-sum game? Here is a clue. In his very same Darwin Industry book Shermer (2002) spreads the powerful disinformation supermyth, started by Darwin and as we have just seen parroted by Darwinites ever since, that Matthew’s hypothesis was hidden away solely in an appendix of an obscure book and ignored. That fixed false-belief came from a lie told by Darwin. Natural selection theory is not solely in the appendix of NTA. Much of it including Matthew’s name for it, his use of artificial selection to explain it, and his call for others to look for evidence to confirm it, is all in the main body of the book. Small wonder Darwin invented the “appendix myth” to steer others, like Shermer, away from those facts.
It’s a zero-sum game for the likes of Bowler and Shermer. They either admit they have spread misinformation about Matthew’s priority or they don’t. What side are they on? The rationally skeptical side of independently verifiable facts? Or the side of Darwin’s proven lies? It looks like the Darwin Industry can’t see the wood for the trees. Or is it that they can’t see the trees for the wood because they are as “thick as two short planks”? Or maybe they can’t see either because they can’t see further than the end of Darwin’s dissembling pen?
Facts speak volumes. Quite justly, Dempster (2005, p. 10) wrote one of the greatest understatements in history to explain why the facts are getting the silent treatment or else being misrepresented by the Darwin Industry":
“The suppression of the work of Patrick Matthew since 1831 raises doubts about the so-called intellectual integrity of many scientists.”