Happy Hallowe'en: But Did the Scots Poet Burns First coin the Word Halloween?

Happy Halloween

Today (31 October 2015) is Halloween. And so, from that cause, I deployed my Big Data ID method - which is, incidentally, the same method - see Sutton 2014    - that debunked Charles Darwin's self-serving lie that no naturalist had read Scottish horticulturist Patrick Matthew's (1831) prior published full hypothesis of 'the natural process of selection' before he replicated it 27 years later - to discover the first published use of the word Halloween.

The powerful ID method enables me to discover that what appears to be the earliest currently known printed origin of the word 'Halloween' - or more precisely 'Hallow E'en' - is 1724. Moreover, Robert Burns appears to have been first into print in 1786 with the word Halloween from the poem he penned of that name in 1785.

Prior knowledge

At the time of writing, Wikipedia and seemingly countless other websites vaguely have it that the earliest known usage of the word is "about  1745". The Online Etymology Dictionary makes the same conveniently vague claim, as does the mighty Chamber's Dictionary of Etymology.

Incidentally, the same Big Data ID method uniquely discovered that its founder Rober Chambers, author of the Vestiges of Creation, correspondent and associate of Darwin, had earlier read and then cited Matthew's (1831) book in 1832 (see Sutton 2104a)

Chambers Dictionary of Etymology (2012) p 462:

'Halloween or Hallowe'en about 1745, Scottish shortening of Allhallow-even'.

More precisely, the ID method enables is to pinpoint the first - to date - discoverable use of the word

 'Hallow E'en' to be 1724. on page 22 of  a book by Alan Ramsay entitled The Teatime Miscellany: 

Curiously we see from Ramsay's prose that there appears to have been an apparently well-known tune of the same name. Further research reveals this song was published n 1726. (More on Ramsay himself: here).

In 1786 we find what to date appears to be the earliest discoverable use of the unhyphenated word Halloween and it is by none other than the great Scottish poet:  Robert Burns (pp 101-102)

The book that re-wrote
the history of the discovery
 of natural selection

The trusty ID method strikes once again!

For more examples of the power of the new research method, check out the free to view Chapter Nullius In Verba: Darwin's greatest secret at Amazon books
Three - which is an A-Z of busted myths in my book

If you want to know the real origin of the Easter Bunnie? Here it is.

'

Darwin's and Wallace's Dual Immaculate Deception in Oils

The picture was commissioned, in light of new data (Sutton 2014) that proves naturalists well known the Darwin and Wallace read and then cited Matthew's book before going on to play roles at the very epicenter of influence on the pre-1858 work of Darwin and Wallace on natural selection. The Blessed Virgin St Mary's conception of Jesus of Nazareth, is a miracle because she became pregnant with the child of "God" whilst surrounded by men who were fertile to some unknown degree. The analogy is perfect because so too were Darwin and Wallace surrounded by man whose brains were fertile - to some unknown degree - with Matthew's unique ideas. Therefore, in the final analysis, if Darwin and Wallace did not conceive Matthew's unique discovery, name for it, examples of it in nature, and his artificial versus natural slection analogy of differences to explain it, by some kind of 'knowledge contamination,' then they must surely have each been mysteriously endowed with a miraculous and divine cognitive contraceptive device (MAD CCD).

Seriously, I don't think belief in miracles has any rational place in helping us to tell the veracious history of the discovery of the theory of natural selection The probability that Darwin and Wallace lied when they each claimed to have independently discovered natural selection seems more likely than not. The New Data and a wealth of further evidence about their lies and deceit suggests Darwin and Wallace committed the world's greatest science fraud by deliberately plagiarizing Matthew's book.

Background to Gabriel Wood's painting "Their Immaculate Conception"

Contrary to the Patrick Matthew Supermyth started by Darwin in 1860 in his own defense, other naturalists in fact did read Matthew's (1831) prior published theory of natural selection.

At least 25 people cited the book before 1858 and seven of those were naturalists.

The Newly Discovered Citing Seven, in date order of their citing of Matthew's book, are:

Public Domain

Patrick Matthew: The biological father of the theory of natural selection

1. John Loudon (1832)   ,
2. Robert Chambers (1832),
3. Edmund Murphy (1834),
4. Cuthbert Johnson (1842),
5. Prideaux John Selby (1842),
6. John Norton (1851)
7. William Jameson (1853).

Three of these seven naturalists - Loudon, Selby and Chambers - played key roles at the epicenter of influence on both Darwin's and Wallace's pre-1858 work on the theory of natural selection.

Loudon - an associate of Darwin's friends William and Joseph Hooker - edited two of Edward Blyth's (1835, 1836) hugely influential papers on species. Blyth was Darwin's most useful and prolific informant.

Selby edited Wallace's (1855) famous Sarawak paper on natural selection.

Chambers (1844) wrote the best selling Vestiges of Creation - the book that most influenced Wallace, greatly influenced Darwin, and "put evolution in the air" in the first half of the 19th century.

Barring the occurrence of a dual supernatural miracle of immaculate conception by divine cognitive contraception, some kind of 'knowledge contamination' appears more likely than not.

More details available here on BestThinking

How to Make a Significant Contribution to Knowledge to Academic Knowledge

Are you fed up with hearing and reading claptrap? If so, my advice is that you don't waste your valuable time and energy berating the frozen donkeys who stubbornly believe in it. You need to tell them the facts and then share those facts with a wider and more receptive audience.

Your time and your brain are your most valuable assets. Don't take either for granted. If you are looking for ways to find previously undiscovered, argument winning, independently verifiable facts, you might care to think about buying my book 'Nullius in Verba' at the Thinker Books Store or on Amazon Books. In it you will find out how to uniquely discover your own brand new, hard, confirming or dis-confirming facts.

My simple to use new Big Data technology method will work in any area of your interest, allowing you to bust myths and fallacies, thereby providing you with a solid foundation upon which to make your own unique and significant contribution to veracious hard-evidence-based knowledge.

• They may tell you that it's not what you say but the way that you say it. However, in the real world, in the long-run, facts trump claptrap every time.

If you want to impress your friends, confuse your "enemies", and greatly enhance your cognitive armoury to deal with mere clever rhetoric and soft-beliefs masquerading as knowledge, then read Nullius in Verba today.

In this book, in plain English, I lead by example to show you exactly how easy it is to make simple and freely available new Big Data research technology and techniques work for you.

Matt Rudd of the Sunday Times on Spuriofacts about Spinach

In his popular column "The God of Small Things", Matt Rudd (Senior Writer for the Sunday Times) writes on page 5 of the Sunday Times Magazine of May 10th 2015):

'Child A announces he no longer has to eat spinach. His teacher told him a 19th-century scientist got the decimal point wrong when they recorded its iron content, inadvertently exaggerating it tenfold.

Popeye's superpowers were founded on a myth he claims.

The Sunday Times Magazine May 10th 2015Attribution

Article by Matt Rudd, Senior Writer for The Sunday Times.

Wait there while I check, I say. Four days later, I have an answer. It is possibly the most convoluted answer in the history of this column, but I'll give you the short version.

The decimal point error was first mentioned in an article by Professor Bender in 1971. it has since been used as an example of the importance of accuracy in science.Which is ironic, because there never was a decimal point error in the first place.

Dr Mike Sutton of Nottingham Trent University spent many, many weeks getting to the bottom of the myth. The confusion comes from the fact that dried spinach conatains a lot more iron (44.5 mg per 100g) than fresh spinach (2.7mg per 100g). It was this, rather than an errant decimal point, that caused the initial muddle. There was another muddle involving iron oxide.

And then Professor Bender came along with his decimal point story, and now we have a myth about a myth.

Or a SUPERMYTH, as Dr Sutton calls it.

Popeye, by the way, got his superpowers from the beta-carotene in his spinach. Iron had nothing to do with it. To confuse matters much further, spinach still has a relatively high iron content, even without moving any decimal points. But it's still no good. As Sutton points out: "Spinach contains oxalic acid and oxalic acid is an iron blocker."

So Child A's teacher was right for the wrong reason. And Child A is now trying to find a reason to avoid broccoli.

Stephen J. Gould: Desperate Darwinist. Just Made Stuff Up To Try To Hide the Truth About Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew.

Kindle Notes from Nullius (1)   

Used only with express written permission

Loren Eiseley (1979) was quite reasonably convinced that Charles Darwin had plagiarized Patrick Matthew's (1831) discovery that artificial selection is the key to understanding natural selection - What I have named "The Artificial versus Natural Selection Explanatory Analogy of Differences". (First recognised as an analogy by W. J. Dempster 1996, p. 85).

In Desperate Defense of his Namesake, "Darwin", Famous Leading Darwinist Stephen J, Gould Set Out on a Crusade to "Rubbish" Eiseley's Findings

Most notably, Eiseley's particular piece of compelling evidence was never addressed by the famous Darwinist Gould    (1983, 2002), who selectively criticized Eiseley's other evidence of Darwin's plagiarism of Edward Blyth, who - my blog post yesterday explained - cited many times the fact that he was influenced by Robert Mudie - who I discovered in 2014 (see Nullius) was first to replicate in 1832 (1) Matthew's unique term "rectangular branching" and (2) his unique and most powerful explanatory analogy.

Such selective omission lays Gould wide open to accusations of one-sided pseudo-scholarship.

Gould's biased omission is important because ID uniquely reveals that both Low (1844) and Darwin (1844 and 1859) replicated Matthew's (1831) use of this key example, Darwin did so in his private and unpublished 1844 essay - using the exact same examples, and later in the Origin of Species (1859) - using different examples, without citing Matthew (1831), or Low (1844).

Kindle Notes from Nullius (2)   

Dysology.orgAttribution

Bulloney

Steven J Gould (2002) claimed also that: "Natural selectionranked as a standard item in biological discourse." The implication being that it can't have been coined by way of influence from Matthew's unique term "natural process of selection."

Despite providing zero evidence to support it, Gould's winning argument has been innocently accepted by credulously biased Darwinist schnooks as proof that Eiseley was naively mistaken in thinking "natural selection" was a rare term.

In fact, the BigData facilitated ID research method proves Gould was absolutely wrong. Gould was "bulls**tting" in the philosophical sense generally described by Frankfurt (2005)   . Because In his attempt to keep Matthew buried in oblivion with one-sided, Darwin-friendly inquiry, Gould (2002) essentially wheeled out a myth to accuse Eiseley of committing what he called an "etymological mistake", In reality, with the benefit of BigData technology that faciitates the ID research among over 30 million publications, we now know Eiseley was right and Gould was just being a biased baloney mongering pseudo-scholar - by way of simply making stuff up to suit his own ends. What is most disgraceful is that Darwinists - being so bone bullheadedly greedy to believe anything in their namesake's defense, swallowed Gould's bulloney without even chewing! And they continue to swallow it today.

Proper analysis of the data - as opposed to making stuff up to suit your own ends - reveals that out of over thirty million publications, the precise term 'natural selection' can be found in the literature only four times before Darwin first used it in 1858.

The first known use of the term 'natural selection' had nothing at all to do with science - the term being used by William Preston (1803) to describe how an artist would select a scene to paint. The second usage was by Darwin's fellow Royal Society member, Frances Corbaux (1829) (this use was discovered first by Professor Milton Wainwright), in a very vaguely survival of the fittest human centenarian sense. The third usage was an anonymously authored piece of 1837 to describe how a a hypothesis was chosen as the best - a 'natural selection' over others.

When asked to account for his use of the term by his publisher "John Murray", Darwin claimed he found the term "natural selection" in the literature on breeding, but could never show where. If he got it from Corbaux then he told another lie. But of that, in this case, we cannot be at all sure. To give Darwin the benefit of the doubt, we must stick to the facts. We know for a fact he used the term in his 1844 private essay. We know for a fact he said he got it from the work of breeders - so let's assume he did get it from the work of breeders. Out of 30+ million publications, which pre-1844 publication by breeders comes close to using the term 'natural selection'? Only Matthew's 1831 book, coincidentally containing the full theory of natural selection   , and - incidentally - a book on breeding trees! Matthew's is the book that Darwin's associate Chambers read and cited in 1844 and the book that his associate Selby read and cited in 1842. The dates are significant - are they not?

Although he never used the precise term, out of over 30 million publications we know that Matthew 1831 was the first to use the term: 'natural process of selection' and in 1859 Darwin was first to shuffle those same four words into 'process of natural selection'.

Thinker Media IncUsed only with express written permission

Nullius in Verba

Patrick Matthew was first to discover and have published the full hypothesis of natural selection   .

For the full story of all the strong evidence in favor of the Originator's, Patrick Matthew's, influence on Darwin and Wallace pre-1858 see Nullius in Verba: Darwin's greatest secret.That is my book - a book that pseudo scholarly leading Darwinists and their sheep like followers have read (I know because I am in correspondence with so many) but will not cite in their literature, because they don't want you to read it! They don't want you to read it because it absolutely proves that much of the literature - authored by them and their idols - churned out by the mighty and hugely profitable "Darwin Industry" -- is newly proven with hard and independently verifiable new data to be completely disproven claptrap!

When one leading Darwinist has the courage to abide by the motto of the Royal Society (Nullius in Verba - "On the word alone of no one") and engage fully with new hard data revealed in Nullius, only then will Darwinists thaw out from their current state of being pseudoscholarly Darwin worshiping pre-Enlightenment-like frozen asinine donkeys.

The Enlightenment

Brodie, A. (2007):

'The enlightened person accepts the word of authority not as something to which he has to say ‘yes’, but as something to which it is appropriate to subject to critical analysis. The question for the enlightened person therefore is whether the word of authority can stand up to cross-examination before the tribunal of reason. If it can then it is accepted because it is sanctioned not by authority but by reason. If on the other hand it cannot withstand the cross-examination then it has to be discarded, however exalted the source.'

From: Brodie, A. (2007) The Scottish Enlightenment: The Historical Age of the Historical Nation. Edinburgh. Birlinn Ltd.

A selection of my blog posts and articles on this topic can be found on my website Patrickmatthew.com   

A Blemish in the Darling Darwin? How vary dare he!

“When favourite speculations have been long indulged, and much pains have been bestowed on them, they are viewed with that parental partiality, which cannot bear to hear of faults in the object of its attachment. The mere doubt of an impartial observer is offensive ; and the discovery of anything like a blemish in the darling, is not only ascribed to an entire want of discrimination and judgment, but resented as an injury."
                                                                                       William Lawrence (1819)

Read the reviews

Dawkinite

Supermythbuster  • 2 days ago

Dawkinite

(1) A fanatical follower of Richard Dawkins's ideas, opinions and beliefs

 (2) A meme created by Dr Mike Sutton that is an explanation by analogy to show that all Darwinists are very much like Christians because they believe in the myth-busted miracle of Darwin's and Wallace's dual and independent, immaculate conceptions of a prior published theory, whilst surrounded by admitted influencers who had read it - and so whose minds were fertile to some unknown degree with Matthew's original ideas. Sutton explains that this is perfectly analogous to Christians believing that the Blessed Virgin Mary conceived the child of a supernatural deity whilst surrounded by men who were fertile to some unknown degree.