back


To my dismay the peer’s and authorities to whom I should ideally like to have submitted these findings are no longer with us - what in past times was considered measured and reasoned thinking within science, has via the slow process of inculcation, been both gradually and systematically eroded out of peoples minds by the incumbents and their acolytes. Add to this the increasing obsession with science fiction since the 1950’s and one may begin to see how the irrational can indeed become rational, nonsense can indeed become sense, and almost anything may become not only feasible but also believable. And, what’s more, in a throwback to past times, the practitioner’s of this relatively modern science, much like the Church of old, fail to grasp the distinction between verifiable 'subjective truth’ and verifiable 'objective truth’.

Is it any wonder that humanity finds itself in the dire scientific, cultural and educational cul-de-sac in which we are immersed today. Democracy can only work effectively if you have an educated and knowledgeable electorate voting for an intelligent, wise and just elective. Some of the thinking behind much modern science and philosophy since the 1950’s has regrettably ensured that we have neither at the moment. The generality of the people have been disenfranchised by sophistry and humbug, and past proven disciplines of thought remain anathema to those who presently hold the power - it remains to be seen just how many more blameless generations must have their innate natural and moral philosophy needlessly tarnished by the present corruption within scientific thinking. Black-holes, Big-Bangs, Multi-Universe’s, Dark-Matter, Dark Energy, Anti-Matter, Quantum-this, Quantum-that and other such notions are all very well… but perhaps we really ought to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere, focus on more earthly phenomena and divert some of the seemingly infinite funds that such notions receive and allocate them toward the potentially more useful purpose - a correct, sensible and properly reasoned education of young people. If that could be achieved, then at the very least, people would be equipped to reason in a truly scientific manner and therefore discern for themselves the relative distinctions between science fictions, fantasies and facts. Perhaps then, and only then, will the scientific zealot lose the hegemony that empowers, enshrines and enriches their own subjective and from this truly scientific perspective - deeply shallow understanding. At present, the more convoluted and complicated their doctrine the cleverer they are made to appear and the more stupid everyone else is made to feel. It need not be this way - just as everybody on this planet shares in a basic conception of macro planetary space so also should they be able to conceive a basic notion of micro molecular space, albeit and notwithstanding the considerable requisite differentiations.

The founders and forebears of our scientific academies, institutes and societies must be spinning in their graves at the innevitable consequence of the present approach, based as it is, on irrational opinion and the inventions of partisan and self-interested individuals. And more especially an approach that uses statistical 'certainties and probabilities’ to support 'procrustean solutions’ when trying to make sense of a model that is in itself effectively 'apple-pied'. It would seem that even the Royal Societythe oldest of them all, has lost sight of its very pertinent motto 'Nullius in Verba'. Euclidean geometry has been neglected far too long, so let us hope that at some future point in time these modern day astrologers may find the grace to admit their folly and to laugh at themselves as readily as they have done the ecclesiastical communities in the past. The rigorousness, provenance and straightforward common sense of Euclid stretches back many thousands of years and I am confident that such an approach will ultimately retake the helm at some point in the earth’s future. It is by the rigorous and immutable standards of those peer’s and authorities, both from the past and in the future, that I wish this contribution to be ultimately judged.


"Blind folly, though it deceive itself with false names, cannot alter the true merit of things, and, mindful of the precept of Socrates, I do not think it right either to keep truth concealed or allow falsehood to pass. But this, however it may be, I leave to thy judgement and to the verdict of the discerning. Moreover, lest the course of events and the true facts should be hidden from posterity, I have myself committed to writing an account of the transaction.” 

‘The Consolation of Philosophy’ Boethius - book I (iv)


Contextual Quotes