Mark E Curtis
The geometry of DNA: a structural revision
- the appliance of critical reason to Crick and Watson’s proposal -
To my dismay the peer’s and authorities to whom I should like to have submitted these findings are no longer with us. What in past times was considered measured and reasoned scientific thinking has, since the early 1950’s, been gradually and systematically eroded by the present incumbent’s and their acolytes. One needs ask oneself what kind of a science is this modern biochemistry that ignores reason and mathematics and places its trust in subjective opinion and irrational sensation? Indeed, what kind of a science it is that ignores Euclid when exploring geometric structure? And, furthermore, what kind of a science it is that concerns itself with chemistry alone when we know that in biology structural form equals function and that even the minutest alteration to the structure of a molecule may have profound effects on its function. Chirality being a classic example. The Crick and Watson proposal, quite clearly architecturally flawed and opinion based, would struggle to code for an amoeba let alone any higher organism.
Modern biochemistry and its practitioners seem happy to ignore the central tenets on which good science was founded. Add to this the increasing universal global 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, this relatively modern science, much like the church of old, fails to grasp the very important distinction between a verifiable 'subjective truth’ and a universally verifiable 'objective truth’ - the true embodiment of science in the strict sense of the word.
Is it any wonder that humanity finds itself in the dire scientific, cultural and educational cul-de-sac that we find ourselves immersed in today. Democracy and rule of law can only work effectively if you have an educated and knowledgeable electorate voting for an intelligent, wise and just elective. The thinking behind much modern science and philosophy since the 1950’s has ensured that we have neither at the moment. One need only look at the quality of the present governor’s and leaders of our world and its institutions to witness evidence of this. Whilst clever and quick to learn the dogma’s of the present age they appear to lack the wisdom and the penetration that the ability of true critical reason enables. The generality of the people have been disenfranchised by sophistry and humbug.
Proven rigorous disciplines of thought remain anathema to those presently holding the reigns of power and it remains to be seen just how many more blameless generations must have their innate natural and moral philosophy tarnished by this present corruption. 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 - I couldn’t and don’t wish to comment - but perhaps we ought to re-enter the earth’s atmosphere, focus on more earthly phenomena, divert some of the seemingly infinite funds that such notions receive and allocate them toward a potentially more useful purpose - the 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, quite frankly, 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 now 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 present scientific academies, institutes and societies must be spinning in their graves at the inevitable consequence of this present approach, based as it is, on the irrational opinion and invention of partisan and self-interested individuals. And more especially, an approach that uses statistical 'certainties and probabilities’ in support of ‘Procrustean Solutions’ when trying to make sense of a model that is in itself intrinsically 'apple-pied'. The dazzling brilliance of our modern technologies - in which most of current science’s fallible faith resides - will only conceal the absence of truth, knowledge and reasoned thought for so long before an ultimate clarity of vision will return. Even the Royal Society has lost sight of its very pertinent motto 'Nullius in Verba'. Universal global systems of education now find themselves in the position of perpetuating a cycle of compound ignorance on the population at large. Perhaps one day, these institutions and their elites may find grace enough to admit their folly and be able to laugh at themselves as readily as they have done the ecclesiastical communities of the past. The rigorousness, provenance and straightforward common sense of rational and reasoned thought stretches back many thousands of years and I am confident that such an approach will ultimately retake the helm in science at some point in the earth’s future. It is by the rigorous and immutable standards of those peers and authorities, both from the past and in the future, that I wish this contribution to be ultimately judged.
And therefore I have little hope that the arguments I present about the perversion of ‘modern science’ in our society and the knock on effects of that wrong headedness will ever be accepted or even seriously debated for a long while to come. Science is no longer what it used to be, an honourable and unbiased open investigation and discussion into natural phenomena. It is now a business, ossified by mammon and by those who no longer necessarily seek knowledge and truth but are drawn to fame, celebrity, wealth and those desperately sought trips to Stockholm. Both ‘Universal Truth’ and ‘Mathematical Proof’ may go to the Devil in the face of the ‘conscience-less corporation’, ‘big-pharma’ and lucrative ‘educational systems’ so long as reputation remains unblemished, the machine keeps churning and those established and vested interests continue to hold sway. Their sophistry may triumph for now, but blemished and ridiculed it will become in due course, for the essence of knowledge never dies and just as surely as the sun rises the truth will out in the end. It strikes me as rather tragic, but perhaps a full blown and complete deterioration of culture, environment and society will be the only means by which we shall be able to crawl out of this science inflicted dark-age of humanity so that a positive change may occur to the good and for the generality of people.
“I appreciate that the majority of people who are not only regarded as intelligent but are indeed intelligent, capable of understanding the most difficult scientific, mathematical and philosophical reasonings, are very rarely capable of understanding a most simple and obvious truth, if it is such a truth as requires that they admit that a judgement they have formed about something, sometimes with great effort, a judgement they are proud of, which they have taught to others, on the basis of which they have arranged their life - that this judgement may be wrong.”
Tolstoy’s ‘What is Art’ chapter XIV
"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)