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 to be measured and reasoned thought seems, over many years, but in particular since the 1950’s, to have been gradually and systemically eroded. One must ask oneself what kind of a science it is that ignores reason and mathematics(central tenets of science), and places its entire trust in the subjective and irrational opinion of two individuals? What kind of a science it is that ignores Euclid when exploring and investigating what is ultimately a geometric structure? And, furthermore, what kind of a science it is that concerns itself with chemistry in isolation when we know that in biology, structural form more often than not equals function, and that even the minutest alteration to the structure of a molecule may have profound effects on that function. Chirality being a classic example. 

    Added to this an increasing and universal obsession with science-fiction since the 1950’s and one may now 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. The concept of ‘a priori’ entirely lost on them, this relatively modern science of biochemistry, much like the church of old, seems incapable of grasping a distinction between verifiable 'subjective truth’ and a verifiable ‘universal objective truth’ - the true embodiment of science in the strict sense of the word.

    It is no wonder at all that humanity finds itself in the dire and precarious state in which it resides today. Our democracies and rule of law can only work effectively if you have an educated and knowledgeable electorate voting for an intelligent, wise and just elective. Sad to say we have neither at the moment. The generality of the people have been entirely disenfranchised by a sophistry in science that we have never seen the like of before. Countless generations have had their innate natural and moral philosophy corrupted by a polluted education since the 1950’s. This has led to the falling away of a general, across the board, universal comprehension in education and the imposition of a more profound general ignorance, corrupted elitism and sloppiness of thought. Perhaps we should divert some of the enormous funds that such modern notions receive and allocate them toward a potentially more useful purpose - the correct, sensible and properly reasoned education of young people. A good start might be to re-introduce Euclid to the curriculum. If that could be achieved, at the very least, people would be equipped to reason and logically discern for themselves the relative distinctions between fiction, fantasies and fact. Perhaps then, and only then, will this modern science lose the hegemony that empowers, enshrines and enriches their own subjective and, to be quite frank, deeply shallow understanding. At present, the more convoluted and complicated the doctrine the cleverer its practitioners are made to appear and the more disenfranchised and ignorant everyone else is made to feel. It really needn’t be this way - just as everybody on this planet now shares in the basic conception of macro planetary space so also should they be able to conceive a basic notion of the micro molecular space, albeit and notwithstanding the considerable requisite differentiations.

    The present biochemical approach, based as it is on both partisan and irrational opinion, is also an approach that requires ‘statistical certainties and probabilities’ to support diabolical ‘Procrustean solutions’. Endeavouring to make sense of their model, that is in itself intrinsically ‘apple-pied’, will only lead us further into the scientific and philosophical cul-de-sac that we now find ourselves in. The Royal Society appears to have lost sight of its very pertinent motto 'Nullius in Verba’, and global education systems find themselves in the position of perpetuating this cycle of compound ignorance. Let us hope that one day this modern science will find grace enough to admit its folly. The rigorousness of both rational and reasoned thought stretches back many thousands of years and I am therefore confident that such an approach will ultimately retake the helm in science. It is by the rigorous and immutable standards of those peers and authorities, both from the past and future, that I wish this contribution to be ultimately judged. 

   

  

  

    

    

   I have little hope that the arguments I present regarding the perversion of ‘this 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 open, honourable and unbiased investigation seeking knowledge, truth, wisdom and understanding. It is now big business ossified by mammon, by big pharma, by shareholders, by ego, by textbooks, and by those no longer necessarily seeking truth or knowledge but perhaps merely a lucrative job that their programmed sophistry and biased learning have enabled them to perform. ‘Universal Truth’ and ‘Mathematical Proof’ have now become optional extras to be sacrificed in the face of the conscience-less corporation, lucrative educational systems and those ever so desperately sought trips to Stockholm. Sophistry may triumph just now, and most probably even for years to come, but the essence of knowledge never dies and just as surely as the sun rises the truth will out in the end.

“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)

Back