Mark E Curtis

The geometry of DNA: a structural revision

- the application 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, particularly since the early 1950’s, been gradually and systematically eroded. One needs ask oneself what kind of a science it is that ignores reason and mathematics and places its trust in a subjective and irrational opinion? What kind of a science it is that ignores Euclid entirely when exploring geometric structures? 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. 

    Modern biochemistry and its practitioners seem happy to ignore the central tenets on which good science was founded. Add to this the increasing and 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 to some extent. And, what’s more, this relatively modern science, much like the church of old, is reluctant to grasp the 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, environmental, cultural and educational cul-de-sac in which humanity finds itself immersed 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 has ensured that we have neither at the moment and the generality of the people, kept in perpetual ignorance, appear to have been disenfranchised by sophistry and humbug.

    Proven and 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 the present corruption. Black-holes, Big-Bangs, Multi-Universe’s, Dark-Matter, Dark Energy, Anti-Matter, Quantum-this, Quantum-that, Astro this, Astro that and other such modernist disciplines are all very well (I certainly wouldn’t wish to comment), but perhaps we ought re-enter the earth’s atmosphere occasionally and focus on more earthly phenomena. Perhaps we should 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, at the very least, people would be equipped to reason and discern for themselves the relative distinctions between fiction’s, fantasy’s and fact’s. Perhaps then, and only then, will the zealots of modern science lose the hegemony that empowers, enshrines and enriches their own subjective and, to be quite frank, deeply shallow understanding. Presently, the more convoluted and complicated the doctrine the cleverer its practitioners are made to appear and the more disenfranchised 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 founders and forebears of our present scientific academies, institutes and societies must be spinning in their graves at the inevitable consequence of the present approach, based as it is, on the invented and irrational opinion of partisan and self-interested individuals. And more especially, an approach that uses ‘Statistical Certainties and Probabilities’ in support of ‘Procrustean Solutions’ whilst endeavouring to make sense of a model that is in itself intrinsically ‘Apple-Pied'. 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 the cycle of compound ignorance. Perhaps one day this modern science will find enough grace 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. 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 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 open, honourable and unbiased 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 the trappings of fame, celebrity and those oh so very desperately sought trips to Stockholm. ‘Universal Truths’ and ‘Mathematical Proofs’ have become optional extras in todays world and they may, quite literally, go to the Devil in the face of the conscience-less corporation, lucrative systems of education and the misdirected ambition of the modern scientist. Their sophistry may triumph just now, and even for years to come, but the essence of knowledge never dies and just as surely as the sun rises I believe 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)