The Irony of The Written Word
Modern society . . . such an interesting construct. Less than 30% of high school graduates go on to attain Under Graduate Degrees from university. 65 % of those, study in the realm of ‘Letters’, the many fields of The Arts. First, . . . research published works, summarize the findings then, write a legible, well documented and concise review. We have created wordsmiths, not interrogative minds, not scientific inquisitors. Not minds that doubt respectfully – We have created ‘Intellectual Parrots’. This, . . . represents the learning and rational thinking of the vast majority of our leaders. Teachers, Journalists, Political Advisors, Publicists, and yes Environmentalists. In all these fields of study consensus is the ruling doctrine. Researchers whose works are most often ‘referenced’ rise to the top of their fields. Quality and content are judged not so much by an analytical review of the input data . . . judgement is based on ‘Peer Review’. ‘Peer Review’ – Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Lancet’ . . . “Peer review to the public is portrayed as a ‘quasi-sacred’ process that helps to make Science our most objective truth teller, but we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong” Aristotle’s contention that The Earth was the center of the Solar System lasted 1,600 years, or so, as The Prevailing Doctrine. When Galileo, thanks to Scientific Observation through a telescope, demonstrated that the Sun was the center of the Solar System, the Science supporting this observation was categorically rejected and deemed ‘Blasphemous’.