Archive for December, 2010

A culture of lies

Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

In an earlier blog I had pointed out how Robert Thomas the editor of an Oxford university journal, had adopted the extraordinary procedure of soliciting my book (Cultural Foundations of Mathematics) for review (on Christmas eve)! The reviewer, Jose Ferreiros clownishly proceded to review only 2 chapters of the book. Ferreiros lied that I was not trained in math. Ferreiros also lied there was no philosophy in the book after chapter 2, though the Indian philosophy of the calculus is articulated in chp. 3, and my new philosophy is articulated in chapter 8. Either Jose Ferreiros is illiterate in philosophy, hence unfit to review my book, or telling lies about the book was the pre-planned objective with which the  the editor solicited the book. The only thing further that can be said is that real standards come out during a conflict! (That also refers to the standard of the lies!)

Is this an incidental case? Hardly. As Isaac Barrow said the college (Trinity College, Cambridge) was set up for the “breeding of clerics”. since Eusebius and Orosius, clerics have told so many lies that one could say the cleric’s job  is the “breeding of lies” —to be piled on like pigeon dung, until the truth is completely obscured. Just look at the absurd lies that Cambridge historians have told about Isaac Newton, someone who lived among them. Look at the absurd responses of the Cambridge scholar Whiteside when I tried to expose the truth about Newton (namely that Newton’s study sought to rectify the distortions of the Bible) which was suppressed these last 250 years. Western scholars well know that those lies are the real basis of Western power.

The laughable Western history (”everything was done by the Greeks”) spills over naturally into philosophy. The present-day philosophy of math, for example, derives from lies about “Euclid” (Is Science Western in Origin?, Good-Bye Euclid!). The supposed evidence for “Euclid” rests on one passage (planted into the 15th c. manuscript of Proclus’ Commentary, where it just does not fit) which is used to reinterpret the Elements in an untenable way as a doctrine of (metaphysical) proof. It is obvious that the 1st and 4th (Side-angle-side) theorem of the Elements, for example,  use empirical techniques of proof. So, if the book was really about proof (it was not) it would be a very bad book, since the 47th (”Pythagorean”) theorem can be also be proved similarly in one step.

To resolve this difficulty, Hilbert and Russell went along with the myth of Euclid, they set aside the empirical facts (that there are empirical proofs in the book) and changed the SAS theorem into the SAS postulate! Parochial Western philosophers who peddled the idea of their metaphysics as “universal”, lacked the commonsense to understand that there can never be universal agrrement about metaphysics (or even logic).

Anyway, to expose this culture of lies, I have now offered a reward of RM 10,000 (a little over USD 3000) for solid evidence about Euclid: dead or alive! Any takers? (But if you try and fail you forfeit half that amount; that penalty is to ensure seriousness.)