SENDING IN THE WOODWORM TO SAVE THE PIANO

There is no universal law that says every time something moves it’s got to make money. It might be the capitalist way, but it is additive, and often inimical to the efficient running of things and the provision of the necessities of life.

On the Buses

Public transport is the infrastructure that enables people to get to work, to go on holiday and to shop for goods. Putting it there is good for the economy without it having to be intrinsically profit producing.

If it is free, or just charged at cost, many more people will use it and the overall economy will benefit. Adding a tier of profit discourages use and puts people back in their cars or leads to them staying away from work and commerce.

Both bus and rail companies were originally created by private enterprise. They were nationalised when it became clear that private companies are, not very surprisingly, inclined to favour the most profitable routes, but even then will not make sufficient money to see much change after fuel and equipment costs and maintenance of thousands of miles of infrastructure unless fares are priced prohibitively.

The only time public transport has been confident of a return has been with the free bus pass scheme in which they get paid by the government for journeys taken by those with no price-resistance on travelling. Before the scheme, the majority of the buses on British roads had been smoking about the place for the best part of half a century. Suddenly, operators had some certainty of income, so new buses - at hundreds of thousands of quid each - started appearing on fleets all over the country.

What if a similar subsidy scheme was rolled out to all users of public transport - fare for fare matching, for example? Surely fares could be halved and the buses and trains would run at closer to capacity. Operators would have a certainty over hiring, routes and regularity that is currently denied to them, and more people would be out there keeping the economy going around, while the government only contributed a fraction of their usual subsidy with a predictable return?

Poor Returns

Of course, it’s well known outside the weird cult of ‘austerity’ that putting money into the hands of the needy is the best way to restore and maintain an economy. People without yachts and swimming pools don’t hoard their money. They use it to buy day to day necessities. Money paid to them is money going straight into a country’s commerce. Enabling the poor and the disadvantaged to buy food, fags and alcohol not only enlivens trade and industry, it stabilises a large chunk of boom and bust.

No such benefits accrue from taking people out of the market and putting them on the street or into food banks. That way lies contraction of every sort.

Forever Blowing Bubbles

There seems to be a basic misunderstanding among the people charged with running the UK economy. They don’t seem to have caught on to the fact that money isn’t real. If you’re lucky, it might represent something real, but certainly not the gold or doubloons that originally backed it up. Nowadays, it is worth what any one of us thinks it’s worth. In other words, since it is an IOU, do we think the oh-so-trustworthy banks will make good on it when we want to cash it in.

The indications with regard to pensions schemes are not terribly auspicious.

If you do get away with a big capitalist deal, like buying property for half a million, sitting on it for a while and selling it for a whole million, what have you achieved in real terms? The property is older and needs maintenance, but is otherwise what you paid for. Now the same thing has an exchange value of 1m. What does that mean? There’s only one major variable in the equation - the value of the money. It’s now worth half as much as it was when you acquired the property.

Of course, this is simplistic. There are plenty of other factors involved, but the overall effect of the inflation of money is identifiably more obvious the longer any given currency is around.

For What it’s Worth

Politicians steeped in monetarism and capitalist dogma create ever more complex ways of making it appear that the system works. It never really has. The Wall Street Crash of 1929 was a one-off only in the sense that subsequent bounces were cushioned by fiscal sleight of hand.

Certainly, the corporations, the capitalists themselves have done all right on paper. They all make more numbers of IOUs than they ever did - and exponential numbers by comparson to the ordinary citizen who, under the system, has to take up the inflationary slack.

The ‘more money’ that has accrued to the moneyed classes has a lower instrinsic value, so the bigwigs have to pay themselves more of it still in order to appear to be riding the up-escalator.

But the illusion can only really be maintained by the small fry going down the laundry chute.

A production based economy with the stress taken off monetary value would advance everyone across the board. If operations such as banks, insurance companies, snoopers and much of local and national government that currently produce nothing were done away with, and money was lent interest-free with a view to universal value rather than usury or parasitism, and income tax was abolished in favour of a fair and consistent percentage level of purchase tax, the economy and everyone in it from the great to the small would be healthier and, in real terms, wealthier.

It is the presence of these blinding and failed dogma that makes it impossible for their adherents to find real solutions or to establish workable programmes. It’s like the money fault is hardwired in and they keep rearranging the furniture around it to no effect.

Basic school economics classes taught us about supply and demand, but the one thing that is out of the control of everyone from the government down is supplying the demand for money, for the oil that allows the wheels to turn, that theoretical item which has as its only practical value the supplying of a means of exchange. The more it is exchanged, the more useful it is. The more it is hoarded by the money-rich, the more the nation stagnates.

The Health Service is there to keep the population fit and well - able to work and to partake in the process of exchange of goods and services. It is neither there to make or necessarily cost money.

It needs infrastructure of course. It needs to be in proximity to the people it is there to serve.

It also needs people running it and providing its services - and they need to be kept fit and well to do their jobs, and they need to be able to play their own part in the commercial merry-go-round. If they are able to do that, they have a high societal value.

Replacing them with machines in response to the tyranny of insurance companies is both practically and even economically counter-productive. Machines cannot learn; they cannot advance; they will inevitably become obsolete and the knowledge with which they were stuffed lost along with any increase in diagnostic and treatment skills.

Machines that are allowed to make independent decisions always dumb down an activity. Calling them ‘smart’ or claiming for them ‘artificial intelligence’ dumbs down humanity.

Machines can be of assistance to skilled and perceptive people. They can never replace them.

Why are we so all-fired keen to replace humans with machines, anyway? We all need work and activity in our lives. It’s an essential that has already been pushed out of balance with leisure and unproductive activity.

The present executive works to put more and people out of work and then derides them for being unemployed.

The Health Service wastes millions on gratuitous drugs and machinery. It wastes further millions on an overbalance of administrators and bean counters. It’s job is to produce results; to keep its customers in the best physical shape it can manage. That job doesn’t tie it to pharmaceutical medicine. Much of what it sets out to do would be much better accomplished by traditional and more natural methods, including and especially nutrition and detoxification. Pharmaceutical medicine is very limited in its results and has piggy-backed on the success of skilful surgeons to turn the world’s hospital and medical facilities into a money making racket.

Hospitals and health centres now depend for their continued existence on keeping people sick, so the drug companies get their screw and give some leavings back.

Completely unable to see how anything is not about money, Jeremy Hunt’s solution to the desperate state of one of the few worthwhile achievements of government is to send in the woodworm to save the piano.

Consultants know nothing about products or service. They only know about money. And they charge a great deal of it to make it look like Hunt is doing something positive. So that’s another non-product taking money away.

But it gets worse. The ‘consultants’ want financial recognition for whatever they achieve, so expect bonuses every time they make a saving on  paper.

So more money than ever is being funnelled away from the NHS, but an even smaller proportion is going toward its intended purpose.

Meanwhile Richard Branson planned to buy up health centres so he can turn them into an ugly imitation of the American system, in which they act as a cashcow for the pharmaceuticals and the insurance companies and would generate enough small change for him to buy outer space, while the punter pays up or has their loyalty card cancelled.

Motoring: Spirits having flown

I was born into a world where there was simply no discussion on the subject. 'Everyone knew' that the Rolls-Royce was the best car in the world.

Top toffs affected one as proof that they had reached the zenith of toffery and the rest of us looked on with respect and admiration unalloyed with any enmity or resentment. For the most part anyway.

A Royce was timeless. It was the product of all the best, not only in engineering, but cabinetwork, panel beating, upholstering and finishing. Beyond that it was imbued with a spirit, whether quite of the ecstacy symbolised by its mascot, nonetheless something of the Silver Wraiths and Silver Ghosts to whom it was dedicated. A Rolls floated silently through the scenery serene and undisturbed by it.

Its interior was usually best viewed from the rear accommodations by way of a small dry sherry from the obligatory cocktail cabinet, while someone else took care of piloting duties. The emotional dividends of lumbering about in a thing the size of IKEA with a lazy V8 and torque convertor auto box were somewhat limited. Even posing at that end avails you little when the hoi-polloi and paparazzi are looking for someone of importance at the other end. The only people likely to notice you are custodians of the law of motion, so you daren't risk giving it large unless you've got a coat of arms on the roof.

Although most dearly departed were given a dignified exit in a coachbuilt Daimler, Armstrong-Siddeley or Humber Super Snipe, a number had their first ride in a Rolls at the last.  My friend Roger Pennington acquired a used hearse in which he, all necessary TV tackle and a crew used to charge from one London hospital to another when they got a tip off about a juicy operation, during the early days of Associated Rediffusion.

The sixties brought us white and yellow Rolls-Royces, where previously there had only been black and grey, and they went from being bought predominantly by grey people to being a cool mount for the architects of the fashion and pop explosions.

The staunchly traditional and unchanging barges formed the perfect juxtaposition for the counterculture, deified and defiled in one move by those sporting soldiers' tunics and flowers in their hair.

Revolution was in the streets and also in the Moor Street factory in Derby where a smaller car bristling with new ideas and postwar technology was taking shape.

Silver Shadow was no longer a chassis onto which a bespoke arrangement of bodywork could be specified from the likes of Mulliner Park Ward in Willesden. It was a commercial model, with a standard configuration and a badge engineered Bentley sister ship.

A fine car from a technical point of view with little to criticise, it didn't really appeal in the same way to the captains of industry and, looking neither really knew or really old, probably found most of its fans in the US, the Carribbean or various banana republics shod in white sidewalls, although it did find willing customers here on the second hand - beg your pardon - preloved market. Arthur Daley springs to mind.

I shared the driving of one of the newer full-size euro models with a man from Farming Weekly. Neither of us was in any hurry to repeat the experience, though both impressed by the fact that the steering wheel lifted itself out of the way of what would be expected to be your fat stomach on entry and egress.

The driving experience, luxurious and cossetting as it was, put me in mind of a channel ferry, and my bucolic friend one of those tractors that's bigger than your smallholding. Rather than taste and refinement a la mobile gentleman's club, it had started to feel blingy and ostentatious. The thought of such an icon coming across as jumped-up would horrify my dad and does little for me. Class doesn't need to be obvious. In fact, it ceases to be class.

Now comes Cullinan - the Rolls-Royce of off roaders - and you can't odds the thought and engineering excellence that's gone into it. I don't doubt it is what the company claims and that it will provide a magic carpet ride on the rutted tracks of Nijny-Novgorod, and even Cheltenham for oligarchs, the red of braces, pirates, and the otherwise devoid of subtlety.

I salute its achievements in fact, but mourn for its loss of spirit.

BUILDING A BETTER GOD

In the final analysis, what we are invoking when we use the term ‘science’ is not the mish-mash of individual, often contradictory, or at least irreconcilable, disciplines that have their actual existence under the blanket of that title, but an ‘entity’ or ‘spirit’ without independent existence – not even latent within the said disciplines, but a product of the same conceptualisation of omniscience and deity that personifies all gods.

Rational and twenty-first century as we conceive ourselves to be, we gawp in awe and wonder at the miracles of war, drought, plague and DAB radio, and behold an all-powerful, all-seeing, all knowing master of the universe.

No science, or combination of sciences, is that thing or anything like it. It, and its constituent parts, are disciplines directed – at least in theory – toward the understanding, ordering and classification of the subjects of its observations.

It is neither those things themselves nor the final arbiter of their essence.

Engineering, as a subject, doesn’t claim ownership, preaching rights or omniscience with regard to the mountains through which it tunnels or the rivers and valleys it bridges. It is a discipline and an activity that has a defined result and a clear purpose.

Individual pursuits within the ‘science’ umbrella also have such clarity of purpose, but taken together they lack the cohesion imagined by the faithful, leaving elements vulnerable to less than benign influences and permitting the omniscience construct to take on the culturally stupefying political cause of fundamentalist materialism.

Thus we move on from gods we have become too ‘rational’ to believe in to a new-fangled god that doesn’t believe in us.

No part of ‘science’ has ever proved or disproved the existence of god or gods, but it has certainly demonstrated the existence of a need for, and the ability to bring into being, reliable omniscient deities that can be both the focus and the product of shared belief.

From BLINDED WITH SCIENCE available from The Book Depository

ALL FOR ONE AND ONE FOR ALL

Sentient beings observe and conclude on their own behalf. As individuals, with separate viewpoints, they will observe differently and draw varying conclusions. No conclusion is absolutely ‘correct’ and none is absolutely ‘wrong’.

No conclusion by one individual is automatically appropriate to any other.

Someone with alternative conclusions is only wrong, mad or ‘disordered’ in a tyranny in which slave masters and slaves predominate.

There is no danger from other conclusions or beliefs to someone who thinks, observes and concludes for themselves. But those who have permitted themselves to become enslaved by enforced or dominant thoughts and viewpoints fear that others will come in on them and take over their minds just as the present orthodoxy or slave hierarchy has done already.

Government authorities – themselves just a rung or two up on the same slave ladder – do not support education programmes to produce free-thinkers or polymaths, but to enforce conformity.

A student is not expected to have ideas. He or she is required to become properly enslaved by the prevailing orthodoxy, and will be furnished with a licence to rise higher in the tyranny by so doing.

Little matter that no battle was ever wholly won or lost, that mathematics does not become senior to reality by being disconnected from it, that no chemical ‘element’ exists as and of itself in the real world, that psychology, sociology, economics and philosophy are arbitrary constructs that often suppress rather than encourage thought and philosophising, or that, if there was as much truth in Darwinian evolution, medical science, or either, or both, people would not still be born with tonsils or appendixes.

There is no difference in being enslaved by one orthodoxy – one belief system – or another.

Would the old religions have killed and maimed and poisoned and drugged as many people and living creatures as their modern godless equivalent if they had access to the technology of ‘science’?

Quite possibly. Those who have an anti-West dominant are using its armoury to do what they can.

But one tyranny will never be better than another; enforced acceptance of Darwinism or ‘brain-science’ is not more enlightened than second-hand adoption of the Angel Gabriel, God the Builder or Thoth.

The higher-up slaves think they will become masters if all below them are unthinking and insentient. 

But although they have succeeded to an impressive extent in implanting denial of life and consciousness by relentless enforcement through the media and ‘education’, they have only become more enslaved themselves – the leaders of nothing but the negation of anything worth leading.

Genuine leaders will come, when they come, not from those cowed by authoritarian orthodoxies, but those who are not frightened of their own shadows or those of their fellows; those who would wish for individuals to become fully sentient and fully diverse – those who are unafraid to hold their own viewpoints, to inform their own actions and to make their own decisions for the common good.

Then, and only then, regardless of, and high above, petty wars about which tyranny is the better or worse, those of us labelled ‘human’ will be able to make something of ourselves and create an environment in which each of us as individuals, various, fully formed in our own image and confident in cooperation, can finally fulfil our own dreams and capabilities, without interference, interruption and inconvenience from those cocooned about with dogma that stifles their perception and enslaves both them and their fellows.

From BLINDED WITH SCIENCE available from The Book Depository

THE MYTH OF OMNI-SCIENCE

A science of test-tubes, microscopes, dissection and Hadron Colliders is a science of matter.

Well and good. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it doesn’t claim to be a science of everything.

Love, respect, community, music, art, thought, feeling, decency, honesty, sympathy, fellow-feeling, understanding, intelligence, fear, exhilaration, determination, boredom, frustration, infatuation, bliss, pleasure, companionship, enthusiasm, inspiration, comprehension, knowledge, perception, rationality, irrationality, sense, sensibility, vision, dreaming, remembering, guessing, estimating, lying, sensation, belief, disbelief, illusion, disliking, consciousness and unconsciousness are just a small sample of vital aspects of our lives that are immaterial and outside the scope of such a science.

Metallurgy is a respectable science. It knows about and studies the behaviour, composition and applications of metallic objects and compounds.

It doesn’t claim that all is metal.

Anyone who has been involved in the production of metal structures – girders, vehicles, vessels – will have encountered the phenomenon of sub-permanent magnetism. Over and above the structure’s material composition, this is a force-field born of the energy exerted upon the metal in its transformation.

A side-effect of all the pressing, beating and riveting is the conversion of the components into induction magnets which, in the days before sat-navs, posed interesting problems for navigation by exerting their forces upon a ship’s compass.

Over time, the magnetism in the plates, pipes and framework aligns to form a single magnet.

Whether or not this goes anywhere toward explaining the attraction of the back of your car to tailgaters, I wouldn’t know. I’m not a metallurgist. What I do know is that this magnetism forms an element that is neither visible nor composed of material particles, although it exerts influence on the matter that is present, and is as vital in understanding and handling the ship as any tonnage of metal or ballast.

I also know that a metallurgist would be the first to admit that there is more going on than meets his steely gaze.

Commenting on a recent news story, one of those anonymous types who lurk in the recesses of social media announced with finality: ‘I am just a collection of atoms.’

When I read that, hot on the immaterial heels of disbelief came the thought: ‘A mere collection of atoms wouldn’t even be capable of imbecility. My wardrobe is a collection of atoms.’

Now, I’ve never seen an atom up close, not even on the telly. I have seen lots of diagrams of them. But of course that’s like the London Underground map – useful in many ways, but don’t study it for a clear picture of the Elephant and Castle, or the mythical region of Hainault.

An atom appears from the myriad schematics to be a fetching arrangement of smaller particles – protons and neutrons at the centre and electrons whizzing about them in orbit.

The reality is not quite so orderly. Everything from sub-atomic particles to special wardrobium compound molecules is dashing about it at the speed of light entertainment, so that what looks, and even feels, like a wardrobe to thee and me is more like a multi-dimensional TV picture – in 4K ultra-high definition, of course.

We pat it with our molecular hands: ‘Good and solid,’ we lie.

No part of it is actually still, so why doesn’t our hand pass through the wardrobe? Both are lots of whizzy things, so small that the danger of getting mixed up must be on the lines of a stone-cold certainty. What physical/material aspect causes them to repel each other – to give the illusion of mutual solidity?

Come to that, how do the atoms in the wardrobe, or in the man referred to above, know where and when to stop? How are the borders of their whizzing defined?

The latter’s atoms are arranged into living cells, each of which has instructions from Crick and Watson, but why would the constituent parts of the former maintain their wardrobeness?

Some marketing types think cars have DNA, so why not a humble B&Q wardrobe? Something’s doing it, containing its ingredients, keeping them from combining with the outside world. Not so long ago, they persisted in the form of flat-packed planks and, before that, at some distant evolutionary stage, they formed some part of a tree-like thing.

The tree was grown by life, possibly following DNA instructions, though these last must have been easier to follow than those supplied by B&Q.

It would be tempting to come to the conclusion that matter – particles, molecular, atomic and sub-atomic – is a relatively minor ingredient in the object, and of comparatively minor importance in the scheme of things.

Everything that makes it useful as a wardrobe has to do with providing and delineating the space in which the material particles whizz about. The particles themselves only determine whether its apparent substance is of reconstituted wood or silly-putty.

It is quality of being – the thing other than the atoms and particles – that separates one thing from all others. Try merging two ‘identical’ B&Q wardrobes together.

And so it is with ‘life forms’: forms delineated, animated, advanced, occupied and/or presided over by an element, not of particles or matter, but of intelligence, purpose, order, consciousness, and all these other qualities of which matter, by itself, is incapable.

However far real science and real scientists have advanced beyond blind glorification of matter – the ‘big think’ and beyond – the fallout from groundless claims to omni-science, broadcast and reinforced by trusted media and spurious ‘authorities’, has already done more than enough damage, as witnessed by our atomic man and those who go in fear of even mentioning the very qualities that make them human.

The self-interested and the self-important have been quick to capitalise on the de-humanising power of the omni-science myth, setting up ‘Truth (dogma) in Science’-type protection rackets and waging smear campaigns against those who are on the side of life rather than the totalitarian machine.

Meanwhile ‘Life’ sciences bring wholesale death, ‘humanist’ groups decry the non-scientific elements of humanity, authorities and big Pharma enforce the superiority of matter by drugging, tasering, criminalising and stupefying, while megalomaniac globalists work toward their fascist dream of a New World Order populated by easily-enslavable automatons.

A man or woman who believes in the qualities of life and humanity that cannot be litmus tested or studied through a microscope has the possibility of growth as a person, of improvement, betterment, of consciousness expansion – not the psychedelic fraud born of toxins – but a genuine increase in intelligence, awareness and life enhancement.

Those cowed into believing everything is unthinking matter have all their best days behind them.

From BLINDED WITH SCIENCE available from The Book Depository

DEFINING TERMS

The Oxford Dictionary defines science thus:

‘The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.’

It’s clear enough from this, and from  most people’s understanding, that it is a process, an activity, an ongoing endeavour, in the direction of ever further understanding and comprehension.

However, even at this early stage in its mission, it has also spawned something else; something that feels itself qualified, not only to pronounce with certainty upon, but to physically interfere with, those structures and behaviours it remains its theoretical mission to fully apprehend.

In the light of this exigency, the British Science Council, itself very much a part of this new stultification of scientific enquiry, recently dedicated a year to coining a new definition of the term; one that would better reflect the dogmatic, exclusive and coercive aspects that increasingly characterise the subject’s public face.

Their definition:

‘Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.’

Intellectual and practical out; systematic methodology in.

The stated purpose of the Council’s redefinition more clearly underlines the shift of emphasis from enquiry to arrogance: ‘In an era where practices such as homeopathy are becoming widespread, and 'detox' is an acceptable aim for a diet, a definition creates a clear distinction between what is genuine science, and what is pseudoscience.’ Thus chief exec Diana Garnham.

The clear inference here is that homeopathy and detox programmes are that not so easily definable thing, ‘pseudoscience’. Why are they pseudoscience? Because the ruling elite of ‘genuine’ science has so defined them. Genuine science has no truck with them because it has so structured its systematic methodology that it would preclude their acceptance, even if their evidence had not already been dismissed out of  hand, ignoring the fact that homeopathy was more widespread before it was vilified by pharmaceutical profiteers (whose science is mainly rubbish).

The paymasters of Genuine Science believe in overwhelming the natural processes of bodies with ever more powerful chemicals; they’re interested in getting toxins into people rather than out.

True science would have no need  for, or fear of, ‘pseudoscience’; would recognise it as part of the infinite range of ‘evidence’ toward its ultimate understanding. Genuine Science, for all kinds of reasons, decides what constitutes evidence on the basis of whether it delivers an authorised verdict.

A science that claims omniscience but excises certain manifestly existing aspects of human behaviour from its purview, or approved list, is  no such thing.

So that we can stay on the same page from here on in, in simple terms, I have no argument with the extant definition of science - definition one above. What I’m questioning is science the opinionated, science the excluder, science the half-assed pontificator, with due respect to the Science Council and definition two. Embracive science good; Dogmatic ‘Genuine Science’ worse than no science.

Our second used and abused term is secular.

Lord knows what the people who most use it think it refers to. It actually relates to the French ‘quotidien’ or the English ‘diurnal’ in suggesting the daily round; the housekeeping - those things needed to support an enterprise or activity. The Lords Spiritual pursued the secrets of thought and life and the Lords Temporal looked after the accounts and the toilets.

Every religion that has churches, mosques or synagogues has a particular interest in things secular.

‘Secular’ is properly defined as ‘having to do with the here and now, the nuts and bolts.’ It does not stray into, or in some way invalidate, the there and then or the nutless and boltless universe of religion or spirituality. It shares its root with the French siècle, meaning century, or a section of time.

Which brings us to religion:

‘Something which binds people together, common cause or belief,’ from the Latin religare, to bind. So a shared belief in the omniscience of present-day science would be a religion.

What the word certainly isn’t limited to is a specific religion, such as Christianity, although those who use it pejoratively often do so in that context, little realising that they are dismissing a whole panoply of causes and beliefs at different degrees of variance to it.

The clergy of omniscient ‘Genuine Science’ know very well that that is what they’re doing, but their purpose is not illumination and increased understanding, but the forcible insertion of the square peg of material science into the round whole of life and the natural world.

The word spirit conjures up for many something between the thing that will go off up to heaven for the Lord to keep if you lay you down to sleep permanently, and something Madame Blavatsky might have summoned from the ‘other’ side.

The Oxford Dictionary defines it as:

‘The non-physical part of a person, which  is the seat of emotions and character, the soul.’

Its etymology has to do with the breath of life, as in respiration, aspiration and, finally, expiration.

For the purposes of this discussion, it is the life which animates, directs and monitors life forms - animals, plants, microbes, viruses; anything with a life of its own - the non-material essence which is there when a  thing is alive and departs when it dies.

No matter how much  plumbing or wiring it has to go through first, a bit like a call-centre, it is the thing that eventually receives messages and signals as to what is going on around it. It is capable of staggering levels of stupidity, but also of stellar conceptual understanding, humour and absurdity. It alone in this universe is capable of formulating the idea that it doesn’t exist.

From BLINDED WITH SCIENCE available from The Book Depository