A Modest Proposal
for Preventing the Constraints of Common Folk
from Being a Burthen to Academicks,
and To Ensure They can Provide
their Humble Contribution
to The Greater Good
It is a melancholy object to those, who read prestigious journals, or walk the halls of great institutions, when they see the progress on the endless frontier of science being impeded. For those well-versed on the subject, it is no secret that the cause of this vicissitude is a struggle between two unequal entities. One party to this senseless dispute are the academicks (or, homo scientificus), who are forced to engage in this discussion despite needing to attend much more urgent duties. The other party, which started this dispute out of selfishness and self-doubt, are the common folk (or, homo inferior), that cling so desperately to their antiquated concepts and principles.
It is the great tragedy of our times to see the spirit of enlightenment being shackled, its wings clipped, and its voice taken away, by a few with unfounded doubts. Unimaginable damage is being done, at this very moment, to scientific discourse, due to these chains forced upon academicks by those who do not understand – and refuse to understand – modern advancements in research. I think it is agreed by all parties, that this situation is unacceptable and must be resolved sooner than later.
I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts - and a solution - on the alleged issues of academia, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.
A common demand from the ranks outside the intelligentsia is the urge to provide so-called "measurements" in publications. The implication being that an academick's word is not enough to conclusively show that a published statement is true. This, of course, is preposterous. The mere suggestion of this spits in the face of scientific progress, and in a less just society, such a statement would surely result in severe punishment. Luckily for those prone to such ejaculations, the collective mind of homo scientificus is humble, and understands that not everyone can comprehend its absence of flaws.
Nevertheless, some academicks have become too empathetic to such distractions and started providing these "measurements" in their research. And – just to prove their vile state of mind – the voices that called for those "measurements" are not satisfied. Instead, they ask for even more, fully aware that they successfully pushed progress itself on a slippery slope.
The next archaic idea that got fished out of the dustbin of history and pushed into the face of greater minds: "Statistics". One single measurement cannot be enough for those whose thoughts are filled with endless doubt. Instead of appreciating the olive branch extended by submitting to one measurement, they now want academicks – whose time is much more valuable than theirs – to submit themselves to the repetitive work needed for many measurements!
The result is that homo scientificus, at least those who submit to those absurd requirements, now spends much of their time trying to gather so-called "data". It should be self-evident that the most important part of research, the author's opinion, is now effectively suppressed by those whimsical forms of evidence. The reasoning that the "true mean" does not always align with the postulations of a homo scientificus is nonsensical. The data gathered in the mind of an academick cannot align with such a "true mean" as it always aligns with the "truer mean" – the mean that should be true!
In the same vein as the need for statistics, some argue that bias should be eliminated from experiments. Instead of picking the data that supports the academick's truth, the choice of data should instead be done in a way that does not consider the academick's position at all! In its silliest form, the argument states that data points should be picked at random. A ludicrous proposition that is incompatible with the fine craft of academia. Imagine going to a watchmaker, and telling them to simply drop the gears into the watch and hope for the best! Of course, every capable academick only picks the data that supports their argument. After all, the point of data is to support the truth that homo scientificus is asserting. Any "bias" introduced into the experiment purely biases the results more towards that truth.
In less intellectual circles, such misunderstanding of the craftsmanship behind science is very common. Some even argue that just because they can see with their own eyes things that contradict the statements of an academick, that this means they have proven them wrong! Needless to say, a much more logical explanation is that their own eyes deceive them. Most likely, they are suffering from a form of temporary insanity – or some other form of hysteria – that clouds their minds. A common affliction in those that do not have the required mental fortitude to participate in the great scientific experiment.
But to give due consideration, there are indeed rare cases where there is evidence that contradicts an academick. However, such evidence is merely ephemeral and the right order of things can be easily restored. Given the proper training, a true homo scientificus can bend reality so that it own truth applies again. With their natural talent for divination, alteration is just a formality and allows bringing order into the chaos of this world. Once everything hath been aligned, the truth in the academick's mind hath been imposed on reality and everything is as it should be. These temporary transgressions are thus no proof that a homo scientificus is, or ever could be, wrong.
There is one final 'gotcha' that unfortunately needs to be addressed. A statement parroted by many specimen of homo inferior which goes as follows: "What if two academicks disagree on something? What if they disagree on the value of the gravitational constant? They can't be both right!". Of course, this problem hath been conclusively solved. If two academicks disagree, then the more senior academick is right. If both are of equal seniority, then the seniority of their institution – naturally measured by its endowment – is used instead.
"But what if there is still a tie?", may ask the man who doesn't understand science. Now, we already strayed nigh into the realm of fantasy here. But let's entertain this idea anyway. If this situation should somehow occur, there is an obvious and most logical solution. Both academicks meet with each other, draw a line of demarcation across a world map, and then pick a side for which their truth applies.
There are many benefits to this approach. Consider the case of the gravitational constant, which now changes when crossing the defined demarcation line. There is now an opportunity to design every aircraft twice – one version for each value of g. Pilots can also find exciting new flight routes, as great care must be taken to not fly from one zone into another, as the sudden change in forces on the plane could easily tear it apart. Additionally, various new airports can now be built on the demarcation line, which allow passengers to safely land and switch between aircraft designed for different g-values. There are immense economic benefits in allowing the airline industry to diversify, and modern scientific standards made it possible.
Of course, less localized science such as communication technology requires more sophisticated solutions. In the case the truth needs to be globally consistent, the respective academicks can agree on different times on which their version of truth applies. A good schedule would be a daily alternation, as it allows most systems to switch overnight, where it is less intrusive than during the day, where most people are active. Also, in a scenario where one version of truth is more desirable than another, it is only necessary to wait a single day before a more convenient version of truth becomes reality.
The global scientific community is naturally well-prepared to handle this scenario. The academick mind is perfectly capable of handling multiple truths. The greatest specimen of homo scientificus are even capable of holding multiple contradicting truths at the same time. They are able to seamlessly switch between them to accommodate their current needs and goals. They have transcendent truth and are able to impose their mind on everything and everyone. Their mere presence is an honor for those less capable, and their gaze twists the minds of those that dare to question them.
While basking in their divine presence, we must ask ourselves one urgent question: What about homo inferior? What about those who are unable to follow homo scientificus on its great leap forward? Will they be left behind? Those are the questions that are plaguing the common folk. They want to contribute, but how?
Unfortunately, the best way they can contribute – cooking or cleaning duties – are quickly taken over by machines. There are very few mundane tasks left, and the tasks done by homo scientificus cannot be done by anyone less capable. The old ways of homo inferior - mathematics, statistics, bickering about biases - are obsolete in this new world. There is also no need for doubt; it would only tarnish the pure world that is being created around us.
What we are left with is therefore only homo inferior and with its physical form as the only viable way to contribute. An argument could be made that they could serve a decorative purpose, such as ceremonial guards or living exhibits about the past. However, there is not a great enough need for those positions to utilize all, or even a majority, of the common folk. Another argument would be to introduce organized services of appreciation or worship, to the science that is so busy saving them from themselves. However, most academicks are aware that appreciation from anyone but another academick is of little to no value. Thus, we come to the apparent conclusion that the existence of homo inferior in a society lead by homo scientificus is, for all intents and purposes, obsolete.
However, I am of the firm conviction, that there is still one way homo inferior can contribute and atone for its nuisance. While there is no need for more hands to cook, there is still the need for something to be cooked. After all, good research cannot be done on an empty stomach! And even homo scientificus, despite being detached from most earthly desires in its ideal form, still needs nourishment. Now, I have too long digressed, and therefore shall directly come to my proposed solution.
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a healthy homo inferior is a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricasee, or a ragoust.
I do therefore humbly offer it to publick consideration, that of the thousands of common folk, already computed, a fourth may be reserved for breed, whereof only one fourth part to be males; which is more than we allow to sheep, black cattle, or swine. That the remaining three quarter may, unless required for other duties, be offered in sale an academick of quality and notability, always advising them to follow a lethargic life, so as to render them easier to chew, and fat for a good table. A homo inferior will make four dishes at an entertainment for colleagues, and when an academick dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.
Furthermore, this would also alleviate the untold mental and culinary trauma that hath been inflicted on researchers at various gatherings, often caused by serving second-grade caviar or unbalanced wine, and which hath put various fields of scientific progress at great distress. Even the less palatable specimen of homo inferior can, if prepared right, be of some use in the right situations, if it be as an appetizer in a more informal setting, or in the dining halls of the United Kingdoms such as Cambridge or Oxford, in which standards for fine dining are considerably more adjusted.
I have no doubt that this proposal shall be received with unequivocal excitement among the common folk, even though some of them might lack the capabilities to express their true emotions, and must if necessary by force be allowed to contribute themselves to the needs of the publick. Therefore I repeat, let no man talk to me of these and the like expedients, till he hath at least some glympse of hope, that there will ever be some hearty and sincere attempt to put them into practice. But, as to myself, having been wearied out for many years with offering vain, idle, visionary thoughts, and at length utterly despairing of success, I fortunately fell upon this proposal, which, as it is wholly new, so it hath something solid and real, of no expence and little trouble, full in our own power, and whereby we can incur no danger in disobliging, but instead promoting, our scientific duties.
After all, I am not so violently bent upon my own opinion, as to reject any offer, proposed by wise men, which shall be found equally innovative, novel, noble, and effectual. But before something of that kind shall be advanced in contradiction to my scheme, and offering a better, I desire the author or authors will be pleased maturely to consider two points. First, as things now stand, how they will be able to find use for millions mouths and backs that cannot provide for their own or others intellectual well-being. Second, how will we overcome the endless disruptions to the scientific discipline by those millions which drown out the sensible voices of progress. I desire those who dislike my overture, and may perhaps be so bold to attempt an answer, that they will first ask themselves on how they see the great scientific experiment continue under these conditions, and whether it would not be of act of mercy and boldness, to enact my proposal with great urgency and conviction, and thus ensuring the well-being of everyone, without any considerable disadvantages, or other reasons to take another course.
I profess in the sincerity of my heart, that I have not the least personal interest in endeavouring to promote this necessary work, having no other motive than the publick good, by advancing science, providing for the needy, relieving the oppressed, and giving some culinary pleasure to academicks.