A low quality theory on chemical reactions was standard issue in the middle ages with alchemy: the aspects of certain things had reactions with aspects of other things, or the stars impacted their occult virtues, etc. These aspects and virtues were often compared with animals, plants, etc. Many of these theories on chemicals proposed ways that these concoctions might increase one’s vitality, virtue, virility, etc. They were highly speculative and treaded into issues of theology, ethics, medicine, etc. For example, a bezoar stone was seen as virtuous because it had been expelled by such and such an animal which had the same virtues. Or an herb’s virtue was determined based on the moon cycle when it was plucked, whether one caught it in linen, etc.
A medium quality theory on chemical reactions was the simple listing of different combinations and their effects, and an attempt was made to explain the interactions of these aspects. We start to see morals disappear from alchemy as it transitions into chemistry. A bezoar stone begins to be seen more for its physical properties, rather than basing its virtue on what produced it, or when it was gathered, etc.
A high quality theory on chemisty explains the exchange of electrons and atoms and other elementary particles when certain things are combined. Chemistry today is mere science. There is nothing in a chemistry book about drug abuse, homelessness, or obesity. Nor should there be. Rather, chemistry forms a strong building block for sciences and ethics regarding these things. Similarly, a science of violence would have no plan for peace, policy recommendations, etc. It would just be a solid building block so that one could propose a peace plan, negotiate settlements, etc. So far, there is no such science of violence.
My theory that object-based combat is the source of human, grammatical language is the foundation for a real science of violence, as well as language.
Leave a Reply