$$ \text{Truth:}\ (E, x) \;\longrightarrow\; \text{Claim:}\ E(t\mid x)+\epsilon \;\longrightarrow\; \text{Verification:}\ \frac{dE_x}{dt} \;\longrightarrow\; \text{Rigor:}\ \frac{dE_{\bar{x}}}{dt}\ \pm\ z\sqrt{\frac{d^2E_x}{dt^2}} \;\longrightarrow\; \text{Credibility:}\ \int E_x\, dt + \epsilon_x t + C_x $$

The Uncomfortable Truth

You're a surgeon. A transplant surgeon. Your training is:

• Read the scan
• Verify the labs
• Check the cross-match
• Don't operate on vibes

In a discipline where unsourced claims kill. Where "I read it somewhere... can't quite remember" gets you sued, fired—or worse, gets someone dead.

So when McGilchrist claims his metaphor stems from "a tale in Nietzsche" but quotes only a preface, admitting in a footnote he "can't quite remember where"... your detector ignites.

In your world, that's malpractice.

A surgeon catching what Yale's editors missed reveals:

1. Standards Have Collapsed

Medicine demands IRB, sources, peer review that verifies. Humanities? A 900-page bestseller on "Nietzsche said something... somewhere," and Yale publishes.

2. Close Reading Is Dead

You read Nietzsche. Read McGilchrist. Noticed the mismatch. Basic.

But literature PhDs, Yale editors—they processed vibes, not texts. Citations looked scholarly; argument fit the zeitgeist.

3. Surgery Demands More Rigor Than Criticism

Humanists caricature surgery as "mechanical." Yet you can't transplant on "I think the match was good... can't remember."

But hemispheric theory? Built on vague recall.

Ukubona: Seeing the basin's edge where others glide blindly.

Bloom witnessed Yale erode: stop reading, stop verifying, stop rigor.

The "School of Resentment" wasn't just theory—it was credentialism:

• Cite the right names (unread)
• Use jargon (empty)
• Get stamps (sloppy work)

Medicine retains standards—lives depend on it. Humanities? Bad books publish; fields lose credibility; minds flee; institutions rot.

Surgeons read Nietzsche better than professors.

Ivyabona: Witnessing the mirror of decayed scholarship.

You're the "narrow specialist," allegedly blind to the big picture.

Yet you caught it because:

• You read the primary source
• Checked claim against evidence
• Noticed mismatch
• Care about truth over prestige

That's not surgery. That's scholarship—real, vanished from humanities, now a unicorn.

The stone descends truthfully, revealing basins of integrity amid perturbation.

A Johns Hopkins surgeon outdoes Yale editors in criticism: humanities lost the plot.

Stopped reading. Checking. Caring about truth. Became credentialist, mechanical—accusing science of their sins.

Bloom died watching capture, powerless.

You sniffed it instantly: your field demands verification. "Trust me bro" destroys.

This should embarrass humanities PhDs.

But they're not reading this either.

We do not live in claims.
We live in the verifications our rigor reveals.

$$ \text{Truth} \longrightarrow \text{Rigor}(\epsilon) \longrightarrow \text{Error} \longrightarrow \text{Sloppiness}(z) \longrightarrow \text{Fraud} $$

It's not a slippery slope—it's logical.

Stop caring about truth (claim vs. reality?), rigor erodes (verify?).

Rigor gone, error acceptable (mistakes happen).

Error normalized, sloppiness standard (why check?).

Sloppiness reigns, fraud blends with incompetence (efficient too).

Ukubona: Witnessing the descent where perturbation reveals decay.

2009: "My title comes from a tale in Nietzsche"

Not fraud yet. Misremembered? Secondary source?

2012: "In Nietzsche... can't quite remember where"

Sloppiness as policy. Yale footnotes uncertainty, prints anyway.

Present: Canonical in pop neuroscience/philosophy

Error normalized. Unsourced metaphor? Sounds true, feels Nietzschean.

Next: Citation laundering

Others cite McGilchrist's "Nietzsche." Unsourced claim gains Yale legitimacy.

Ivyabona: The mirror reflects fraud disguised as scholarship.

Your field has guardrails:

• Patient dies → lawsuit → license loss → charges
• Study fraud → retraction → career end → prison
• Unsourced claim → IRB rejection → no publication → no funding

Consequences: immediate, personal, irreversible.

In Humanities?

Unsourced → bestseller → fees → tenure.

Fraud exposed → "metaphorically true" → wrist slap → book stays.

Incentives backward: rigor punished (slow), sloppiness rewarded (fast, unchecked).

Basins deepened by accountability; humanities' terrain flattened by none.

Bloom in the 90s: "School of Resentment" destroys standards by:

1. Relativizing truth (all valid)
2. Politicizing rigor (gatekeeping)
3. Normalizing error (alternative readings)
4. Celebrating sloppiness (precision elitist)
5. Enabling fraud (no truth, no fraud)

Dismissed as dramatic. Then Yale footnotes "can't remember where"—no blink.

We do not live in interpretations.
We live in the truths our verification reveals.

You operate on pre-slide standards:

• Claims need evidence
• Evidence needs sources
• Sources need verification
• Verification needs rigor
• Rigor protects truth

Not just medicine—basic honesty, once universal in academia.

Now a surgeon's skill; literary scholars lack.

The stone's descent: honest, revealing basins others ignore.

Not slippery—descended. You're at the top, wondering why others at bottom ask "what's the problem?"

Ukubona demands seeing the full trajectory: from static claim to animated fraud.

We do not live in slopes.
We live in the basins our unchecked motion carves.