I think you're being dangerously dramatic. I'll counter with a bit of dangerous drama of my own: Its very easy to believe that the 14th century papal state sai

I think you're being dangerously dramatic. I'll counter with a bit of dangerous drama of my own: Its very easy to believe that the 14th century papal state said the same thing to Galileo. "Our civilization is not sustainable without a steady, broadly-distributed grasp on truth; and that truth is Christianity, with the earth in the center of the universe." Of course, our scientific truths today are far, far more steady than those of the past. We know a lot more; we don't know everything. We only evolved beyond that state by questioning the accepted truth and testing it. In the line of that questioning; we're going to land on ten times more wrong answers than right ones. Graham's work is, probably, a wrong answer; that doesn't make it any less important that its asked. We shouldn't aim for a world with one steady, heartfelt, and broadly-distributed grasp on truth. We should encourage skepticism. The Accepted Truth should exist; people should be taught it, and taught to be skeptical of it. They should seek out alternate viewpoints, and be skeptical of those too. They should do their own research, whether that's new fundamental research or seeking the research of others; integrate what they find into their worldview; and draw new conclusions from it.