All of the king's men (er, Drs)

Month, Day: 167, Honour, Words (Majesty)

Continuing with the theme of enlightenment, one focus has been on the Manifestation, what the realization of this might bring to an operational stance (read, science), and how much we can attempt to know of the Living Book (see Aqdas Notes #155).

In this regard, the Faith & Science page seems a little hesitant. But, audacity worries not about appearing stupid. Remember, the role of the autodidact does not require recognition of the elite minds (naturally, there will be some of the brights who might have some resonance with the message) in order to be truthful and useful (not arguing a strictly utilitarian stance, either).

As in this, the whole collection of Drs (who approximate the state (SAQ #45, pg 174: Therefore, the skilled doctor does what he wishes, and the patients have no share in this right.) from an acquisition, not gift, framework) across all time and space (Hidden Words #40, Arabic)) do not (cannot) equal Revelation. However, how are we to know given our limits?

Well, one might consider that a good quasi-empirical stance would allow that conjectures, currently labeled as quack, may have some basis. Methinks that the growing prowess of whatever is behind the web will support many types of experiments that were hitherto without any hope of attention.

Now, it was mentioned, in one paper, that the Guardian said that he was not infallible in regard to science. One way to look at that is this: science is not ever to be infallible, even if the viewer/observer may think themselves so. Science may try to know and understand being, and the scientist is a being; BUT, science is not 'being' except as it may reflect on some state of knowing of a sentient being.

Of course, there are, too, the issues dealt with by information theory.

So, yes, too much emphasis on the inerrant nature of the Writings is not correct. Too, any limits on the writing and the reading reflects naught on the Living Book's message, but does say something about the media and ourselves.

We know that we have had the Book (several, in fact), always. For many reasons, the Living Book's influence has not been allowed into the discussions dealing with philosophy of science.

There are many unsupported claims held by scientists, though they will not admit this. That is, any intelligent human has metaphysical rumblings. It is human nature to be thusly opinion'd, despite that underdetermination lurks. Are these, by necessity, of no use to the practice?

That our whole worldview is so computationally framed ought to make this obvious. Yet, we see grand pronouncements about what is and about the various schemes involved that it is no wonder that the general public might be confused.

So, as said before, the UHJ has a role in this. We'll conjecture on that, in the near future.

Remarks:

05/17/2011 -- Stephen gets press.

05/09/2011 -- We need a constructive re-look.

Modified: 05/17/2011