Popperian procedure not enough

We heave a sigh of relief because we can at least trust one of those three as our much needed G-factor. The perfect idea stands out as one that is least likely to be in flux. It must be stable, probably one of the most stable things in existence. It is here that we explore the third agent of our epistemology, which is transcendent (the Christian scripture in this case) to further fortify our emerging equation. Speaking of a perfect idea, our minds easily stray to such things like equilibrium, or constancy, a condition that seems to oppose Heraclitus’ theory of flux. John the evangelist describes this perfect idea as existing in the beginning and the man on whose life the Christian religion revolves describes this idea as more important than his bodily self.

?Having caught a glimpse of what the beginning might look like, can we now imagine a little more accurately how the whole idea of a universe consisting of natural laws started? I bet we cana . It all started with a tripled complex among which is a perfect idea. John went a little further to state that everything we know came into being through this idea. Before I finally sketch this lay equation may I beseech the reader not to think that I have forgotten the principle of historicism that I mentioned earlier before Philo came to our rescue. We shall deal with it later on in our discussion but let me oblige the reader to test this proposition with history to see if reality indeed evinces any meaningful pattern. If it does, then we should be reminded that there is a supreme R at work. I suppose we do not need much persuasion to agree that it is wiser to work along the direction of this R.

?

?

THE BIG “R”

?

?One tenet of the scientific method that I have obliged myself to abide with is non-presupposition but how can we be objective if we presuppose a G-factor? In keeping faith with our laid down rules, we encounter the necessity to authenticate virtually every element of this equation or at least surround our proposition with an acceptable paradigm.?Earlier in our discussion, we had agreed to test transcendent wisdom and history with logic and common sense. Our choice of this two, we must remember, is informed by the fact that it is impossible to falsify this part of our proposition through empirical means (a ‘Popperian’ procedure which would have certified it as scientific). Even before we proceed in doing this, we feel the strenuous but necessary need to test the tester itself.

?If logic and common sense belong to humans, how then can we know which is most ‘scientific’ among the several transcendent theories? We live in bubbles, not a few will quickly say. It is true we live in bubbles and our advancement may be impaired with this handicap, but we posses something which Einstein confessed to be greater than even knowledge itself. The power of imagination, as we will readily agree, affords us the opportunity to thread in paths unthreaded by science. Our logic, when applied in its highest degree and our common sense, when put to its best use could serve as useful guide in determining which of the myriads of transcendent understanding we should adopt.

a While some people may want to take this as a fact, it must be mentioned that we require the reader to take our analysis as a logical exponent of our emerging game theory.