CYBERNATIAN

 

 

Once Upon a Time  

News or propaganda? /

It is a fine line traversed with care and great diligence not to cross by news people and the media to retain news News and propaganda what is. Even with care and all the effort paid to be and make the news objective, deep held partisan feelings often creep up often to render it more of a partisan propaganda than it is a news only to be rescued by a corroborative second and more reports. However divergent or opposing an interpretation of the news event, the events objective reality is maintained by a second and more corroborative accounts. The news as it serves both the newsmaker and news consumer it is imperative on both the news maker and the news consumer to impose a culture of objectivity and diversity of an interpretation by demanding from and giving to multiplicity of sources. A news media and report that claims exclusivity of a source and a newsmaker that only tells its story to an exclusive media out let and news reporter has their relationship made not as a newsmaker and reporter rather as an organ and a subservient and the reports questionable if not dismissible. I am prompted to jot this note by a relationship I found increasingly disturbing and may be worth examining in light of what is going on around the world. It was not long time ago that Algzeera was proclaimed a phenomenon particularly in the Arab world and rightfully so; It was believed it is going to give and it has given voice to the great descent that existed in the region and group of people who might have been misunderstood or even might have been mistreated. Often time and again due to in experience or too lopsided partisan allegiances they have turned themselves in to the mouse piece of the Arab underground and out of mainstream, by being the exclusive media outlet for the region’s outcasts and having the exclusive privilege of access to the group. It is widely known and understood that the news media and news reporters have the oath of profession to guard the privacy and security of their sources against a government or any other power that might jeopardize their safety. This is so for the purpose and sake of news’s objectivity, which serves both the newsmaker and consumer. Instead of making this global journalistic culture it’s imperative Algzeera seems to have opted for a lesser partisan allegiance, which makes me skeptical or even dismissive of their report a feel many serious people would do likewise and have done.

Comments and suggestions are well come as long as they are civil and are not obscene.

cybernat@cybernatian.biz

Plagued By the Answers:

 

Often times we are caught up with greater and more questions in our efforts to answer questions of a sort or another or simply open up a door for an avalanche of questions to follow. Since it has always been the way of nature that in our examination of it in and in part of our growth and development, our answers to anything and everything has always been partial and incomplete or totally wrong, leaving us with the next set of efforts and trials to correct, to refine and to complete what we have done, began and are doing. Thus in my efforts or any one’s great trials and endeavors, I take no offense, but great pride and gratitude for having gone as far as they and I went and tried. It is incumbent upon me I thought, that I ask the next set of questions as I am entertained by a set of answers from those who had invested their time and energy in to answering and uncovering, the mysteries of our world and everything around us and in us. It is with these line of thought that I approach and ask of the questions that are to follow as I read Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss’s answers to Scientific American magazine of August issue. I shall make it clear and so vividly from the outset that I make no claim of authority on the subject matter, but just a layman’s puzzlement by some of his answers. As interesting, thought provoking, and entertaining as most of his answers and conjectures were to the questions raised, he, I though, was not short of making some over simplified statements that begged explanations and plagued my mind in the search for answers in the jungles of theories and ideas. In his statement about string and loop quantum gravity theories “ Both this theories are based on the idea that you can’t go down to zero in a point particle, and that’s one way to get rid of mathematical infinities.” It seems to me the concepts of zero are incompatible with reality of material existence. It is rather the essence of it than the reality of it which is none existence (the existence of none existence if you may wish to call it) that by definition is a reality beyond reach in time and in distance again which calls for the reality of infinity and asymptotes. This are not scapegoats as the Dr. seems to suggest, but realities that cannot be done away with both in mathematics and physics even it Cripps in other none scientific field as one wishes to make use of them. It is not the concept of, the existence and the none existence of zero and infinity, I wanted to discuss here, rather the suggestion that they are made scapegoats for an explanation and none explanation of a theory that seemed to me a little off line and somewhat un scientific and make my puzzlement even more. I have read a number of articles, news exposes recently, and it has even become fashionable to talk about layered Universe.  I myself I was one who had fallen for that theory early on. It is the increased number of paradigms that we find matter in that seems to justify the concept of multiple Universe in a lopsided logic that undermine the concept of the Universe as we know it and as defined, has left nothing that is not it, on it and in it. It was, as we know it, an all-encompassing entity. I wondered what we will be calling the set of all the parallel universes, and if matter’s existence in multiplicity of paradigms will warrant the multiplicity of universes? I for one have rescinded my earlier held thought about the parallel Universes. As much as I applauded his stance on religion in public schools, I found it somewhat troubling that he opposition to them being thought as science. He does not stop there but goes on to define the difference between what is science and what is not; it is with that part of his explanation that I really get a plague, a plague he may help me get rid of. “In science we prove things by empirical methods, and we toss out things that have been disproved as wrong. Period. This how we make progress.” I am afraid that statement does not fairly speak either about science or none science. What is conclusively proved wrong is always tossed out be it science or none, as to the method of proof of either science or non-science are relegated to empirical methods that is why I think we had the discussion about spring theory and loop quantum gravity theories. Mathematical and common logic are as much a part of scientific methods as they are a methods of none scientific fields. There were, are and there will always be times where science could not do all its works by empirical methods and non-science fields as well been, are and will to some extent borrow upon empirical methods of solving their problems dispelling the popular myth and them that the knowledge and methods of science are totally different from and totally incompatible with non-science. Human knowledge in its totality is compounded serving ultimately the same purpose; and generated and accumulated science in the per suet of non-scientific endeavors and non-scientific knowledge in the per suet of none science, opposed in methodology and approach, yet both in the greater service of human fulfillment. With due respect to Dr. Krauss opinion, it is rather clear it seems and feels that, neither science nor non-science has the monopoly of the truth, at least not thus far and not in the foreseeable future. If that has been true that one has the total monopoly of the truth, we wouldn’t be having all the controversies and struggles for hegemony, notwithstanding the fact that the truth about the ultimate and the most fundamental is still in contest, it would have been, I thought, ill advised to have come up with the criticism of non-creationist’s philanthropy of helping creationist education, like that of Bill and Melinda Gates, for it would give an impression of not only of prioritizing of one’s own ways and beliefs, it as well comes across as non- academic by not putting the search for the truth the priority. The truth about everything as with everyone and everywhere, we individually or as a group do and are capable of knowing only part of the whole and partial truth. Last if we open our ears, eyes and mind, evolution becomes 7 days of creation stretched to 7 billion years of evolution, and creation becomes 7billion years of evolution compressed to 7 days of creation, all but from the elements of earth.

by

Ayele Teklemariam+

The contents of this website are protected by the copy rights law as registered and catalogued in the US Copyrights office on March 15, 2006. Registration number = TXu-327-600.