Epistemological Implications of the Gradated Claims to Divine Authority in the Bahá’í Writings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shoghi Effendi has stated that “the whole theory of Divine Revelation rests on the infallibility of the Prophet.” It is elsewhere explained (e.g., the Kitáb-i-Aqdas and Some Answered Questions) that the infallibility of the Manifestations is “essential” in that, among other things, They are “omniscient at will.” However, the Bahá’í teachings complete the theory of Divine Revelation with a (complementary) theory of the Bahá’í Covenant that clearly rests on the attribution of various gradated forms of infallibility to other Persons (‘Abdu’l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi) and Institutions (the Guardianship and the Universal House of Justice). These forms of “conferred infallibility” are based upon the spiritual authority of Bahá’u’lláh as Manifestation. They endow the conferees with freedom from error without presuming them to possess the essentialist attribute of omniscience. This paper undertakes to examine the epistemological implications of these various forms of infallibility for the scientific study of the phenomenon of revelation in general, and of the Bahá’í Revelation in particular. We also examine the complementarity between those truths derived from systematic application of the scientific method of empirical verification, on one hand, and those derived from systematic exegesis of the texts of Bahá’u’lláh within the framework of the Covenant, on the other.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it