Interesting that I just posted about Yated on my blog. I've never been a regular reader, but I've seen enough to know their credibility.
No scrapbook. They mostly get these sorts of things from Christian creationist sources.
I know. They're the ones with the scrapbooks.
This mentality goes hand in glove with Rav Elyashiv's latest directive for Bais Yakov schools in Israel *not* to hire frum teachers who have had training outside of the frum education system. Keeping cult members stupid is proving to be not so easy in today's world.
Note that it begins with an unverified statement from one person seventy years ago that half of what is taught to medical students will ultimately be shown wrong, and by the end of the article, it's stated as a given that half of ALL science will ultimately be shown wrong.
I hope that isn't the care and critical acumen the writer of that piece applies to his talmud Torah.
It is becoming a tired refrain. They are just hopeless. I recall as a bachur in EY I was introduced to R. Avigdor Miller's Rejoice O Youth where he makes the same argument. I was stii under the influence and though I knew it was a nonsensical argument I for a while bought it. It took me a while to realize the stupidity in that statement.
Thank God there were and are plenty of thinkers who offset the shtussim these Kleine Moachlech are trying to feed the people.
You're right. It is basically hopeless.
What saddens me is how plausible it seems to people who have already been conditioned to believe it--and that they have an important role to play in the future of Orthodoxy.
How could anyone who has ever opened a page of Shulchan Aruch and seen six different shittos on one point or a Gemara and read the Rashi, Tosfos and the Rosh and seen their different interpretations not understand the simple fact that in an intellectual endeavor all sides of an issue need to be examined and there will be different opinions, some better than others, and some with longer lasting influence and value?
It is mind boggling.
Can you please stop postng/linking anything from Yated. It really destroys any last shred of emunah I have. :P
Why? Who are they? Do the Amish destroy Christianity? :)
At least the Amish don't (to the best of my knowledge) say that science is a fraud - they just choose not to utilize technology. Our "Amish" on the other hand, outright call scientists frauds, fakes, phonies and liars.
The Wolf
... and do so while accepting the benefits that that same science has brought.
The Wolf
I don't think the Amish do as much harm to Christianity as certain segments of Charedim do to Judaism. The Amish do their thing and not jam it down the throat of other Christians, and they seem much more tolerant, at least thats what I get from watching "The Frisco Kid" :)
Darn it wolf, thou beat me to it.
outright call scientists frauds, fakes, phonies and liars.
Or, in simpler terms, "those goyim"!
Also, the Amish aren't poised to demographically dominate Christianity in the way that the chareidim are to Orthodox Judaism.
It is mind boggling.
A certain early chassidishe Rebbe whose name now escapes me one said that there is no more difficult endeavor in life than to uproot a preconcieved notion because you are up against two of the greatest yetzers there are: gaava and atzlanut.
The atzlanut will stop you from re-analyzing that which you have already accepted.
Gaava will stop you from admition of a mistake.
Together, these two forces are quite a force.
All this being said, it is easy to understand why the chareidi community feels embattled and reacts as such. Perhaps instead of critisizing them, we should concetrate on creating stronger and more complete modes of emuna and bitachon and not be so concerned if these are not acceptable to the chareidim. If the approach we offer is holistic and passionate, moral and practical, rooted in tradition and simultaneously innovative - then perhaps this will be the biggest tikkun of all.
In the words of Rav Kook Zt"l:
הישן יתחדש והחדש יתקדש
Holy Hyrax, I think you were thinking of a different Harrison Ford movie.
>All this being said, it is easy to understand why the chareidi community feels embattled and reacts as such.
I agree.
Uh oh, now everyone is in a serious mood and stopped commenting. Leave it up Chardal to post something with some wisdom to ruin the party :)
"All this being said, it is easy to understand why the chareidi community feels embattled and reacts as such."
It's because they believe things that aren't true. They're embattled because they need to protect their soap-bubble beliefs from a world full of pointed facts.
>It's because they believe things that aren't true.
It's not facts that they are trying to protect but values which they feel are contingent on those facts.
That is not so hard to understand.
That's not different from what I said.
That's not different from what I said.
values and facts are not the same thing.
> They're embattled because they need to protect their soap-bubble beliefs from a world full of pointed facts.
How do you come up with these? Where can I buy a computer program that generates such elegant metaphors? ;-)
ליצנות אחת דוחה מאה תוכחות
>It's not facts that they are trying to protect but values which they feel are contingent on those facts.
Values which are contingent on false facts?
I know Missy means things like, oh, God existing, Torah mi-Sinai.
But that aside--what about facts they hold dear that we would all agree are simply false, like the content of that article? Why is it necessary to believe that tzoah to uphold the values they hold dear--and if so, who says those values are dear?
Values which are contingent on false facts?
I said that they see the values as contingent on facts, not that those values ARE contingent on facts. For example, shabbat. Many in their community feel that a non-literal reading of bereishit destroys shabbat at all layers. But it is the value of shabbat they are most interested in defending, not the wrong conception of what gives that value its worth and authenticity.
Why is it necessary to believe that tzoah to uphold the values they hold dear--and if so, who says those values are dear?
I think that they are afraid of a slippery slope and of an irreverence towards tradition that would result.
Also, there is some historical baggage there. Many maskilim of the 19th century were not exactly without an anti-religious agenda.
>I think that they are afraid of a slippery slope and of an irreverence towards tradition that would result.
Of course, I believe their methodology produces irreverance towards tradition.
>I think that they are afraid of a slippery slope and of an irreverence towards tradition that would result.
Of course, I believe their methodology produces irreverance towards tradition.
> Why is it necessary to believe that tzoah to uphold the values they hold dear
Now *that* didn't come from the elegant-metaphor-generator ;-)
>I said that they see the values as contingent on facts, not that those values ARE contingent on facts. For example, shabbat. Many in their community feel that a non-literal reading of bereishit destroys shabbat at all layers. But it is the value of shabbat they are most interested in defending, not the wrong conception of what gives that value its worth and authenticity.
I see.
"I know Missy means things like, oh, God existing"
No I don't. Not unless you change it to YHWH (asher hotzaisicha me'eretz mitzrayim.) But any god at all? No.
Science bats .500? That's better than any major leaguer ever.
OTOH, Haredim bat 1.000 (in their fantasy league).
"Where can I buy a computer program that generates such elegant metaphors?"
I dunno, but if you find one please let me know. It's rather exhausting. ;-)
"values and facts are not the same thing."
That's not what I said.
I think Science should be proud of the fact that as new evidence emerges to challenge old concepts, ideas and (mot impportantly) practice, it is robist enough philisophically to accomidate and adjust to the "new reality".
Were it not for sciences ability to do this we sould never have had antibioics in the first place. Nor would we have understood the evolution of antibiotic resistance and would still be doling out the drug for every runny nose.
What the writer fails to grasp is that the observable facts that science today rest on remain just that facts! Our understanding of the implications of those facts change as our ability to measure reality improves.
(The pluto argument is just silly, and sad for its stupidity. Pluto still exists, it is only the definition of a "Solar" planat that has changed.)
When reality conflicts with faith, there are three options. One can choose Mis-nagid's path, and deny his faith, or re-shape it to conform with the empirical truth. Or, one can deny the reality, as done by the Lubavitchers or, l'havdil, Christians, or, l'havdil, the Yated. It takes some sophistication (not sophistry, please) to (option three) realize that the most puzzling contradiction might have a resolution. News flash--not all believers in the literal truth of the Torah are idiots.
It is wise of the Yated to assume that for most people, the safest path is to avoid confusion.
I asked this question at Hirhurim, but it seem more approriate here:
"Just curious,
When Rabbonim resort to "science has changed" what exactly are they refierng to? Are they suggesting that reality has changed (some sort of quantum effect that establishes nature only upon the presence of the recording instruments)?
Alternatively: Do they mean that as the data base of knowledge that scientific theories draw grow, therories are modified to accomidate the obsevations that conflict with the original premise, and better explain the observabel reality?
The latter is an accurate description of science, and should not be controversial. The former still accepts the reality of the observable world, so I don't get how this is a criticism of science."
Yossi | 09.14.06 - 3:50 pm | #
Lets not forget the study that found that 50% of all scientific research papers have logical, and procederal flaws in them.
"News flash--not all believers in the literal truth of the Torah are idiots."
True, they could also be ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
Realizing that truth often hides behind empirical reality is neither ignorant or intellectually dishonest, pace Mis-nagid. Anyway, most people's crises of faith are symptoms, not causes. The usual suspects are
1. Exposure to immoral behavior.
2. Uncertainty of faith.
3. Ignorance of halochoh.
4. Intellectual arrogance.
5. Indifference to the well-being of the community.
Ring any bells?
"Ring any bells?"
Yes, I've seen blaming the victim before.
"When reality conflicts with faith, there are three options. One can choose Mis-nagid's path, and deny his faith, or re-shape it to conform with the empirical truth."
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Waitasec. Which faith? How do you choose which faith to make conform with the empirical truth? How did Mis-nagid deny "his" faith? Don't you deny thousands of faiths? Why don't you take those other options you offer and reshape the faiths you deny to conform?
Barzilai said: "Anyway, most people's crises of faith are symptoms, not causes"
This statement is as scientific as reading chicken entrails
Anigma, I see you found your program MetaFive ver 2.0.
If science was as non changing as the Yated article would have it then we’d all be nice geocentric, four element, Aristoteleans.
Lets not forget the study that found that 50% of all scientific research papers have logical, and procederal flaws in them.
Daganev | Homepage | 09.14.06 - 5:08 pm | #
How can I make this clear?
Subjected to even the most cursory scrutiny, every study will show that 100% of religious claims "have logical, and procederal flaws in them."
This is a losing battle and has been since the 19th century or earlier.
Best strategy: retreat to the 4 amos of Torah. Don't venture to take on science. That battle was lost centuries ago.
"then we'd all be nice geocentric, four element, Aristoteleans."
What, you're not? Kofer.
I never tried to read chicken entrails, though I can recognize a treif gizzard.
But my own experience (eeek, anecdotal evidence!!!) has shown that most happy, well balanced people don't abandon the faith their parents imparted. Rationality is not much of a factor in religious faith, or the Mormons would drop their "angel Moroni's" golden plates and the Hindus their elephant on a turtle. There are rare thinking people of deep insight that are the exception, of course, . But usually the religious crisis is just an expression of unhappiness and dissatisfaction with life, or an excuse for the undisciplined to experience the thrill of the illicit.
> Rationality is not much of a factor in religious faith, or the Mormons would drop their "angel Moroni's" golden plates and the Hindus their elephant on a turtle.
And Orthodox Jews their...?
Not going to answer me, Bartzilai?
Their what? I don't think we have anything as silly as the two I mentioned. A belief in a creator is certainly rational, and I understand that a metaphysical creator can mandate laws that are incomprehensible to physical beings. But I don't see how anyone can believe the embarrasingly silly things I mentioned, which seem more the product of primitive or deranged minds than anything else. But you're right to the degree that if I had been born into those cultures I probably wouldn't have the impetus or courage to challenge those goofy assumptions.
> And Orthodox Jews their...?
Why, kosher l'mehadrin cell phones, of course.
The Yated's ...article ...proceeds from the premise that half of whatever is currently accepted in science is in reality false and will later be shown to be so to discredit science in toto ...The article lists several examples to illustrate this point..
the recent demotion of Pluto...
I guess the Yated doesn't understand one of the most important principles of science: Nothing is sacred.
Scientific knowledge is only as good as the most recent discovery. If a scientific fact that was held to be true even for many centuries is disproven by a new discovery, the old fact is immediately discarded and replaced by the new one.
Another thing, IIUC Pluto is no longer considered a planet because the concept of planets have been redefined and Pluto no longer fits that description.
What the Yated is doing here is encouraging ignorance as an ideal.
Not quite, Rav Maryles. Theries are discounted once they are falsified. Experimental observations alwyas need to be explained.
I think Thomas Kuhn's writings are very prescient when it comes to the Pluto controversy. He talked about how difficult it is to define what constitutes a "scientific discovery," and his example was how people "discovered" Uranus long before they understood that it was a planet rather than a star.
Elisha came to the house of a poor old widow in Shuneim, and he asked her whether she had anything in the house. She told him: "Only one small vial of crack-cocaine laced with rat poison." He commanded all the neighbors to bring keilim, and they poured the crack into the vessels. The crack kept on pouring and pouring, until all the vessels had been filled, at which point the crack stopped flowing. Then, they sold the crack at the corner of 157th St. and Amsterdam Avenue, and the widow never had to work another day in her life.
Not quite, Rav Maryles. Theries are discounted once they are falsified. Experimental observations alwyas need to be explained.
I wasn't talking about theories I was talking about what were believed to be scientifc facts... that have been disproven by new facts.
Again, Rav Maryles,
There are no such things as scientific facts, only observations, hypothesees and theroy. Each has a specific meaning in scientific termonology.
Hypthesees are put forward and experimentally tested (aimed at disproving the hypthesis. In science a hypthesis can actually never be proven). Observations are collected and new hypthesis are suggested that account for all the available evidence.
Were two observations conflict, the source of the conflict needs to be identified. In some cases it comes down to flawed recording techniques, in others it is due to improved technology Nevertheless the differences need to be explained rather than dismissed.
As such, there is no such thing as a scientific fact, only a scientific observation and interpritation.
On reflexction, this is the logical error that the Yated editorial is foxated on. It assumes the existance of Scientific facts when no such facts
should read:
When no such facts exist, only data (observations and measurements) and hypthesis.
So in science what we have are measures of reality, and explanations. In the future we will have BETTER measures of reality and Better expinations.
Reading Barzilai’s post, I found it contained many of the classic tropes used against people with nagging doubts in the Orthodox world. It needs a "Fisking".
Realizing that truth often hides behind empirical reality is neither ignorant or intellectually dishonest, pace Mis-nagid.
It is true that there may be more to reality than imperical observation. On the other hand, this does not bring the ornate edifice of traditional Jewish belief past the Zooby test, and by no means gives any cause for NECESSARY beliefs. THAT is where the ignorance/intellectual dishonesty comes in.
Anyway, most people's crises of faith are symptoms, not causes.
Blame the victim. Noone REALLY doubts the mesorah. They must be messed up.
1. Exposure to immoral behavior.Ah yes, it's those klipot. Barzilai, I don't know where you got the story on your blog from, but I find it hard to believe that Rambam thought that kefirah comes from eating nevelah.
2. Uncertainty of faith.
Um, well, duh. Uncertainty of faith is what we are talking about.
3. Ignorance of halochoh.
This is a logical beauty. "If you knew that our religion forbade you to doubt its veracity, you wouldn't doubt its veracity".
4. Intellectual arrogance.
Tell me, who is more intellectually arrogant:
a. The skeptic who says "much of life is a mystery, I have no perfect answers, but imperical, observable reality and our own (admittedly limited) logic are the best tools we have to find out)"; or
b. The guy who says "my religion has the answers to absolutely every question, is the sole determinant of morality, and anyone who disagrees is immoral, stupid, and going to a very specific Hell."
5. Indifference to the well-being of the community.
Of course. If you doubt, you're just a bad person, who doesn't care about others. Why can't you just absorb the pat explanations for everything like all your friends?
Thank you, Resh Lakish. I couldn't agree more. Like your namesake, you argue well and speak the truth.
Thank you, Enigma.
I can also jump over the Jordan in a single bound, and fight gladiatorial contests (Baba Metzi`a daf 84).
Why? Who are they? Do the Amish destroy Christianity?
Also, the Amish aren't poised to demographically dominate Christianity in the way that the chareidim are to Orthodox Judaism.
Quite so, Mis-Nagid. But it goes beyond that. Other Christians don't implicitly defer to the Amish as the definers of what is acceptably Christian. Practically all Orthodox Jewish groups and institutions (whether they will admit it or not) defer to Haredim, at least to some extent, as the standard bearers, and definers of what is really frum.
a. The skeptic who says "much of life is a mystery, I have no perfect answers, but imperical, observable reality and our own (admittedly limited) logic are the best tools we have to find out)"; or
b. The guy who says "my religion has the answers to absolutely every question, is the sole determinant of morality, and anyone who disagrees is immoral, stupid, and going to a very specific Hell."
A. is Much more arrogant, because they hold that they can tell B that they are wrong. Not only that, but by evidence of these blogs, they find it thier Moral DUTY to deride and mock B whenever possible. If it were not for A's arrogance odds are that B would leave them alone with the phrase "We each have our own journey" and leave it at that.
B does not claim that his own knowledge is suprior to anothers, the claim is that previous generations knowledge is suprerior to that of a single person who makes the claims of A.
A claims that if he does not know or undertand, than that is the defition of what is acceptable. B has the humility to say I don't understand, but those before me had what to pass on.
Science makes no claims to facts as Yus says, yet will tell anybody who gives a different answer to a scientific question that they are wrong.
A. is Much more arrogant, because they hold that they can tell B that they are wrong. Not only that, but by evidence of these blogs, they find it thier Moral DUTY to deride and mock B whenever possible. If it were not for A's arrogance odds are that B would leave them alone with the phrase "We each have our own journey" and leave it at that.
I don't think you read what I wrote, or at least understood it properly. A never said that he could "prove B wrong" (whatever that means), rather that his skepticism prevents him from sharing B's beliefs. I don't see what is arrogant about that.
B does not claim that his own knowledge is suprior to anothers, the claim is that previous generations knowledge is suprerior to that of a single person who makes the claims of A.
That is simply appeal to authority. In any event, there have been generations of smart Atheists, generations of smart Christians, generations of smart Mormons. The fact that a large number of people, over a long period of time, have had certain beliefs, doesn't make them any more necessary or obvious. It just speaks to the powers of continuity and indoctrination.
A claims that if he does not know or undertand, than that is the defition of what is acceptable.
I certainly never said this.
they find it thier Moral DUTY to deride and mock B whenever possible. If it were not for A's arrogance odds are that B would leave them alone with the phrase "We each have our own journey" and leave it at that.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Because Haredim and other Orthodox Jews never mock and deride people who don't share their views?!
Daganev,
I was going to say much the same thing, but Resh Lakish beat me to it.
I’ve been lurking at the periphery of the Jewish blogosphere for about a year, and I’m about ready to give it up. Seriously - and I’m not just saying this for dramatic effect – you and Lakewood Yid (and the occasional poster like Barzilai) have pretty much ruined it for me. I’m going back to Buddhism. It doesn’t piss me off as much.
And, Barzilai - from the bottom of my heart, I hope that someday you undergo a crisis of faith, and your family and friends show you as little compassion as you are demonstrating here.
(Hopefully, the Buddhists can help me to become less vindictive!)
Resh Lakish: "I can also jump over the Jordan in a single bound, and fight gladiatorial contests (Baba Metzi`a daf 84)"
Cool. But the factoid that stands out in my mind about Resh Lakish is slightly more piquant. (He would have been an interesting subject for a Masters & Johnson study)
Seriously - and I’m not just saying this for dramatic effect – you and Lakewood Yid (and the occasional poster like Barzilai) have pretty much ruined it for me. I’m going back to Buddhism. It doesn’t piss me off as much.
That is a real shame. Because Daganev and LY, from what I've read from their postings, seem to be nice people and genuine believers. Unfortunately, the fact that they buy into the "deluxe package" means they have to defend some tricky territory, and, unfortunately, ad hominem seems to be the most effective (or effective-looking) way to do so.
As for "Jewish Philosopher" (a pseudonym that must have Kant and Nietzsche and even the Rav turning in their graves) however...
Seriously - and I’m not just saying this for dramatic effect – you and Lakewood Yid (and the occasional poster like Barzilai) have pretty much ruined it for me. I’m going back to Buddhism. It doesn’t piss me off as much.
That is a real shame. Because Daganev and LY, from what I've read from their postings, seem to be nice people and genuine believers. Unfortunately, the fact that they buy into the "deluxe package" means they have to defend some tricky territory, and, unfortunately, ad hominem seems to be the most effective (or effective-looking) way to do so.
As for "Jewish Philosopher" (a pseudonym that must have Kant and Nietzsche and even the Rav turning in their graves) however...
(oops,sorry about the double posting; Resh Lakish was not computer literate, either).
Oh, yeah - I forgot about Jewish Philosopher. He doesn't upset me as much, though; I think it's because he doesn't post as often, and isn't always in my face. With all of them, however, on any of these blogs, I'll be trying to follow a conversation between guys like Mississippi Fred, XGH and Mis-nagid, who put a lot of thought into their opinions, and there these frum apologists are, interjecting their condescension. I find it infuriating. I can't seem to get away from them, and others like them, so I seem to have no choice but to leave. It's confirmed me in my belief that Orthodoxy isn't for me.
Why Resh Lakish? Do you mean before or after he was chozer b'teshuvah? Or do you mean that R'L was also an empiricist, r'l?
As for the story about the Rambam, I have no idea where it comes from, other than being quoted from the Brisker Rov, who was not in the habit of spinning Rambams, as anyone who ever learned at a Brisker Yeshiva would know. They are the most cold blooded analysts in the yeshiva world. But why would it bother you if the Rambam thought so? If the Yerushalmi says that Elisha ben Avuyo slide down the slope was greased by his prenatal exposure to the esthetic pleasures of Avodah Zarah, why would the Rambam have to blow that off? Do you feel better if you can visualize the Rambam as holding like you?
I remember reading that Bruno Betelheim was plagued by suicidal feelings his whole life, other than one period-- when he was in a concentration camp. Then, he would have done anything to survive.
Reading that, I felt like Saul on the road to Tarsus, so to speak. I realized that one's deepest feelings can stem from an character traits completely unrelated to the way they manifest, and that addressing them head-on is counterproductive. I feel the same way about Jews having crises of faith. I think that looking at our history, and the offspring of our religion, like Christianity and Islam, and our strange path wherever we find ourselves, demonstrates dispositively that we have a unique and intimate relationship with God, and that relationship is expressed in the Torah. If someone has a problem with that, his problems stem from some other underlying issue.
Thanks for looking at my blog-I thought it would be of interest to the Perdue people in Monsey.
Lets not forget the study that found that 50% of all scientific research papers have logical, and procederal flaws in them.- Daganev
I seem to recall that the study in question dealt only with an evaluation of papers in some medical journal(s). If it made a broader claim, then I would assume that there is a logical or procedural flaw in it.
Don't believe everything you read!
Y. Aharon
As such, there is no such thing as a scientific fact, only a scientific observation and interpritation. - Yossi
Of course there are such things as scientific facts. Does anyone doubt that a dense object thrown up will be observed to fall making an approximately parabolic arc? Try it yourself and take pictures of the path. Newton's laws of motion are adequate to describe that motion. Einstein may have changed the idea of gravity from a force to a space-time curvature, but the experimental basis of these laws do not change.
Your thesis seems to be that there is no objective reality, only our subjective observations. That may carry some weight in dealing with quantum objects, not with ordinary macroscopic ones.
Y. Aharon
>Unfortunately, the fact that they buy into the "deluxe package" means they have to defend some tricky territory, and, unfortunately, ad hominem seems to be the most effective (or effective-looking) way to do so.
This is just too funny.
I get called names and a fool and a whole sort of things on a daily basis here in the blogworld.
I talk about two HYPOTHETICAL poeple, and suddenly I'm doing an ad hominem?
Its ok to mock, deride, insult, do anythign you want to a person who blelieves something you don't, but if that same person talks about HYPOTEHTICAL GROUPS OF PEOPLE, As a SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, and attacks that SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, suddenly its ad hominem?
I don't think so.
Why can't you see the difference between atacking me as a person, and using my name as an example, and me using a "Person A." as an example?
You think thes two things are equivilent?
Disgusting.
Of course there are such things as scientific facts. Does anyone doubt that a dense object thrown up will be observed to fall making an approximately parabolic arc?
This is still nothing more than a measurable observation, upon which the theroy of gravity may rest. Still only an observation, and a very highly reproducable one at that.
The idea of a scienitfic fact, as used by Harry was to suggest that some theory, say smoking is good for you, may tommorrow by found to be untrue, and therefor this "sciebntific fact" has been found to be untrue.
Your thesis seems to be that there is no objective reality, only our subjective observations
Good g-d, Aharon! That is the very philisophical underpinning of science. As Descartes said, the sensation that I can "feel" are a true reflectin of reality. Science assume reality to be a tangiable phenomea that can be measured by our senses.
Y. Aharon, as a scientist I expect you to have a better apprecitation of the distinction! There are no facts in science only observation and hypthesis!
That is a fact!
Yossi: We seem to have a semantic problem. Facts, as I use the term mean extensively verified observations - no more, no less. Not all observations, mind you, only those that have been throughly verified. Of coarse, science is predicated on the belief that our observations and measurements correspond to some objective reality. It may not be the whole reality, but it is real, nonetheless. Quantum phenomena tend to make the above assertion a bit fuzzy in that the act of observation may change the reality. Physicists still debate the issue of the true state of a quantum object prior to the act of measurement.
Y. Aharon
Barzilai posts an interesting set of reasons why people lose faith. Methinks Rav Saadye Gaon also included ( he has 8 on his list) materialism, the behavior of some Jews and the attitude of some Jews. Needs introspection I think.
Y.Aharon,
The significance of our semantic difference is what leads to the error in logic that both Rav Mayrles makes and more signifcantly all the Rabonim who state "Science has changed". Once we recognise that science is purely empirical, and that once our database of observations increase we adjust, modifiy or simply reject our existing theories in favour of a better explanation.
It needs to be hammered home, Observations are facts, and measures of reality. Therories and hypothesis are merely the best explanation of those facts.
The significance of our semantic difference is what leads to the error in logic that both Rav Mayrles makes and more signifcantly all the Rabonim who state "Science has changed".
Yossi, WADR, I really think you are arguing semantics. Facts are the results of scientific experimentation that are consistently repeatable.
I do not argue that science has changed (I assume by that you mean Nishtaneh HaTeva).
As technology progresses and improves and new discoveries are made, newly discovered data can change our observations which can create new facts that replace old ones.
I would appreciate the cite for R' Saadya Gaon. Now is the time for honest introspection-im lo achshav...
I wasn't talking about theories I was talking about what were believed to be scientifc facts... that have been disproven by new facts.
Harry Maryles | Homepage | 09.15.06 - 5:20 pm | #
Harry the distinction is not semantic it is conceptual. On the basis of this very conceptual error we read the trash of this Yated editorial.
"Harry the distinction is not semantic it is conceptual. On the basis of this very conceptual error we read the trash of this Yated editorial."
You say there are no scientific facts, only scientific observations. What you call observations, many people (including many scientists) call "facts." Toe-may-toe, Toe-mah-toe. The Yated editorial may be guilty of a conceptual error, but not the numerous people who fail to accept your rigid nomenclature.
Hmm, rigid nomeculature?
I think it is a fundimental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Nonetheless, following your semantic argument:
If I believe certain propositions to be proven true, i.e. a fact, and it is subsequently proven to be false, isn't it then fair to critic the methodology that procuded the eroneous "fact" in the first place. After all, this is entirely what the Yated editorial is arguing. "In 50 years 50% of what we "know" to be true will be shown to be untrue." They therefor argue that we do not need to answer the critical question of marrying science to our religion since the science is intrinsically wrong.
That is the crux of the argument. By arguing the semantic error, we undemine the premise of the argument.
BTW, from a factual perspective Y.Aharon's analogy is wrong. When we throw a ball, it does not fly in a parabolic trajectory. Rather the parabolic trajectory is an idealization of what the ball would do without subtle chaotic influences (i.e. the real world) around to modify its flight. The true trajectory cannot realy be calculated, only the average trajectory over a large number of trials. (Just ask anyone who serves in the artillary. And even then not.) Intersting how a scientific fact outwieghs the actual experimental observations.
Try this experiment. Select a number of times to toss a (true) coin, say 10. Repeat the coin flips over 10 trials. In how many trials do you see heads and tails show up in exactly equal proportions. Yet the scientifc FACT is that it WILL do exactly that!
BTW, my question about what the significance of Nishtaneh HaTeva was sincere. I don't understand the concept.
"I think it is a fundimental misunderstanding of the scientific method."
You think what is a misunderstanding of the scientific method? We both agree that the Yated editorial doesn't understand science. But it's ridiculous for you to act like anyone who recognizes a category called "scientific fact" is wrong. All I'm saying is that many people--including many scientists--use the word "fact" exactly in the same way as you use the word "observation." The difference between you and those people is a matter of pure semantics, not understanding of science. Sure, some people overextend the definition of the word fact when they want to emphasize that something is "proven true" (e.g. evolution). Just because the word is sometimes used too broadly doesn't mean that it's a totally useless concept.
"Try this experiment. Select a number of times to toss a (true) coin, say 10. Repeat the coin flips over 10 trials. In how many trials do you see heads and tails show up in exactly equal proportions. Yet the scientifc FACT is that it WILL do exactly that!"
You're confusing probability with fact.
>BTW, my question about what the significance of Nishtaneh HaTeva was sincere. I don't understand the concept
The concept here would be that in the year 100 C.E, the earth actually was flat... if thats what all human observations concluded. (I think thats the concept)
1)You're confusing probability with fact.
No I am not. You are.
2) Re Categorical vs. Semantic, have another look at what Rav Mayrles writes. He made a specific categorical error. Nevertheless, even allowing for the possibility of a semantic error, it is this specific semantic error which leads to the error that Yated makes. Doesn't this encourage you to be more precise with your langauge. When you (generically) say that it is a scinetific fact that a the trajectory of a projectile will be parabolic, it is far to ask "what fact, it doesn't, and never has, in the real world".
(Oh and objects don't fall to earth, they move towards each other, destroying another commonly held factual assertion of science.)
It is instructive, when explaining science to the layety, to continuely remind the audience that science is not a religion, ergo there are no truths in science.
Anyway, why are you deabating with me, given that you acknowledge that I am semanticly correct, and that the use of the word scientific fact has no meaning to a scienitist.
Yes, but what is the point. Irrespective of whether the world was falt and is now round, the world is now round. What is the significance of insitining that the world was once flat?
Back to semantics
Scientific knowledge is only as good as the most recent discovery. If a scientific fact that was held to be true even for many centuries is disproven by a new discovery, the old fact is immediately discarded and replaced by the new one.
Harry Maryles | Homepage | 09.15.06 - 1:47 pm |
Not quite, Rav Maryles. Theries are discounted once they are falsified. Experimental observations alwyas need to be explained.
Yossi | 09.15.06 - 2:43 pm | #
wasn't talking about theories I was talking about what were believed to be scientifc facts... that have been disproven by new facts.
Harry Maryles | Homepage | 09.15.06 - 5:20 pm | #
How can you conclude that Rav Maryles has not made a categorical error. He disputes with me both that he means hypotheses are shown to be wrong and that data is fixed.
> Repeat the coin flips over 10 trials. In how many trials do you see heads and tails show up in exactly equal proportions. Yet the scientifc FACT is that it WILL do exactly that!"
You've got a big mouth for someone who's totally wrong. In fact, you will most likely not see heads and tails in exactly equal "proportions." In fact, the more trials you do, the less likely the amounts are to be equal. Learn some probability before shooting your mouth off.
>Anyway, most people's crises of faith are symptoms, not causes. The usual suspects are
1. Exposure to immoral behavior.
2. Uncertainty of faith.
3. Ignorance of halochoh.
4. Intellectual arrogance.
5. Indifference to the well-being of the community.
People can lose faith because they learn that what they were told is false. In this respect, weak answers can be worse than no answers.
But--and I forget what skeptic said this--they may simply find that there is nothing holding them within their faith community. It's not that the "outside world" tempts them so much as that the "inside" no longer holds much attraction.
Reason #1 above can also be interpreted as "exposure to immoral behavior within the community." Seeing dishonesty in "frum" people, and seeing it tacitly condoned by other "frum" people can be quite disheartening. For this the 10 Martyrs died? For this I should pay $100 for an etrog?
Yossi,
I won't speak for R' Maryles. What I object to is your repeated attempt to speak for all scientists. You're entitled to believe that there is no such thing as a scientific fact. That is a philosophical argument that probably can never be settled. My problem is your attempt to imply that your viewpoint is shared by most scientists. It isn't. Scientists, including many of the greatest ones, regularly talk about "facts." You can object to it if you like, but it doesn't imply an ignorance of scientific terminology.
It reminds me of the way in political debates some people are quick to point out that the United States is not a democracy in the purest sense, but a republic. While this is true, it does not imply that anyone who refers to this country as a democracy is ignorant. The use of the word "democracy" to refer to a republic is part of the accepted discourse, even if it isn't accurate in the strictest sense. Same with "scientific fact."
People who quibble too much with terminology are just looking for an excuse to be pedantic. If you want to correct a conceptual error, go right ahead. But don't imply that everyone who fails to accept your precise terminology is guilty of such an error. That simply is not true, and you know it.
Kyplopod,
What do you think a scientist means when they talk of "scientific facts".
What do you think a lay person hears when the scientist says it.
I am not being pedantic in the sense that Scientist shouldn't talk about facts, I am being pedantic in the sense that "facts" has different meanings to different people.
E.g. Aharon's assertion that a ball thrown into the air will have a parabolic trajectory as being a scientific fact. Well, in reality it is only a model or idealization of how the ball will travel, since influnces other than the angle and force of projection and gravity will alter its flight path. So while the scientist speaks of the facts in this situation, the facts are not reality, and are therefor strictly speaking untrue. Yet Aharon and I can agree that the ball will follow a parabolic trajectory since we agree on the limits of our idealization. How many lay people understand that distinction?
Hence the Yated editorial.
Anonymous,
I would be very interested in seeing your proof that in ten coin flips that probability that heads will show up 5 times is not true.
>Yes, but what is the point. Irrespective of whether the world was falt and is now round, the world is now round. What is the significance of insitining that the world was once flat?
Whats the point of knowing how stars are made?
The point from a Jewish perspective is learning what we are suppose to learn from the world around us.
I don't believe that Yossi and I are really disagreeing. We just have a different understanding of what the term scientific fact implies. I use it in the more conventional sense of established empirical observations. He thinks of it as some absolutely accurate statement of the reality of the phenomenon. Facts, even as I define the term, do not qualitatively change even if the theory accounting for the facts changes appreciably. Again, gravity is a good example. Einstein's theory differs radically from Newtons' and classical mechanics. That does mean that the wealth of observations accounted for by Newton's gravitional force concept is rejected. It only means that under some conditions, Newton's far simpler theory is inadequate, and relativistic mechanics must be substituted to get better agreement with those observations.
I agree that science deals with idealizations, and that reality is often much more complex. Yet, such idealizations are surprisingly accurate. One such idealization is the parabolic trajectory of thrown or shot objects. I did not claim that this characterization of the path is strictly accurate. Reality kicks in here when you consider the effects of air resistance and the possible tumbling of an elongated object.
In any case, I agree fully that the Yated article is a misrepresentation of what science is and isn't. The Pluto example is a particularly eggregious example of a dumb argument.
Y. Aharon
I would be very interested in seeing your proof that in ten coin flips that probability that heads will show up 5 times is not true.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The probability of seeing 5 heads is (10 choose 5) * (1/2)^10. This is simply the binomial distribution. Do you mean that, among all single results, it is the most likely? That's true. Do you mean that it has more than 50% chance of happening? That's not true. Do you mean that the proportion of heads tends to 1/2 as the number of trials goes to infinity? That's true. But please define your terms, it is unclear what you are trying to say with this case.
I charge by the hour for math tutoring.
"How many lay people understand that distinction?"
Probably about as many as those who understand the difference between a democracy and a republic.
The Yated editorial is not representative of the general public. I'm not even sure it's representative of the Chareidi population.
>I'm not even sure it's representative of the Chareidi population.
I agree. That was a prescriptive article if I ever saw one.
Commenting by HaloScan
