“Just as ordinary, pig-headed and unreasonable as anybody else” was the eminent twentieth century psychologist H.J. Eysenck’s judgment of scientists. “And their unusually high intelligence,” he added, “only makes their prejudices all the more dangerous.”
Absolutely. Which is why scientists need to produce evidence, and experiments, and data, and have their work peer-reviewed, and we don't really truly believe them until there is global consensus in the academic community. If one lone scientist claims to have produced cold fusion, but no one else can re-produce it, well, we just don't believe it.
But according to Eysenck, Gedolim (and Chazal) are also pig-headed, unreasonable and biased. And much much worse, they have no evidence and no data. So why believe them? As Shaffran writes:
"But, as more traditional Jewish texts explain, only someone who has overcome the preconceptions, desires and imperfections of character to which we all play host can truly perceive the world with clarity."
So, only Torah greats can be unbiased because they learn Torah. And who taught us that? Why, the Torah Greats! Of course this is just Reb Elchnon Wasserman's proof of the Truth of Torah.
Shame it doesn't work, being completely circular and all. But Shafran can't see that. Why not?
Because, as he himself admits, he's just as stubborn and pig-headed and biased as everyone else. But without any evidence, experiments or actual data.
Posts
9 comments:
> But Shafran can't see that. Why not?
That’s actually a really good question. I don’t expect him to agree with evolutionary biologists, given his religious preconceptions, but why can’t he see the flaws in his arguments? He comes across as reasonably intelligent.
I suppose he’s just too nogeah b’davar, and his questions on evolution are really just answers.
Of course he sees it. He just hopes not too many other people will.
Shafran is low lying fruit, with quotes just ripe for the pickin'. I'd pay good money for a book filled with his inanities.
what bothers me more is the modern orthodox, or "rationlaists" who claim to to be open to these treife ideas - yet when presented with evidence that their core beliefs are bogus (TMS, etc), they turn a blind eye.
at least the shafran type's are consistent.
would you agree XGH?
> would you agree XGH?
Yes, but the more I talk to these types, the more I realize that they're all faking it big time.
"and have their work peer-reviewed"
Origin of Species wasn't peer-reviewed.
>>>> Shafran can't see that. Why not?
because faith handicaps the intellect. and the ability to overcome this handicap is much weaker in some than in others.
"> But Shafran can't see that. Why not?"
Because he is preaching, and most people being preached to, don't care about logic. (No matter the topic, or intelligence of the audience) Look it up some time. It's the art of rhetoric and its effective on most people who aren't looking for an argument.
Thank you for very good blog about Word Origin. It's very nice.
Post a Comment