"Now, again, this does not mean that they were foolish... Their epistemology placed high regard to statements made by people of authority, and/or demanded a literal reading of texts, and there was little concern for scientific viability or empirical investigation."
I'm a little confused. Are you defending Chazal or knocking them? They're not foolish bit... they were gullible and didn't know how to do proper research?
It took the scientific revolution (16th century) for empiricism to reign supreme. Before this if the wise men of old said something it was taken at face value and believed because the wise man said it. Aristotle saus that women and men have different numbers of teeth and this was accepted for centuries because Aristotle said so. Nobody thought to count the teeth because Aristotle said so and that was enough for them. One cannot fault Chazal for not thinking how people first thought a millennium after the last Amora had died.
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Aristotle was actually a close and careful observer of nature in his biological investigations. He also used solid empirical proofs to prove the sphericity of the earth. Other Ancient Greeks also did engage in empirical investigations including Hipparchus and Archimedes. One problem is that Aristotle became cemented in as too much of an authority rather than having his methods gradually expanded into full-blown empiricism.
I have to be honest, not trying to be a “killjoy”, but I’m not sure I understand the idea of a post designed to mislead people (even if only briefly). Especially coming from a well-known expert on the animal kingdom, it is inevitable that some people will be “taken in” by such a post. So what’s the point? To make those people feel foolish? To make those who “get” the joke feel superior?
As it happens, I have always felt this way about “pranks” (and practical jokes) in general—and society’s acceptance thereof—which strike me as fundamentally mean-spirited in that they seem to serve no purpose but to amuse the prankster at the expense of those he embarrasses or makes to look/feel foolish.
Am I mistaken? Perhaps you can shed some light for me on their purpose/motivation/justification.
That is, of course, the common rejoinder whenever someone points out the inherent cruelty of pranks (and practical jokes): “we’re just having fun” (or: “lighten up”).
But the point is, it’s “having fun” at someone else’s expense, and I’m not sure why that is considered socially (let alone ethically) acceptable.
THANKS. I FEEL LIKE A REAL FOOl FOR HAVING BEEN TAKEN IN, AND THE SCIENTISTS THAT i SENT THIS TO THINK YOU ARE A REAL FOOL. hOW EMBARASSING TO SEND THEM YOUR APRIL 1 ANNOUNCEMENT. i (AT LEAST) DO NOT EXPECT THIS FROM SUCH A RESPECTABLE SOURCE,
Ha! My previous post was just a post April 1 post but how did you feel about that? Keep up your serious work, I love it, even though I can't afford your new subscription rate. (Too bad that notice wasn't just an April 1 joke.)
Thank you Harav Hagaon Slifkin for saving us from all the embarrassing mistakes of Chazal. You have all the best of Chazal without their foolishness. It's too bad you can't go back in time and correct them. We would have been saved a lot of embarrassment.
"There’s nothing naive or foolish in believing something false if it fully fits with everything else that you know about the world, and especially if it is presented by someone respected as an expert. "
What about people who still think covid vaccines are safe and effective? LOL
Whether Chazal were correct about various physical phenomena is irrelevant regarding their true authority. Chazal have the power to create legal reality. You are allowed to kill lice on shabbos because Chazal say so. That their reasoning is based off of an incorrect understanding of the world is irrelevant. That we now know better does not mean it is forbidden to kill lice, because Chazal explicitly allow it. Similarly, Chazal's injunction against medicine on shabbos also stands despite modern industrial production of pharmaceuticals. One cannot fault Chazal for not knowing of developments that would occur over a thousand years after they died any more than we can fault Isaac Newton for believing in luminiferous aether or continuous matter. We may stand on the shoulders of giants, but we can still see farther than them.
I was one of those people fooled. However, after hearing on a news program that a turtle that was supppsedly over 90 years old was able to fertilize eggs, nothing seemed beyond belief.
"Still, it does appear that historically, people were generally more credulous."
The credulity quotient in the human species is a constant, only the subjects change. Have you seen what people believe today about transsexuals? Equality of races, sexes? Global Warming? Life on other planets? Or go back a few years - Communism? Transcendentalism? (I'm purposely skipping Covid, for everyone's sanity.) People, ESPECIALLY the non-religious, will believe in anything.
I wasn't old enough then to be aware it, but yes, I have subsequently seen a Newsweek cover from that period, warning of the coming ice age.
In the very late 1970s and early 80s, which I do recall from childhood, many people - mainly secular Jews, probably, though this wasn't spoken about at the time - also believed that Hare Krishnas were skulking around the country looking to kidnap teenagers and "brainwash" them. The hysteria of just a few individuals was able to manipulate the US media into making this fake news into a major concern.
And who can forget the kidnapping scare? It's a sensitive topic, b/c its every parents worst nightmare, but children of my generation were taught that every stranger is a potential kidnapper. There's lots of articles today out there, of people my age looking back on what was so obviously inflated hysteria. And like all passing bouts of hysteria, there were those who knew it at the time. This is a great quote from the LA Times, from a 1985 article on the subject:
“There’s a tremendous scare on,” said Louis McCagg, director of Child Find, the nation’s oldest and best-known missing children organization. Once a strong supporter of the 50,000 estimate, Child Find now says that the actual number of stranger-abducted children is less than 600 per year.
I'm referring to the belief in seances and the occult, popular in some circles in post WWI period. No less a giant than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in this stuff. Because people in all times and all ages will believe in anything.
Cute. Worked on me. Third category. Didn’think bout it for too long. What wenthru my mind was… Oh wow, but it must have been photographed elsewhere. That can’t actually be in the museum. It isn’t a zoo. Where would they keep it? What would they feed it? Of course, had I realized it was April 1… Ulai next year.
"Now, again, this does not mean that they were foolish... Their epistemology placed high regard to statements made by people of authority, and/or demanded a literal reading of texts, and there was little concern for scientific viability or empirical investigation."
I'm a little confused. Are you defending Chazal or knocking them? They're not foolish bit... they were gullible and didn't know how to do proper research?
It took the scientific revolution (16th century) for empiricism to reign supreme. Before this if the wise men of old said something it was taken at face value and believed because the wise man said it. Aristotle saus that women and men have different numbers of teeth and this was accepted for centuries because Aristotle said so. Nobody thought to count the teeth because Aristotle said so and that was enough for them. One cannot fault Chazal for not thinking how people first thought a millennium after the last Amora had died.
"I fault Chazal"
Who are you to utter such words?
This is a bit of an exaggeration. Aristotle was actually a close and careful observer of nature in his biological investigations. He also used solid empirical proofs to prove the sphericity of the earth. Other Ancient Greeks also did engage in empirical investigations including Hipparchus and Archimedes. One problem is that Aristotle became cemented in as too much of an authority rather than having his methods gradually expanded into full-blown empiricism.
He's pretending to respect them so he can flash an orthodox rabbi card.
I have to be honest, not trying to be a “killjoy”, but I’m not sure I understand the idea of a post designed to mislead people (even if only briefly). Especially coming from a well-known expert on the animal kingdom, it is inevitable that some people will be “taken in” by such a post. So what’s the point? To make those people feel foolish? To make those who “get” the joke feel superior?
As it happens, I have always felt this way about “pranks” (and practical jokes) in general—and society’s acceptance thereof—which strike me as fundamentally mean-spirited in that they seem to serve no purpose but to amuse the prankster at the expense of those he embarrasses or makes to look/feel foolish.
Am I mistaken? Perhaps you can shed some light for me on their purpose/motivation/justification.
That is, of course, the common rejoinder whenever someone points out the inherent cruelty of pranks (and practical jokes): “we’re just having fun” (or: “lighten up”).
But the point is, it’s “having fun” at someone else’s expense, and I’m not sure why that is considered socially (let alone ethically) acceptable.
Haha! Thanks for making me (and chazal) feel better for not realising it was a fake 😜
THANKS. I FEEL LIKE A REAL FOOl FOR HAVING BEEN TAKEN IN, AND THE SCIENTISTS THAT i SENT THIS TO THINK YOU ARE A REAL FOOL. hOW EMBARASSING TO SEND THEM YOUR APRIL 1 ANNOUNCEMENT. i (AT LEAST) DO NOT EXPECT THIS FROM SUCH A RESPECTABLE SOURCE,
I thought it was real because the frog species wasn't named "Mecharker Meiselmanus" or something like that.
Ha! My previous post was just a post April 1 post but how did you feel about that? Keep up your serious work, I love it, even though I can't afford your new subscription rate. (Too bad that notice wasn't just an April 1 joke.)
Thank you Harav Hagaon Slifkin for saving us from all the embarrassing mistakes of Chazal. You have all the best of Chazal without their foolishness. It's too bad you can't go back in time and correct them. We would have been saved a lot of embarrassment.
Actually, in my opinion the fake dinosaur on the museum roof was even better than the strawberry.
Chazal had yiras shamayim, humility, and great wisdom. I can't say the same about their critics.
"There’s nothing naive or foolish in believing something false if it fully fits with everything else that you know about the world, and especially if it is presented by someone respected as an expert. "
What about people who still think covid vaccines are safe and effective? LOL
Whether Chazal were correct about various physical phenomena is irrelevant regarding their true authority. Chazal have the power to create legal reality. You are allowed to kill lice on shabbos because Chazal say so. That their reasoning is based off of an incorrect understanding of the world is irrelevant. That we now know better does not mean it is forbidden to kill lice, because Chazal explicitly allow it. Similarly, Chazal's injunction against medicine on shabbos also stands despite modern industrial production of pharmaceuticals. One cannot fault Chazal for not knowing of developments that would occur over a thousand years after they died any more than we can fault Isaac Newton for believing in luminiferous aether or continuous matter. We may stand on the shoulders of giants, but we can still see farther than them.
I was one of those people fooled. However, after hearing on a news program that a turtle that was supppsedly over 90 years old was able to fertilize eggs, nothing seemed beyond belief.
"Still, it does appear that historically, people were generally more credulous."
The credulity quotient in the human species is a constant, only the subjects change. Have you seen what people believe today about transsexuals? Equality of races, sexes? Global Warming? Life on other planets? Or go back a few years - Communism? Transcendentalism? (I'm purposely skipping Covid, for everyone's sanity.) People, ESPECIALLY the non-religious, will believe in anything.
I wasn't old enough then to be aware it, but yes, I have subsequently seen a Newsweek cover from that period, warning of the coming ice age.
In the very late 1970s and early 80s, which I do recall from childhood, many people - mainly secular Jews, probably, though this wasn't spoken about at the time - also believed that Hare Krishnas were skulking around the country looking to kidnap teenagers and "brainwash" them. The hysteria of just a few individuals was able to manipulate the US media into making this fake news into a major concern.
And who can forget the kidnapping scare? It's a sensitive topic, b/c its every parents worst nightmare, but children of my generation were taught that every stranger is a potential kidnapper. There's lots of articles today out there, of people my age looking back on what was so obviously inflated hysteria. And like all passing bouts of hysteria, there were those who knew it at the time. This is a great quote from the LA Times, from a 1985 article on the subject:
“There’s a tremendous scare on,” said Louis McCagg, director of Child Find, the nation’s oldest and best-known missing children organization. Once a strong supporter of the 50,000 estimate, Child Find now says that the actual number of stranger-abducted children is less than 600 per year.
I'm referring to the belief in seances and the occult, popular in some circles in post WWI period. No less a giant than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in this stuff. Because people in all times and all ages will believe in anything.
Cute. Worked on me. Third category. Didn’think bout it for too long. What wenthru my mind was… Oh wow, but it must have been photographed elsewhere. That can’t actually be in the museum. It isn’t a zoo. Where would they keep it? What would they feed it? Of course, had I realized it was April 1… Ulai next year.
People will believe *anything* for any reason.
I was wondering how you kept it fed!
By feeding it BS.