Of course, the same applies to the so-called rationalists. Some secular academics told Natan there is no source for kollel, or that Torah doesn't protect, or that liberal atheist Jonathan Haidt is a good source for Judaism, or all sorts of other nonsense that he believes, and he credulously fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. Nowadays we are not as gullible, and we can easily debunk his obvious mistakes. Whatever mistakes Chazal made (if they did make mistakes), they are far less serious than these!
"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.
The ancient Greeks weren't much into scientific investigation. Ironically, one of the few scientific investigations recorded from the ancient times is in the first chapter of Sefer Daniel. It is the oldest example of a clinical trial with a comparison group. The next one would be in the 18th century.
I fault Chazal for following non-Jewish models rather than the example from our sacred writings!
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,
If you started to actually place yourselves in Chazal's situation, with the mindset that they had, the sense of Achrayus to get things accurate, and the context in which they were working, you might realize that the mistakes were not theirs.
It is only because you insist on sitting in the mindset of a 21st century amateur zoologist that you cannot fathom this and you look at comments like mine as closed-minded. Ironic, when you think about it.
I don't know for sure. I certainly think it is possible, and I certainly wouldn't rely on what passes for wisdom nowadays to counteract them. Even a cursory examination of what they said shows that they had a responsibility for the truth that is way beyond anything today's 'experts' show.
Every so-called educated MO personality blames his position on the Rambam. Yet they fail to appreciate the Rambam's breadth and hard work that he invested to reach his conclusions. When people accept their own consensuses and build a worldview based on their frivolous research, when they know that they have no real responsibility for the facts, they are totally unreliable.
I certainly agree that they took strong responsibility for the truth and took utmost care in what they said.
However, I don't see how that translates into accepting they were right when they clearly based their conclusions on scientific consensus in their time. A good example would be the lice eggs, or how a woman and man each contribute different things to the body, or how they believed a women couldn't get pregnant with the first intercourse. They were all said with utmost regard for the truth and in accordance with the scientific consensus of their time, but it doesn't make them correct. They were Torah scholars, not scientists.
If one believes the Torah shebaal Peh, it makes sense to assume that their reasoning was correct as pertains to halacha and hashkafa. This is why Tosafos and Rishonim always try to answer for the Gemara, even b'dochak gadol, and don't just say thousands of times the Gemara was wrong when they have serious difficulties.
This is true when it comes to the Gemara's logic. We assume that their logic makes sense, because logic is inherently timeless. We don't see that when it comes to מציאות, in which understanding is era-dependant.
This is incorrect. Most halachos are dependent on their understanding of the metzius. If you can't trust Chazal on the metzius (as pertains to halacha), you can't trust the Torah shebaal Peh for almost anything. The same reason why you should trust their logic (despite the fact that it could be wrong) is also the reason why you should trust their understanding of metzius.
There is still no evidence that the science of our time is better than the science of theirs. We have been brought up this way, so we cannot imagine another. (Guess who wrote this claim about spontaneous generation)
Ever since empiricism took over the game, rationalism has basically died out. Nowadays we are so used to empiricism, we can hardly even define the concept of rationalism. And that is only if we accept that Chazal relied on the science of their time. If they had some kind of סוד ה' ליראיו (today's Daf), neither empiricism nor rationalism has any say in the matter.
100 years ago +/- a few, antibiotics was discovered. This was a game changer in dealing with and treating many illnesses. Before those days, people did not have access to such successful medication.
What did they do? What did a Rebbe do when he had a 'roiz'? What did people do when they had fever and a scratchy throat and breathing problems? We know what they did, they used folk remedies, and over the years some data was accumulated. Now these folk remedies were far from foolproof, and some were plain nonsense. But some were not nonsense, they worked a certain amount of the time, and for some people. Antibiotics does a much better job, so it would be stupid to return to those days of folk remedies.
But there was a wisdom to some of those folk remedies that was being developed, when it was stopped by Fleming et al.. We don't have the data available any more, we stopped the research in its tracks, and now we are in danger of antibiotics no longer working.
Does that mean that plants, roots and herbs don't work? Of course not. But we don't know which do and which don't, how they would work, what the side effects are, and how to optimize them. So we just leave it at that, and go back to antibiotics.
(If you want, you can use leftover Chanuka oil for your roiz issues. But take antibiotics as well.)
They may have been wrong, but who is claiming that? People who spent a couple of hours perusing a text book, written by someone else who knew his findings could never be proven wrong?
I don't know the answers to the issues, I haven't studied them. But when it comes to trusting others, I think it's foolish to believe today's science over Chazal. If someone has other access to knowledge without using trust, that would be a different issue. But almost everyone discussing this issue is relying on trust. You have probably not studied the issue of lice's reproduction methods. Why would you be so sure that they aren't formed from the earth? Because someone told you? Why are they better than Chazal?
And ironically, there is no scientific proof that the scientific method is the most accurate one of discerning the truth.
"I think it's foolish to believe today's science over Chazal."
Rav Sherirah Gaon disagreed and he lived a thousand years ago. You have departed from a thousand year old mesorah. Which talmudic medical cure are you taking?
You take no responsibility for the actual words that you use. Yet you talk, and presumably believe, with absolute faith in your mindset. And that is not an individual failing of yours, it is a feature of the modern belief system, that on the one hand believes undoubtingly in its own superiority, yet uses the most tenuous of proofs.
What does Rav Sherira Gaon have to do with today's science? Do you even know when he lived?
I don't know who Hume is, but my point is that there are other methods of reaching the truth besides the scientific method, and the lack of the ability of the scientific method to prove something does not mean it is not true.
But when we have the irony of the science community's belief in things that the scientific method cannot prove, it remains hypocrisy. Like evolution. But that's a whole different topic.
You are right that I have never expiremented on my own. I do trust the understanding of today's scientists over Chazals understanding of science simply because science has advanced a lot since Chazals time. I don't see any particular reason to trust Chazals understanding of science when it clearly contradicts everything science claims about the natural world (spontaneous generation is thought to be impossible) and matches up perfectly with Chazals era science (where everyone thought that lice spontaneously generated). It seems far more likely that Chazal trusted their days science, just as we do in our everyday lives, rather than asserting Chazal got it from menorah which just happened to have matched up perfectly with that generations scientific thought.
You also trust today's science - I saw it when lambasting antivaxxers. Why do you trust the medical establishment and not antivaxxers? It's the same reason I trust the scientific establishment and not Chazals early era understanding.
Why do you trust the medical establishment and not antivaxxers?
What's the answer? Why DO you trust the medical establishment and not antivaxxers? Why are you so sure antivaxxers are wrong? Are their children dying or are they healthier?
Of course I trust those that do the research, and in the case of vaccinations, that would be those in the medical field, not 'Google told me something something myocarditis somethin something Vaers somethin something'.
But when the counterweight is Chazal with their sense of responsibility, that trust is seriously eroded.
Given that there are unresolved disagreements in the Bavli that aren't reconcilable (and even more in the Yerushalmi) it is impossible for everyone we collectively call "Chazal" to have bene infallible. Infallibility is a characteristic of the leaders of a different religion.
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.
Of course, the same applies to the so-called rationalists. Some secular academics told Natan there is no source for kollel, or that Torah doesn't protect, or that liberal atheist Jonathan Haidt is a good source for Judaism, or all sorts of other nonsense that he believes, and he credulously fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. Nowadays we are not as gullible, and we can easily debunk his obvious mistakes. Whatever mistakes Chazal made (if they did make mistakes), they are far less serious than these!
"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.
The ancient Greeks weren't much into scientific investigation. Ironically, one of the few scientific investigations recorded from the ancient times is in the first chapter of Sefer Daniel. It is the oldest example of a clinical trial with a comparison group. The next one would be in the 18th century.
I fault Chazal for following non-Jewish models rather than the example from our sacred writings!
"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.
Can't we have a little fun?
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.
If you started to actually place yourselves in Chazal's situation, with the mindset that they had, the sense of Achrayus to get things accurate, and the context in which they were working, you might realize that the mistakes were not theirs.
It is only because you insist on sitting in the mindset of a 21st century amateur zoologist that you cannot fathom this and you look at comments like mine as closed-minded. Ironic, when you think about it.
זיכרון דברים, do you believe that Chazal were infallible (at least when it comes to the gemara, not their personal lives)?
I don't know for sure. I certainly think it is possible, and I certainly wouldn't rely on what passes for wisdom nowadays to counteract them. Even a cursory examination of what they said shows that they had a responsibility for the truth that is way beyond anything today's 'experts' show.
Every so-called educated MO personality blames his position on the Rambam. Yet they fail to appreciate the Rambam's breadth and hard work that he invested to reach his conclusions. When people accept their own consensuses and build a worldview based on their frivolous research, when they know that they have no real responsibility for the facts, they are totally unreliable.
I certainly agree that they took strong responsibility for the truth and took utmost care in what they said.
However, I don't see how that translates into accepting they were right when they clearly based their conclusions on scientific consensus in their time. A good example would be the lice eggs, or how a woman and man each contribute different things to the body, or how they believed a women couldn't get pregnant with the first intercourse. They were all said with utmost regard for the truth and in accordance with the scientific consensus of their time, but it doesn't make them correct. They were Torah scholars, not scientists.
If one believes the Torah shebaal Peh, it makes sense to assume that their reasoning was correct as pertains to halacha and hashkafa. This is why Tosafos and Rishonim always try to answer for the Gemara, even b'dochak gadol, and don't just say thousands of times the Gemara was wrong when they have serious difficulties.
This is true when it comes to the Gemara's logic. We assume that their logic makes sense, because logic is inherently timeless. We don't see that when it comes to מציאות, in which understanding is era-dependant.
This is incorrect. Most halachos are dependent on their understanding of the metzius. If you can't trust Chazal on the metzius (as pertains to halacha), you can't trust the Torah shebaal Peh for almost anything. The same reason why you should trust their logic (despite the fact that it could be wrong) is also the reason why you should trust their understanding of metzius.
There is still no evidence that the science of our time is better than the science of theirs. We have been brought up this way, so we cannot imagine another. (Guess who wrote this claim about spontaneous generation)
Ever since empiricism took over the game, rationalism has basically died out. Nowadays we are so used to empiricism, we can hardly even define the concept of rationalism. And that is only if we accept that Chazal relied on the science of their time. If they had some kind of סוד ה' ליראיו (today's Daf), neither empiricism nor rationalism has any say in the matter.
Let me suggest another example.
100 years ago +/- a few, antibiotics was discovered. This was a game changer in dealing with and treating many illnesses. Before those days, people did not have access to such successful medication.
What did they do? What did a Rebbe do when he had a 'roiz'? What did people do when they had fever and a scratchy throat and breathing problems? We know what they did, they used folk remedies, and over the years some data was accumulated. Now these folk remedies were far from foolproof, and some were plain nonsense. But some were not nonsense, they worked a certain amount of the time, and for some people. Antibiotics does a much better job, so it would be stupid to return to those days of folk remedies.
But there was a wisdom to some of those folk remedies that was being developed, when it was stopped by Fleming et al.. We don't have the data available any more, we stopped the research in its tracks, and now we are in danger of antibiotics no longer working.
Does that mean that plants, roots and herbs don't work? Of course not. But we don't know which do and which don't, how they would work, what the side effects are, and how to optimize them. So we just leave it at that, and go back to antibiotics.
(If you want, you can use leftover Chanuka oil for your roiz issues. But take antibiotics as well.)
They may have been wrong, but who is claiming that? People who spent a couple of hours perusing a text book, written by someone else who knew his findings could never be proven wrong?
I don't know the answers to the issues, I haven't studied them. But when it comes to trusting others, I think it's foolish to believe today's science over Chazal. If someone has other access to knowledge without using trust, that would be a different issue. But almost everyone discussing this issue is relying on trust. You have probably not studied the issue of lice's reproduction methods. Why would you be so sure that they aren't formed from the earth? Because someone told you? Why are they better than Chazal?
And ironically, there is no scientific proof that the scientific method is the most accurate one of discerning the truth.
"I think it's foolish to believe today's science over Chazal."
Rav Sherirah Gaon disagreed and he lived a thousand years ago. You have departed from a thousand year old mesorah. Which talmudic medical cure are you taking?
Your comments, ironically, prove my point.
You take no responsibility for the actual words that you use. Yet you talk, and presumably believe, with absolute faith in your mindset. And that is not an individual failing of yours, it is a feature of the modern belief system, that on the one hand believes undoubtingly in its own superiority, yet uses the most tenuous of proofs.
What does Rav Sherira Gaon have to do with today's science? Do you even know when he lived?
What does this mean for you- הלכה למעשה? Are you suspicious of everybody?
"And ironically, there is no scientific proof that the scientific method is the most accurate one of discerning the truth."
Hume is dead. And even he wasn't as cynical as you.
What exactly is your point? Are you a epistemological nihilist?
I don't know who Hume is, but my point is that there are other methods of reaching the truth besides the scientific method, and the lack of the ability of the scientific method to prove something does not mean it is not true.
But when we have the irony of the science community's belief in things that the scientific method cannot prove, it remains hypocrisy. Like evolution. But that's a whole different topic.
Good questions.
You are right that I have never expiremented on my own. I do trust the understanding of today's scientists over Chazals understanding of science simply because science has advanced a lot since Chazals time. I don't see any particular reason to trust Chazals understanding of science when it clearly contradicts everything science claims about the natural world (spontaneous generation is thought to be impossible) and matches up perfectly with Chazals era science (where everyone thought that lice spontaneously generated). It seems far more likely that Chazal trusted their days science, just as we do in our everyday lives, rather than asserting Chazal got it from menorah which just happened to have matched up perfectly with that generations scientific thought.
You also trust today's science - I saw it when lambasting antivaxxers. Why do you trust the medical establishment and not antivaxxers? It's the same reason I trust the scientific establishment and not Chazals early era understanding.
Why do you trust the medical establishment and not antivaxxers?
What's the answer? Why DO you trust the medical establishment and not antivaxxers? Why are you so sure antivaxxers are wrong? Are their children dying or are they healthier?
Of course I trust those that do the research, and in the case of vaccinations, that would be those in the medical field, not 'Google told me something something myocarditis somethin something Vaers somethin something'.
But when the counterweight is Chazal with their sense of responsibility, that trust is seriously eroded.
Spontaneous generation is thought, by today's scientists, to be impossible.
Spontaneous generation is thought, by Chazal, to be possible and true.
What should shmendrik me think about it? I have no way of deciding the issue myself. Whom should I rely on?
But enough about covid denying flerfers.
You can make fun of Chazal all you want but don't challenge the covid experts!!
I didn't make fun of Chazal. I mocked the covid deniers. Why? Not because they "challenge the covid experts", but because they do so with stupidity.
What would be a smart way of challening the covid experts in your opinion?
Why does everyone always make generalizations?
Given that there are unresolved disagreements in the Bavli that aren't reconcilable (and even more in the Yerushalmi) it is impossible for everyone we collectively call "Chazal" to have bene infallible. Infallibility is a characteristic of the leaders of a different religion.
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.
If you're old enough, like me, you also remember the short-lived Global Cooling alarmism of the 1970s.
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.
What is wrong with transcendentalism?
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.