How Can They Say Science Is Wrong?

As many of you are aware, there are various statements made by Chazal that are at odds with current scientific understanding.  These include statements regarding the physiology of some extant animals, the existence of animals that are now considered to be fanciful, the age and nature of the universe, the movements of the heavenly bodies and other subjects.  Natan Slifkin, in a recent post, described the approach that various critics of his take towards reconciling these differences.  One such approach, taken by Rabbi Moshe Shapiro, is characterized by Rabbi Slifkin as follows:

Anyone with the slightest grasp of Chazal will realize that they were not speaking about the physical biology of bats. In the world of pnimiyus, the bat actually does lay eggs.

Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, of Far Rockaway (is he related to R. Moshe Shapiro?) takes a similar approach.  He writes:

In general, whenever Chazal make a scientific statement, they are not talking about the observable universe but rather the "real" universe. What we - and the scientists - see is only a graphic user interface, so to speak. The real world - the real sun, real moon, real earth - is not observable by current scientific means. Chazal were talking about the real world when they spoke. I'd recommend this Shiur for a full treatment.

Therefore, the Jewish sages were talking about the "real" universe, which indeed behaves exactly as the Chachmei Yisroel described. The non-Jewish scholars were arguing with limited information, i.e. with what their scientists could see on the "outside," GUI world. We agree that on the outside, it would appear the way they say. But the Chachmei Yisroel saw deeper, they saw into the real world and there, their description is correct.

Of course, they'd never believe the source of our information, which was the Torah's insight into the world, and it is likely assur to explain it to them anyway. So we couldn't really win this argument. But we were right. 

I find this particular approach to be totally incomprehensible.  Set aside, for the moment, that there is little, if any, indication that Chazal were not talking about the actual physical universe.  The real difficulty with adopting this approach is the fact that you cannot then use any of Chazal's statements as a basis for arguing with modern science.  You cannot say that science is wrong regarding bats laying eggs and, at the same time, use Chazal's statements regarding bats and eggs as proof that science is wrong.

Rabbi Yaakov's argument ends with the statement that we're right and the scientists are wrong.  But he's really fighting a phantom.  He says that when Chazal make statements about our world, they are talking about some "reality" that is not observable through our senses or experimentation.  The scientific community, on the other hand, makes no such claim.  They deal in the observable universe.  They make no such claim regarding any behind-the-scenes metaphysical universe that the Rabbis Shapiro claim that Chazal speak of.

In short, by adopting this approach, the Rabbis Shapiro have ceded the argument to the scientists vis-a-vis the  observable universe.  Science says bats don't lay eggs?  Not a problem -- since Chazal weren't talking about physical bats, we can say that science (which concerns itself with physical, observable bats) is correct (regardless of whether Chazal are right or wrong about metaphysical bats) in it's statement that bats do not lay eggs.  Spontaneous generation (such as with mud-mice or lice)?  Also not a problem -- science is right because it deals with physical, observable animals, not metaphysical ones.  The same can be applied to the age of the universe, and just about any other area of argument regarding science and Torah.  In short, by making the claim that Chazal were talking about some unobservable meta-physical reality, they have lost the ability to use Chazal's statements as a basis for saying that science is wrong about anything.

The Wolf

One Final Note On The Lipa Concert

Sometimes it's nice to receive a confirmation of one's words.

A few weeks ago, in this post, I said the following:

In the past, gedolim used to do first-hand research to discover the facts of a situation before they ruled on it. Yes, there were times that they got it right and there were times they got the facts wrong... but at least they tried to get them.

Today, however, it seems that gedolim simply take their cues from neighborhood zealots. They are fed misinformation about a situation causing them to rule on cases that do not exist. I can think of two examples off the top of my head:

a. The concert ban at hand. Chaim, at Life of Rubin, shows how gedolim are fed misinformation to get them to sign onto bans. One person signed only after he told that there would be mixed seating, when, in fact, the concert is separate seating.

b. The ban on Rabbi Slifkin's books. His books were banned by rabannim who, for the most part, had not even read the books. Even three years later, some of his opponents are still seeking to continue the ban (warning: PDF) based on misinformation and distortions of what he said.

We're all familiar the idea of GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. In order for a posek to make a ruling on an issue, he has to have first-hand knowledge of the facts of the issue. If you're going to ban the circumstances of a concert, at least make sure that the facts are as they've been presented. If you're going to ban a book, at least make sure that the book actually states what you think it states.

This past Shabbos, the rav of my shul spoke and made the *very* same points that I did (and expanded on them a bit). He pointed out that the ban reflected a very severe lack of Ahavas Yisroel on the part of the askanim. After all, had it been their families' monies at stake, would they have pushed for this ban without so much as a phone call? Even if you want to be extremely generous, and state that their actions were l'shem shamayim (for the sake of Heaven -- motivated purely for the religious good), you can still bet that if it were their families monies, they would have at least tried to contact the producers and performers to express their concerns. They certainly wouldn't have had a ban instituted less than three weeks before the performance when the only possible outcome could be an extreme loss of money. The fact that they did this clearly shows a lack of Ahavas Yisroel on their part.

In addition, he also brought up the issue of the ban itself. Since it's apparent that at least some of the signers of the ban didn't have all the facts, he wonders how such a ban could have been signed. When issuing a p'sak (ruling), a rav has to have the facts of the situation. That means that he has to investigate all the details before issuing a ruling. He can't rely on second hand reports from people with axes to grind. Likewise, he pointed out, if you're going to ban a book, you have to make sure that it says what you think it says. You can't rely on a translation from someone who claims that it says something on page X without seeing it for yourself. Now, I should point out that the rav of my shul has been critical of Rabbi Slifkin and his writings -- but at least I know that he's read the books. He's ascertained that they actually say what it is he is critical of. To do anything else, IMHO, is irresponsible.

The Wolf

Science and Torah (again) in the Jewish Press

A letter to the editor in today's Jewish Press (last one on the page) regarding Rabbi Slifkin's new book caught my attention.

In the letter, a person (a doctor, by the title in his name) takes Rabbi Slifkin to task for accepting science over Torah (which is not necessarily what he does... but we'll leave that point alone for the moment). He writes:

It’s a simple matter to present various midrashim and Talmudic dictums which seemingly do not jibe with modern science and then suggest that our rabbinic teachings must therefore be flawed. The fly in Slifkin’s ointment is that science – yes, “holy science” – is by no means infallible. In fact, scientific information is subject to constant change.

In this last point, he is certainly correct. Science does change and, in fact, never presents itself as being infallable. Indeed, a hypotheses that is not falsifiable is not a scientific hypothesis. Science relies upon peer review and demands that if a new hypothesis is put forward, that it be tested and an attempt to disprove it be made.

He then continues:

I am no prophet, but I can predict with certainty that within twenty years most of what the scientific community presently believes will be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Really? Within twenty years most of the science that we know is going to be disproven (I'm assuming that's what he means by "be relegated to the dustbin of history")? Somehow, I find this statement highly unlikely. While there will certainly be some things that change, I'm positive that the most basic scientific facts that we know of -- that are the bedrock of future advances in science -- are not going to change in the next hundred years, let alone in the next twenty.

• The age of the universe is not going to suddenly be reduced to 6000 years in the next twenty years.
• The studies of archeology, geology, genetics, chemistry, biology, zoology and many other disciplines which show the earth (and life upon it) to be more than 6000 years old are not going to disappear in the next twenty years.
• The four basic forces in the universe are not going to disappear in the next twenty years.
• Einstein's theories of relativity, the Laws of Thermodynamics and many other scientific theories are not going to disappear for a long, long, time -- and even if they are changed, the changes will certainly only be minor tweakings -- not wholesale revolutions.

The fact that the letter writer (assuming he is a medical doctor -- he could be a Doctor of Divinity or hold some other non-scientific doctorate) is a doctor is all the more scary. Yes, medical science is changing at a rapid pace as we learn more about the human body, genetics and the like. But the basic underpinnings of the things that are taught in the medical schools today are not likely to change anytime soon.

He continues onward:

It’s the height of foolishness to abandon the truths given by Hashem to Moshe Rabbeinu more than three thousand years ago, and faithfully recorded by our Sages in the Talmud and midrashim, because of slavish belief in scientific notions that will not survive their adherents.

And, I suppose, this is a sticky point: If you maintain that the midrashim and everything contained in the Talmud was given to Moshe at Sinai and faithfully transmitted down, unaltered in any way from one generation to the next (something that I find highly unlikely and possibly the subject of a future post) and that they are literally God-given truth, then you would probably take this view. However, you don't have to posit this at all. You can certainly posit that midrashim either don't have to be taken 100% literally, or else that they can be viewed as embellishments on existing legends (not to be taken to mean falsehoods) that are used to teach valuable moral lessons. You can view the scientific statements in the Talmud as being a reflection of the science and folklore of the day, and not as God-given truths. When viewed this way, I don't have to worry about the Gemara losing it's validity because the sun doesn't go behind a curtain at night or because half-earthen mice don't exist.

The good doctor's last point (that the scientific principles currently espoused won't survive their adherents) is very interesting. I'm fairly certain that the Church said the same thing about Galileo, Darwin and other people whose scientific statements have been validated throughout the years.

The Wolf