From: lerner@cs.columbia.edu (Michah Lerner)
Subject: Re: O-C-R debate
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
	<1992Jul24.192801.29415@umbc3.umbc.edu>
	<1992Jul25.205235.6218@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<55134@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:18:46 GMT

>> >>Judaism is, however, important to me.  And, I assume, it is important
>> >>to you.  Do you reject _all_ expertise (Reform and Conservative as
>> >>well as Orthodox)?  I assume that you do not necessarily reject expertise
>> >>in other areas of endeavor (e.g., medicine, math); how (and where) do you
>> >>draw the distinction?   Doesn't it take a great deal of knowledge
>> >>(and hubris) to go off on one's own like that?   (I'm asking, not
>> >>attacking.  Honest.  I'd attack you on the Orthodoxy - Christianity
>> >>parallel, but not on the rest.)
>> 
>> What is expertise?  Within the past century, the "foundations" of statistics
>> have been blasted several times.  Finally, we seem to have a reasonable set,
>> based on minimal assumptions.  But to arrive at this point, it was not
>> the work of previous statistical specialists which was used; on the 
>> contrary, their work was replaced by that of people using ideas from
>> mathematics and economics.  I happened to be at the right place at the
>> right time and with the right background, so I had a part in this.
>> 

I fail to understand how the failure  of a man-made system such as
statistics  implies the failure  of  the  one  G-d  given  system.
Mathematicians (with  all due respect)  made  things  up  to be in
accord with observations of the behavior of symbolic manipulations
of their representations  of the world,  and  the system functions
only as well as the axioms reflect the momentary behavior of their
finite  observations and  subsequent  manipulations.   Sure,  they
derive new results from simpler ones, but this  is in keeping with
axioms and reasoning principles which they  decided to accept.  So
it is  no wonder  they occasionally  have to rework things (in the
name of progress).  But, in  fact, these axioms  are wrong.  1+1=3
and this  is  actually the way things are.  That is  right, 1+1=3!
It is  three!!  It is  not  two.  THREE!  This is  the fundamental
truth, and the idea  that  1+1=2 is  simply wrong  and anyone  who
tells you it is  2 is making it up.  All of mathematics  is  wrong
because  it follows the principle of 1+1=2.  You argue that  it is
an axiom?  I tell you the axiom is wrong, it has no value, and you
follow  an antiquated philosophy of numbers that  simply does  not
accord with  fact.   You won't  even look beyond  your "1+1=2"  to
realize that you  have shackled you  beliefs  with  such  a  silly
concept.   It is a lie.  One and one is not two, it is three.  How
could you  possibly believe such a silly thing as 1+1=2, anyway it
is just a belief  and  cannot be verified since we don't even know
what a "1" or a "2" is.  And yet you dedicate your life to being a
professional  mathematician but you've never  seen "1"  or "2" let
alone "3".  How silly!!

However the statement "Anochi  Hashem Elokeho" was said by Hashem.
That is the unarguable truth.  It predates us and will postdate is
as well..  It is not the product of some formal system.  It is the
absolute G-d given truth.



 



--
/M
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish