From: lerner@cs.columbia.edu (Michah Lerner)
Subject: Re: O-C-R debate
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
	<LERNER.92Jul26171846@division.cs.columbia.edu>
	<55210@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 02:18:25 GMT

In article <55210@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:

>> Path: cs.columbia.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!pop.stat.purdue.edu!hrubin
>> From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
>> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
>> Date: 27 Jul 92 18:27:11 GMT
>> References: <1992Jul25.205235.6218@midway.uchicago.edu> <55134@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <LERNER.92Jul26171846@division.cs.columbia.edu>
>> Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
>> Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department
>> Lines: 74
>>
>> In article <LERNER.92Jul26171846@division.cs.columbia.edu> lerner@cs.columbia.edu (Michah Lerner) writes:
>> >>> >>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.  
>>
>> This is a misunderstanding of mathematics (and statistics).  Mathematics
>> deals only with symbol manipulation; the mathematics has nothing directly
>> to say about the real world.  But since mathematics deals with symbol
>> manipulation, if a formulation is made of "real world" objects and
>> constructs in mathematical terminology, then to the extent that the
>> formulation corresponds to the real world, the conclusions drawn from
>> the symbolization is also valid for the real world.
>>
>> Statistics deals with the problem of dealing with uncertainties.  Again,
>> to the extent that the real world has been correctly formulated, the
>> conclusions from the formulated model are valid.
>>
   You were justifying a "housecleaning" of our Revered Sages on the basis
   of errors made by statisticians who were developing a new model.  One has 
   nothing to do with the other.  Your argument goes something like "Since
   Peter can't do it right,  then neither can Paul" but that ignores the
   starting point of each one.
>>			   ....................
>>
>> >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.
>>
>> Many have argued it.  But there is little disagreement on this group
>> about that particular statement.  However, there is much disagreement
>> on other statements.  Even the ancient sages had difficulty with all
>> the words of the Written Torah being the literal word of God.  As we
>> learn more about the world, much of the moderate amount of prehistorical
>> and historical material in the Torah becomes very difficult to accept
>> as correct. 
>>
>> Now one can claim that much of it is allegorical, as did Rashi and
>> Maimonides, among others.  But this still casts extreme doubt on
>> whether it is "dvar hashem" or merely what those receiving Divine
>> inspiration thought God wanted them to write.  If the latter view
>> is taken, it is legitimate to challenge the writings as being 
>> sufficiently distorted as to be of little or no use.  This is the
>> case no matter how virtuous or theologically learned the writer.
>>
>> As to the Oral Law, the situation is far worse.  Today's scholars
>> have every right to question what Rashi or Rav or Hillel stated as
>> being not in accord with God; modern knowledge of science, history,
>> philology, etc., must be used to attempt to figure out what those
>> who followed Divine inspiration were being inspired to know from
>> the Almighty; we cannot merely accept the words they spoke or wrote
>> as being what God meant.
>>
   "Merely accept the words they spoke ..."  Indeed, to study them in
    great depth,  to practice them with fear and love,  but never to
    have the hubris of discarding them for a revised practice which
    makes a mockery out of what our Teachers have taught us.  When you
    claim that I'm saying  one should "merely accept" you ignore that 
    throughout this discussion I've been an advocate of in-depth study 
    but "within the system" to use the old phrase.    

    Oh, and I still maintain that 1+1=3 and hence your assumptions are
    all wrong.    

>> -- 
>> Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
>> Phone: (317)494-6054
>> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
>> {purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
--
/M