LOL, I think the part where she actually LISTENED to the kid when he went "Yesterday I learned how to build a model of my bedroom in Minecraft!"--even as she was trying to push her own narrative--puts this Vashti the fortune-teller above a lot of experts.
The premise of this appointment is SO funny. And the "I have an account on Metaculus where I earned N dollars last month!" + "They think I'm a programmer of Jewish descent." is hysterical!
(I do have more thoughts about the question you asked though!! promised i'd send an email and go in the next... oops... 6 minutes though.)
Thanks, Theodicy! I have had evaluations that did not go as well for my children, as well as some that went incredibly well, so I tried to select the effective pieces. The Metaculus reference was an in joke that I knew you'd get :)
You are using the wrong word. Belief is a theological concept. Evolution is scientific concept,, that, BTW, has been proven. My Rabbi accepted evolution.
As he did with all proven science. See the Rambam on that subject.As did his teacher, R.Nachum Rabinovitch.OBM, my posek.
Perhaps you should reaad R.Sacks' bookThe Great Partnership, God and Science And The Search for Meaning. Are you an evolution denier? You sound like you are.
I dig it. I remember reading in an article in Harper’s magazine some 15 years ago that the success rate for talk therapy has been about the same for the past fifty years. We only know what we know.
Yes. It was a little challenging writing this without seeming extremely against modern experts, many of whom I use all the time in real life and deeply respect. Neuropsychological evaluations really deserve to be called out a particularly toxic and ineffective, and I hope I succeeded in that at least a little bit.
I said,"I believe in the literal biblical timeline."
I have a pet theory that after the giving of the Torah, nature changed, and generally evidence after that point supports the biblical narrative. So I believe the world was created in seven days as it is, and the flood as told, etc.... but the world was different then. How so? I have some theories, so do scientists.
But science does describe the world as it is and has been since .... the beginning of science.
Which makes you a fundamentalist, denying science.
Just supporting a 5784 year old universe is denying science. You can if you want, and even wear it as a badge of pride, but it is still denying science. And you have Cheredi fundamentalists/Christian fundamentalists on your side .And you have one man, Noah, living 20% of the universe's existence. Methuselah too.
1. If you think the age of the world is hard to believe, wait until you read about the creation of man from clay. Scientists say that people are not made of clay, but of bones and blood and brains and stuff like that.
My pet theory forthis because everything after Matan Torah is supported by archeological evidence, and the people there experienced life before Matan Torah. So we can believe them. There is no evidence that the Torah evolved - such texts are as strangely missing as the in between steps of the theory of evolution.
2. For someone who considers themselves a careful thinker, you're remarkably quick to conflate scientific laws and scientific theories.
3. I accept reality and facts. The Gobekli Tepe exists. What is it? Here is where I show my true brilliance: I. Don't. Know. I can make up Torah compatible theories just like you can make up science compatible theories, but that's a waste of time.
The 15 billion year expanding universe is not difficult to accept. The 5784 year one is completely unacceptable.
Yes, Gobekli Tepe exists and is at least 10000 years old. What do you mean, you don't know what is?
Next, are you saying the physical universe changed 1 day 3333 years ago and that before that day the universe was consistent with the Genesis description?
And "I can make up Torah compatible theories just like you can make up science compatible theories, but that's a waste of time." I have no idea what that means
Re compatible theories: There's science apologetics just like religious apologetics. I find it an entertaining intellectual exercise to make these up, but finding really good ways to get around things doesn't get us to the truth.
You seem to be using the archaic definition of science as knowledge of any kind. No, I don't believe in knowledge of any kind. You don't strike me as the superstitious kind of person, correct me if I'm wrong. Lots of knowledge is incorrect.
Per Google, science is the "systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."
Can we agree on this definition?
It does not oblige me to think that untestable theories are facts.
> What do you think?
LOL, I think the part where she actually LISTENED to the kid when he went "Yesterday I learned how to build a model of my bedroom in Minecraft!"--even as she was trying to push her own narrative--puts this Vashti the fortune-teller above a lot of experts.
The premise of this appointment is SO funny. And the "I have an account on Metaculus where I earned N dollars last month!" + "They think I'm a programmer of Jewish descent." is hysterical!
(I do have more thoughts about the question you asked though!! promised i'd send an email and go in the next... oops... 6 minutes though.)
Thanks, Theodicy! I have had evaluations that did not go as well for my children, as well as some that went incredibly well, so I tried to select the effective pieces. The Metaculus reference was an in joke that I knew you'd get :)
I'm pleased you quoted my teacher, R.Sacks OBM
But spoiled it by posting the stupid cell phone story.
Thank you for commenting! That's an impressive teacher to have. Do you think he would have liked the parable?
Sure, why not
Jews like stories.
He became my teacher in 1985 when he was principle of Jews College,
He writes about that a lot. I also like this one: https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation-family-edition/vayechi/on-not-predicting-the-future/
Did he believe in evolution?
You are using the wrong word. Belief is a theological concept. Evolution is scientific concept,, that, BTW, has been proven. My Rabbi accepted evolution.
As he did with all proven science. See the Rambam on that subject.As did his teacher, R.Nachum Rabinovitch.OBM, my posek.
Perhaps you should reaad R.Sacks' bookThe Great Partnership, God and Science And The Search for Meaning. Are you an evolution denier? You sound like you are.
KT
mb
I am not an evolution denier, but I believe in the literal biblical timelines.
I enjoyed reading your post. I think John is in good hands 😉
Thank you!
I dig it. I remember reading in an article in Harper’s magazine some 15 years ago that the success rate for talk therapy has been about the same for the past fifty years. We only know what we know.
Yes. It was a little challenging writing this without seeming extremely against modern experts, many of whom I use all the time in real life and deeply respect. Neuropsychological evaluations really deserve to be called out a particularly toxic and ineffective, and I hope I succeeded in that at least a little bit.
Yes definitely, the stakes are so high too.
I assumed from what you told me.
Am I wrong?
If so where?
I said,"I believe in the literal biblical timeline."
I have a pet theory that after the giving of the Torah, nature changed, and generally evidence after that point supports the biblical narrative. So I believe the world was created in seven days as it is, and the flood as told, etc.... but the world was different then. How so? I have some theories, so do scientists.
But science does describe the world as it is and has been since .... the beginning of science.
Which makes you a fundamentalist, denying science.
Just supporting a 5784 year old universe is denying science. You can if you want, and even wear it as a badge of pride, but it is still denying science. And you have Cheredi fundamentalists/Christian fundamentalists on your side .And you have one man, Noah, living 20% of the universe's existence. Methuselah too.
OK, I'm going to take you seriously now.
1. If you think the age of the world is hard to believe, wait until you read about the creation of man from clay. Scientists say that people are not made of clay, but of bones and blood and brains and stuff like that.
My pet theory forthis because everything after Matan Torah is supported by archeological evidence, and the people there experienced life before Matan Torah. So we can believe them. There is no evidence that the Torah evolved - such texts are as strangely missing as the in between steps of the theory of evolution.
2. For someone who considers themselves a careful thinker, you're remarkably quick to conflate scientific laws and scientific theories.
3. I accept reality and facts. The Gobekli Tepe exists. What is it? Here is where I show my true brilliance: I. Don't. Know. I can make up Torah compatible theories just like you can make up science compatible theories, but that's a waste of time.
I'm very confused about what you have posted.
The 15 billion year expanding universe is not difficult to accept. The 5784 year one is completely unacceptable.
Yes, Gobekli Tepe exists and is at least 10000 years old. What do you mean, you don't know what is?
Next, are you saying the physical universe changed 1 day 3333 years ago and that before that day the universe was consistent with the Genesis description?
And "I can make up Torah compatible theories just like you can make up science compatible theories, but that's a waste of time." I have no idea what that means
Re compatible theories: There's science apologetics just like religious apologetics. I find it an entertaining intellectual exercise to make these up, but finding really good ways to get around things doesn't get us to the truth.
You seem to be using the archaic definition of science as knowledge of any kind. No, I don't believe in knowledge of any kind. You don't strike me as the superstitious kind of person, correct me if I'm wrong. Lots of knowledge is incorrect.
Per Google, science is the "systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."
Can we agree on this definition?
It does not oblige me to think that untestable theories are facts.
I still have no idea what you're talking about.
Be well
mb
Be well!
Iyh