Academic research: musings

ariel · 26th September 2021, 06:07 PM

Alan,
I went to the Wiki to search ( not re-search :-), because I am not a physicist and understand nothing about mathematics and quantum theory) the particulars of Einstein- Bohr debate. It lasted for years and the pendulum of different chapters swung back and forth. At the end of the debate most of the contemporary theoretical physicists agreed that Bohr appeared to have an upper hand, but that we still did not know it with absolute certainty. But the important point is stressed by everybody: throughout the entire debate both remained close personal friends with no bitterness toward the opponent.

And that reminded me of the Talmudic analysis of two kinds of argumentation ( or dispute) : argument for the sake of God, and argument not for the sake of God. The former is for the sake of Truth, the latter for the sake of Power.

A Talmudic example of the former is a long argument about epistemology of Biblical laws: how do we know which of the potentially many interpretation is correct? There was a long and heated argument between two schools of thought: Shammai stressed uncompromising truths of Biblical laws while Hillel ruled by adapting them ( at least temporarily) to special circumstances and finding a common ground. In the majority of cases Hillel interpretations were accepted, but some views of Shammai ( the harsh one) became the law over Hillel’s and the rest of them will become laws in Heavens, where only the absolute Truth is going to rein.

The latter is the example of the rebellion by Korach and his adherents, who wanted to dislodge Moses as High Priest, as the leader of the entire community because they cleverly advertised that the entire community , down to the last individual, was holy already and did not require a Priest to transmit the word of God to them. But in reality they wanted this function to themselves. They wanted not Truth , they wanted victory, they wanted power, they wanted humiliation of their opponent .

And every time we want to argue, we should remember Bohr vs. Einstein, Shammai vs. Hillel, Korach vs. Moses: what is the purpose of our conflict, of our argument: Truth or Dominance?

It is a sheer pleasure arguing with you. Both of us are seeking truth, but are willing to adapt our criteria to circumstances and are never trying to dominate over each other. Thanks.

26th September 2021, 06:07 PM	#29
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Alan, I went to the Wiki to search ( not re-search :-), because I am not a physicist and understand nothing about mathematics and quantum theory) the particulars of Einstein- Bohr debate. It lasted for years and the pendulum of different chapters swung back and forth. At the end of the debate most of the contemporary theoretical physicists agreed that Bohr appeared to have an upper hand, but that we still did not know it with absolute certainty. But the important point is stressed by everybody: throughout the entire debate both remained close personal friends with no bitterness toward the opponent. And that reminded me of the Talmudic analysis of two kinds of argumentation ( or dispute) : argument for the sake of God, and argument not for the sake of God. The former is for the sake of Truth, the latter for the sake of Power. A Talmudic example of the former is a long argument about epistemology of Biblical laws: how do we know which of the potentially many interpretation is correct? There was a long and heated argument between two schools of thought: Shammai stressed uncompromising truths of Biblical laws while Hillel ruled by adapting them ( at least temporarily) to special circumstances and finding a common ground. In the majority of cases Hillel interpretations were accepted, but some views of Shammai ( the harsh one) became the law over Hillel’s and the rest of them will become laws in Heavens, where only the absolute Truth is going to rein. The latter is the example of the rebellion by Korach and his adherents, who wanted to dislodge Moses as High Priest, as the leader of the entire community because they cleverly advertised that the entire community , down to the last individual, was holy already and did not require a Priest to transmit the word of God to them. But in reality they wanted this function to themselves. They wanted not Truth , they wanted victory, they wanted power, they wanted humiliation of their opponent . And every time we want to argue, we should remember Bohr vs. Einstein, Shammai vs. Hillel, Korach vs. Moses: what is the purpose of our conflict, of our argument: Truth or Dominance? It is a sheer pleasure arguing with you. Both of us are seeking truth, but are willing to adapt our criteria to circumstances and are never trying to dominate over each other. Thanks.