My response to Chaim

[Trumpeldor]

In the spirit of friendly debate, I am opening up a new thread. For context, see my question on the most recent broadcast. All are welcome to respond.

Shalom Chaim

I enjoyed your response to my somewhat critical question last week. Thank you for answering it fairly and honestly. Keeping with this trend, the idea that I now want to explore is Kahanist epistemology- its theory of knowledge. Epistemology concerns the nature and scope of knowledge, essentially asking, "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?".

You stated that the association fallacy and Strauss' reduction fallacy are largely unapplicable and you questioned their basis. Well they were not formed out of thin air! Both are proven by calculus and by the formal systems of deduction most commonly used by mathematicians, philosophers, linguists, and computer scientists.

Interestingly, your discrediting of Strauss just happened to omit that he was one of the 20th century's foremost experts on Maimonides [see How To Begin To Study The Guide of the Perplexed, 1963). Some self-hating Jew!

Just how much does the Torah diverge from the timeless philosophical precepts that you seem to dismiss as baseless? Certainly you do not claim that students of Plato and Aristotle perverted the Truth!

Lastly, the Talmud does not pick and choose the logical principles to which it adheres; it is uniformly consistent with them. Since I doubt the Talmud contains errors of this nature, perhaps it is your personal epistemology that is flawed? If it is not wholly informed by the Torah, then where is it from?

Todah

[Trumpeldor]

Is this something you learned in Communications studies?

I remember there being things called fallacies and self-fulfilling prophesies in Introduction To Interpersonal Communications Class.

The basics can be found in courses ranging from communications, to cell biology, to economics-really anywhere the scientific method is actively employed.