Q&A: My Defender
My Defender
Question
What do you think about people defending me…
Answer
Very nice. You received impressive praise, and deservedly so.
The arguments cited by Haver and Laor, that confessing to a sin comes to cover up greater sins, remind me of arguments by Amotz Zahavi, the evolutionary biologist (mentioned in our conversation on the Sabbath), who formulated the “handicap principle,” according to which an animal sometimes adopts traits that hinder its survival—like the peacock, whose conspicuous colorful tail greatly interferes with its survival. It stands out and hampers its agility. It even spreads it out arrogantly before the world. According to Zahavi, the peacock does this in order to announce publicly and unmistakably that it is such a tough survivor that no one should mess with it. A display of self-confidence that scorns survival for the sake of survival.
When I read about this theory, I thought it was yet another illustration of why evolution is a theory that cannot be falsified (and therefore does not meet the Popperian criterion for a scientific theory). If some creature hides, that is proof of evolution (because it adopts traits conducive to survival). If a creature stands out, that too is proof of evolutionary theory (because it survives by displaying self-confidence, thereby informing you that non-survival traits do not bother it). So what phenomenon could there possibly be that, if and when we encountered it, would refute the theory of evolution? Nothing. In my book I argued that this is a theory (I am speaking about natural selection, not the entire neo-Darwinian framework) that cannot be falsified. By the way, in my view it is true like mathematics. Just not scientific.
The postmodern and post-Zionist arguments of Haver and Laor as cited by Ziva Shamir are very similar in their logic: if the atrocities are not publicized, that is a colonialist scheme of the wicked Zionist occupation; if they are publicized, that is an even more sophisticated scheme of the no less wicked Zionist occupation. So what, then, could possibly happen that would be able, even theoretically, to refute the wickedness of the Zionist occupation, and so on and so forth? The conclusion is that post-Zionist theory cannot be falsified (except that unlike evolution it is also not true, and not merely unscientific).
Discussion on Answer
I didn’t understand what the question here was and what the Rabbi is referring to.
Anyone discerning can easily understand that this is one of the questions that made its way onto the site from email, and that explains the short intervals between long questions and answers, the sudden flood of responsa, and the single letter with an apostrophe in the writer’s name; it is also evident from the content, etc. And if the question were clarified, the writer’s name would be revealed, and perhaps he is not interested in that. Therefore, only what appears in the answer itself was uploaded for the benefit of the public, and no more.
At first glance, it seems easy to resolve this: what could refute the “wickedness of the Zionist occupation” is if there were no atrocities, regardless of whether they were publicized. Especially since those who publicize and those who do not are not the same people, and since there are arguments both ways, some took this route and some took that one; and one can certainly raise the hypothesis (though not prove it) that both these and those are equally willing to sacrifice a knight in order to protect the queen (and since, in their view, the queen is bound up with atrocities, defending her is called a scheme).
The post-Zionist theory is a normative position and does not need to withstand falsification. The criticism of actions of Zionism (which is not critical to post-Zionist theory) indeed does need to stand the test of falsification, and it certainly does so quite well (even though I disagree with most of that criticism and think it is smug, pretentious, biased, etc.)