Between a Rabbi and an Expert
(To avoid confusion in the question, I will call you, Your Honor, “you,” with apologies in advance)
You once divided between a rabbi and an expert, and I will summarize superficially. You argued that while the expert presents data such as a graph (for example, a graph on the relationship between speed on the road and mortality rates), the rabbi makes the value-judgmental determination of where the line of pikuach nefesh is crossed.
I have a few questions and comments about this case.
A) How does the rabbi choose the expert? Here too, it seems that the rabbi must exercise discretion, which he is not necessarily authorized to do. Is writing a point-and-click article on the subject sufficient? After all, it is known that there are many articles and opinions in our time. It requires skill to filter the articles and stay with the serious ones.
b) Even assuming that the rabbi actually receives data, the rabbi’s ability to draw correct conclusions from them is not necessarily particularly great. Knowing how to analyze graphs and knowing how to make simple distinctions between correlation and causation is knowledge that is not the lot of most rabbis, especially in complicated subjects where there could easily be other factors complicating the equation. With this argument, I am not rejecting any graph analysis for fear of unexpected factors, but rather raising doubts about the ability of rabbis to analyze data properly without undergoing proper training in the subject.
C) I feel that there will always be a discretion that is not necessarily related to a moral determination that the rabbi must make, whether to choose an expert or to choose an article to rely on. Don’t you actually fall into a certain circularity? You also actually recognize the rabbi’s ability to act in non-halakhic areas, only you decided on a certain place on the graph of the rabbi’s ability to decide (in this case he is “only” allowed to choose an expert) that is where, from your point of view, the line is crossed, but there is no fundamental reason for your choice, it is on the graph only in a different place from the other decisions (it is possible that the advantage of your method is that it is minimalist, but it still allows for the most important decision, and according to what I presented above, perhaps also the most difficult, to choose an expert or to draw conclusions without education, mostly from data.
With thanks
A
First of all, this is not a division between a rabbi and an expert, but between a value decider and an expert. A rabbi is one type of value decider. If a rabbi has difficulties deciphering the facts, he will use an expert. He can choose an expert as he sees fit. He is certainly authorized to choose an expert, not because he understands it, but because it is his mandate, and there is no one else who can do this (after all, I am speaking when there is a disagreement between the experts). In any case, I made a principled division, and if there is a rabbi who cannot do his job, he should not do it.
I did not try to streamline anything or bring about a better result, so pointing out flaws in my method is irrelevant. I presented a division that concerns truth, not practical effectiveness.
I enjoyed the answer, beautiful!
I am not trying to criticize the rabbis (although there may be a place for it). I am trying to show that it is not possible to truly divide between those who establish values and those who state facts. It is truly possible to state facts without making a value statement. But a value statement will always involve a process of analyzing various facts. Apparently, a rabbi also has the duty to try to be an expert. It is not right to try to divide them (you can see the great rabbis, part of what made them great was their involvement and expertise in various fields. It is not necessary to deduce anything from this, but it is a pattern that I think is noteworthy).
In my opinion, it is possible, certainly on a theoretical level. I have a series of classes on Halacha and Reality, where I deal with this in great detail.
Despite the beautiful and convenient division of the value-based decider to the expert, in my opinion it is too simplistic.
I think a good case is whether or not conversion therapies should be used. Ostensibly, the researcher needs to present the benefits they provide and the prices, and then the value-based decider will decide. But what, the researcher himself is the value-based decider. In other words, as long as no one believes in the value-based treatments, there will be no research on the subject (this is exactly what Shmuel is trying to do - to prohibit research on the subject).
I don't think it is easy to separate the expert from the value-based decider.
I would even say that this is exactly the intention of the Rabbi in the Book of the Perplexed, Chapter 2.
After the sin of Adam the first, there is no longer any separation between truth and falsehood, good and evil, but they are mixed up. There is no longer any separation between an expert and a value-based decider, but everything is mixed up.
You can even see Sam Harris's Samaritans, where he claims that there is no value-based decider at all, but science itself leads to the correct decision, and there is no place for a value-based expert outside of science.
For the avoidance of doubt, as of today, conversion therapies are ineffective and even harmful - and personally I am against them.
You keep repeating the same point over and over again and I have no choice but to keep repeating my answer. It is certainly possible to separate, and in most cases it is not even very difficult. There are situations where it is more difficult, and there are people who do not know how to do it. So what?
And Sam Harris is not evidence of anything. You do not bring evidence from fools.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
