The law of small numbers in relation to ancestors
Hello Rabbi,
You gave examples of all kinds of “fathers” who give blessings, and if I understood correctly, you linked this to the law of small numbers. With your permission, I think your approach is irrational, and I will explain why. I would appreciate your comment.
The fact is that there are many “babas” where people wait in line to receive their blessings. People wait with a particular baba, while not necessarily with others. This is a reality. Who told you that this has no real connection to the blessings he gives?
Doesn’t the fact that people from all over the world came to the Lubavitcher Rebbe provide some indication? You can call it a strong intuition, a kind of prophecy, or any other definition you like.
The same goes for Baba Sali. It seems that you tried to forcefully put the phenomenon into the category of the law of small numbers, but how do you know that this is the correct explanation?
Your approach, the rationalists, seems to ignore reality. When there is a widespread social phenomenon, like the blessings of Baba Sali or the Lubavitcher Rebbe, perhaps it is necessary to investigate and understand why so many people say they were saved in particularly unusual events.
Who determined that everything can be explained using the scientific tools that exist today? Who determined that healing must be done specifically through “classical” medicine? In your lessons, you tried to compare Baba’s blessing to classical medicine, but those who turn to Baba do so precisely because they have despaired or have not found a solution within the framework of conventional medicine.
There are many people who have visited Baba Sali and told their stories. These are facts – exceptional cases that have occurred. Why did you conclude that it is just the “law of small numbers” and not something that has not yet been explained? As a rationalist, you have to prove it, not just assume it.
Best regards,
peace
I do try to come from an objective place, but to maintain honesty and transparency. I’m Moroccan, hahaha, but in any case I would love to understand your position more deeply.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I have a neighbor who is a Baal Teshuvah who will give water to the day of HaShem to send him a speedy recovery
Sachs is a father of a family .. Rahmones’…
Recently he discovered some Baba/Rebbe/Sorcerer
claims that everything he says happens and he knows everything, etc.
I did some research and proved to the full extent and from several different and varied cases to the neighbor that he missed and did not go his way and was babbling and misleading
and I am not talking about doubts but proven facts.
So what did it help?
Fever on a plate
Facts do not confuse the police.
It did help that he finally decided that I was a complete infidel, understood that there was no mitzvah to return me to the right path and got off of me…
By the way
I am not Moroccan
and so is the neighbor
2 Ashkenazim to the full extent
*Cell
Facts don't confuse fools.
Even the policemen...
To talk about the law of small numbers in the context of the ancestors is the irony of the millennium... When it comes to the ancestors, it's about big numbers, and how big (not giants)... See the value of the X-ray's compromise agreement with the Income Tax...
More peace to you, Rabbi
You said “For me, the burden of proof is on the one who reports”, about that you can say that I am not talking about how “they” look at it, I am trying to understand your position, not what my ”family” says about these reports haha 🙂 – I know exactly what they are saying and it is also very easy to get down on them 🙂
And you also said “But offer a more logical alternative” – I would say ahahaha, according to the tone of voice on Spotify – Doubt and Statistics 2223 – Sounds like an explanation and even an almost convincing explanation hahaha so what do I “suggestion” What do I have to say about the “explanation”
In any case, you prefer to explain/propose the “reported” phenomena by the law of small numbers – which is equivalent to saying that there is nothing special in the reported case – I hope I summarized your position correctly – even though there is no proof of this. I am trying to understand why you tend to suggest/explain in such a clear way that it is related to the law of small numbers rather than saying: Maybe it is unusual and there is something incomprehensible in this coincidence or maybe there is nothing unusual –
I assumed that a rational explanation is the result of a clear inference, and you offer only such positions, and according to your words there is no such clear inference, it looks like a hypothesis at most, and maybe a good hypothesis, and if so it is still a hypothesis,
if so why is it more correct than an “explanation” Any other explanation that is not disproven
In short, why not leave the “reported phenomena” in the case
And more, when you bring as an example the case of the thousand envelopes with numbers that the person guessed and received 100,000 dollars, then the case itself falls under the law of small numbers and therefore, logically, you cannot use this case to refute the explanation of the ”family” me
With greetings
Peace
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
