The main thing I forgot: my phone number is 052-3320543. Or by email: mikyab@gmail.com

This can be added to the refutations in modern times:
after the understanding that girls don’t take an interest in matters of faith, suddenly a girl comes and asks questions about faith. Here is a wonderful example of K. Popper’s principle of falsification.

Why, from a didactic standpoint, didn’t the honored Rabbi point her to the faith notebooks here on the site?

Wow, I really salute the Rabbi’s answer. Every time מחדש I’m amazed by the beauty and clarity of the Rabbi’s thought. It’s a pleasure to read responses like this to questions of this kind. If only there were more like the Rabbi in Israel!

K,
the very fact that there is one case that apparently refutes the theory doesn’t mean the theory should be abandoned entirely, only that it should be revised and adjusted to fit the case, no?
And anyway, one could argue that the problem is not with the theory but with its realization in practice (ah, oops, then it isn’t falsifiable… whoops)
?

To make a long story even longer, I’ll just add that Popper’s criterion determines the scientific status of a theory. But Popper didn’t determine that a contrary case refutes the generalization itself. There isn’t the slightest connection here to Popper’s criterion.
And also regarding the question of whether my theory was refuted or not—it clearly wasn’t. I didn’t say there are no women who are interested, only that it’s a very small minority. There have already been such women here in the past. It reminds me of Letter 2 of Rabbi Shach regarding the Entebbe operation (see column 87).

I didn’t refer her to the notebooks because what’s needed here is some preliminaries about certainty, skepticism, and willingness to examine. She wrote that arguments for the existence of God wouldn’t help her anyway, so what would be the point of referring her to the notebooks?!

I’d be happy to join or receive the conversation that will take place between you; she’s not the only one here…

You’re welcome to coordinate as well.

And while we’re on the subject, it seems the wide range of answers on faith should be gathered into a category of their own, maybe even into a file or a book—for the benefit of the wider public. The Rabbi has no idea how beneficial his answers are.

That’s what the notebooks and the trilogy are for.

Yes, but there’s something about short, focused answers as opposed to long notebooks and books. And the Rabbi’s article about Abraham our Patriarch, “In Praise of Begging the Question,” which was written as a dialogue, is exceptional in that respect.

The first two books in the trilogy are in dialogue form.

If there’s a group conversation (debate?) with Ruth as moderator, I’d be happy to join as part of the audience.

Haim — a large portion of the answers in this spirit exists on the site of the Yedaya Institute (https://www.knowingfaith.co.il). Indeed, there are some things there with a somewhat more conservative approach than Rabbi Michi’s, and there’s no discussion there of issues such as renewal of Jewish law, but there is a very comprehensive, high-level response there to most foundational issues, with an approach more open than is customary in our circles.

All in all, you still just haven’t met the person who can fool you well enough for your level.

Agreed. A person who is not learned and well-trained cannot search for persuasive reasons, because he knows that anyone can smear things over for him, and he has no choice but to place trust in some kind of system. And if he doubts the system of the tradition of his forefathers and rabbis, then if he is honest with himself he has no real ability to clarify these truths for himself by means of reasons and proofs, since every side can do so in a good and satisfying way—as we see among members of the various religions and sects, who succeed in persuading and drawing crowds after them [some of whom are not foolish at all].

Regarding what you answered Ruth, I’d like to understand: after all, in the article you cited in your answer you wrote that only when there are two equal peers is there room for the claimant to push back and say that the other is closed-minded or biased and remain certain of his own position. But when the argument is between a skilled, experienced professional and a raw person lacking experience and knowledge, it is clear that his opinion carries little weight against that of the professional. Accordingly, Ruth asks that since she is neither skilled nor knowledgeable nor experienced, and in this dispute the greatest experts, most talented people, and most knowledgeable people of all generations are standing and arguing among themselves about who is right, and each one is certain that the other is mistaken—how can she, a small and insignificant person, form an opinion on such a matter? And should she remain religious only because that’s what she was born into, or only because the person she happened to encounter with her questions is a rabbi and not a priest or a mufti?

[And all this without repeating what I already asked you there: that the same bias he attributes to his colleague, he must suspect in himself as well, and again he has no rational basis to rely on his own opinion more than on that of his peer.]

Part of the decision is whom to trust. In this case she has no choice but to make the decision herself. A person can form an impression of who is more persuasive, especially when he examines one side’s arguments with the other side and gets answers. In a case where one conducts such an inquiry, it is possible to bridge the gap created by lack of skill and talent.
For this same reason, the Amoraim allow themselves to decide in disputes among Tannaim even though they have no authority to disagree with a Tanna. And likewise the medieval authorities (Rishonim) with respect to the Amoraim. There is no choice.

A tremendous feeling of identification accompanied me while reading Ruth’s words.
I’m a 25-year-old man, and what she describes here has been eating me up inside for several years. It’s just that despite endless attempts, conversations, drafts, and meetings, I never managed to express the situation in such a clear and precise way.
Thank you for this nice verbal sculpting of a reality in which the inability to trust any piece of information coming from inside the home or from outside gives rise to emotional upheaval that doesn’t stop for a moment.

In his answer to Ruth, the Rabbi wrote: “If you reject every argument and every claim in advance, even before finding any flaw in them, merely because there may be opposing arguments, then there really is no point to your search and inquiry.”
I think that may be what Ruth is trying to say. There really is no point in any inquiry we conduct if in the end what remains is the knowledge that what I think “is only my opinion,” and that it has no real objective value.
In other words, what the Rabbi says does not really solve the problem she is in, but rather sharpens it.
I hope I explained myself well…

You explained yourself excellently, and it turns out that I too explained myself not badly. The proof is that you understood. From such a starting point, there really is no point in clarifying or discussing anything. I do not agree with that starting point (and I also referred to my recent columns on the site that deal with this issue), but that’s a different opera.
Of course, the conclusion that there is no point discussing anything is also your conclusion, and as such it is not certain that it is correct. But there is no point discussing that either. In short, we should be silent.

I understand. But what is the problem with that conclusion? Maybe the truth really is that we should be silent?
As I wrote before, I’ve been struggling with myself over this point for years and haven’t managed to give it a name.
The recent columns really do deal with this issue. But what is this issue? How is it defined in professional language?

There is no problem except that in my opinion it isn’t true.
I mentioned there that this is called peer disagreement.