I’m trying to ask, and people attack me personally. For some reason that only strengthens what I’m claiming. It seems more likely that whoever attacks the person loaded the claim and not the arguments—not only did he not listen to the arguments and understand them, but he is probably very, very locked in. (Legitimate, common, mainly among people who are locked in.)

As for the matter itself, let’s take the example of the truth-meters in the parable: there is no reality in which both are right!!

And in any case one must say that something is faulty!!
Either the 99 or the one!!

And each person will draw his own conclusion.

If the thermometer itself doesn’t understand why the probability says that when there are a hundred thousand thermometers against it, that is a reason to conclude that it is probably the one that is locked in—then there really is no way to deal with it.

As for the majority of the wise Jewish people, as far as I know the test is not measured in threads of people who are locked in, but in substantive discussions on the arguments themselves. And it seems to me that even on your site (lovely as it is), most of the substantive people actually leaned in the direction of the accepted truth-meter, the prevailing opinion. (The slander came from the supporters, which reveals, like a hundred witnesses, enormous subjectivity—or else complete stupidity.)

Thank you for your patience, and again, my goal is not to provoke but to clarify. And if the less likely option, according to the usual truth-meters, is that I am a fool who understands absolutely nothing, then it would have been appropriate to try to explain it to me and not attack me with clubs and oaths. (Or insults, smears, and put-downs.)
And that is enough said.

Sabbath peace, and if my words anger you, send me a private message and I will stop immediately, God willing not making a vow.

Tom, what about “Do not follow the majority to do evil”? Maybe then too their truth-meters are more correct?

Dear Avi.

If you have something new about the argument itself and not about the person, I’d be happy to hear it.

Who said that I am doing evil?! The fact that I ask and people attack me and don’t answer my questions (sometimes they do; see the responsa on twilight).

By the way, you don’t look for truth-meters under the lamp of the owner of this site of ours, but in every possible place, and the prevailing view is that the overwhelming majority of truth-meters are on the side where I, Tom, stand.

By the way, to the Rabbi’s credit, he doesn’t silence people. (Though he does try, by indirect means, to wear one down and to bash.) And still he gives a platform, as long as the discussion doesn’t descend into petty tracks. And that is praiseworthy!!

If he were blocking people, then you certainly wouldn’t find on his site truth-meters that are on the side of the majority. And as long as he doesn’t block, then they do exist on his site, though they are not always obvious—and that too is proof that if you don’t see it, that doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist.

And that is enough said.

Sabbath peace to you, dear Avi.

Tom,

I’m afraid I wasn’t understood. Where did I say that you are doing evil!? I said that your words, from which it seems that one should always follow the majority, contradict the words of the Torah that I quoted, according to which there are cases in which one acts differently from the majority view.

Tom, the best example is that same rabbi in the video you brought, where I proved to you beyond any doubt that he is steering people toward a spirituality of witchcraft and sees it as something elevated.

And yet until now you chose to ignore the arguments, and the fact that I gave you the exact timestamps in the video from which you, and any reasonable person, could see that what I said is true.

But here you are choosing to ignore it. Why? Because it bothers you psychologically.
A person can hardly be objective when it concerns himself.

Who attacked you? Are you sure you read this thread? I responded to the points, and that is enough.

He who admits and abandons will obtain mercy.

Within my question I already included why the majority is not relevant, because I take into account only those who listened to my argument. Therefore the majority of the Jewish people, who did not listen to my argument, is plainly irrelevant. (The necessary condition is that they listen to my argument!)

I’ll attach the passage:
“And here is my question.
If I am a truth-meter, because I listened to the other side’s arguments, and opposite me there are a thousand truth-meters that listened to my argument and still disagree with me.”
So it seemed that when the Rabbi wrote that all the intelligent people in the world and among the Jewish people think I’m talking nonsense, I understood the Rabbi to mean that surely this is what they think even after hearing my argument, and that is what surprised me.

I’ll attach the Rabbi’s passage from the answer:
“After all, you also don’t take into account the fact that an overwhelming majority of the intelligent people in the world (and also among the Jewish people) think that you, as a religious Jew, are talking nonsense. Why not? Because you think they’re wrong about that. So what is the point of all these hairsplittings?”

And after the Rabbi wrote that he doesn’t understand what I’m complaining about, I went over it again, and apparently the Rabbi did not pay attention to the part I referred to above, that I take into account only those who listened to my argument.

And as for you, Avi,
I did address the issue; see the responsa “Returning from a Philosophical Conception.”
And in a word: the famous story of Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz, that one should relate to the majority specifically when there is doubt.

And dear, very dear Last Decisor,
I already wrote to you in the responsa “Returning from a Philosophical Conception.” See there.

Bottom line:

What still has not been answered is the matter of being locked in: if there are a hundred truth-meters and one is against them all, after everyone heard the other’s arguments, what is more reasonable to say—who is the locked-in one?
There is no doubt that the sides are polar opposites and there is only one truth!

And should one not follow probability where there is no decisive ruling, especially with regard to another person?

Neither admitting nor abandoning. Or perhaps you meant that you admit and abandon?
The majority of the wise people think there isn’t even any point in hearing your arguments, so why should I believe you that they are worth hearing? Most of those who did hear them were also not persuaded (unless they received a religious education). And most of those commentators who disagreed with me did not hear my arguments.
All right, I’ve exhausted this.