Brainwashing - escape or brain smuggling? / Yitzhak Farnes

70 תגובות

1. See the chapter "The Paradox as a Scientific Tool" approx.paradox” on Wikipedia.

2. sympathetic,
   Indeed we agree, only one reservation. You write "and it is also not possible to say in advance what the result of the experiment will be according to the existing theory".
   And my comment is that it is never possible to say what the results of an experiment would be, otherwise there would be no need to perform the experiment. What can be said in a good experiment are possibilities, each of which will lead to a different conclusion. For example, if result A comes out, it will strengthen the theory, but if result B comes out, the theory will have to be re-examined. If a C came out that we didn't think about, it means that we didn't understand the system and were surprised, but there is a chance that precisely this will lead to significant progress.
   Thought experiments also predict a number of possibilities or a result that seems surprising and improbable to our intuitions. Those that are not interesting and not worthy of publication.

3. And more in the same matter:
   In my opinion, the majority of the public does not at all give their opinion to physical experiments and does not think at all whether to define the situations I described as a paradox.
   Most of the public does not even bother with the question of what a paradox is.
   On the other hand - I am quite convinced that the majority of the public will accept the definition I gave to the concept and therefore (if they think about it) also my opinion regarding the experiments.

4. sympathetic:
   I also think that the debate is semantic, but my opinion is that if you exclude the physical experiments that contradict a theory from the general rule, you will not be able to formulate a definition of the word "paradox" in a normal way (that is - you will be able - in a normal way - to say that the definition is the same as the definition I gave with the exception of a contradiction obtained between an experiment and scientific theory but this, as mentioned, is not normal).

5. R.H.
   Even between us, I believe that the debate is only semantic. I of course agree with you that a thought experiment is fundamentally different than experiments that can be planned today but have not yet been carried out. My claim was that thought experiments are often not only science fiction in the field of technology, but they also stretch the boundaries of theory.
   For example, you brought as a thought experiment the flight at the speed of light, this is not just a technological question, the question is also theoretical. According to the theory of relativity, the speed of light cannot be exceeded and we also know that as a body approaches the speed of light, its mass increases. Therefore the question of whether it is possible to fly at the speed of light pushes the theory to its limit. Similarly, the theories that exist today do not explicitly prohibit time travel, but such a journey involves many paradoxes, not to mention problems such as conservation of mass and energy, therefore the contemplation of time is not a technological question in time, but explores the limits of the theories that exist today. In my opinion, thought experiments describe experiments that are not technologically possible, nor can it be said in advance what the result of the experiment will be according to the existing theory, if it were possible there would not be much interest in the thought experiment. Since thought experiments push our theoretical knowledge to its limits, they often describe paradoxes. For example, time travel is associated with paradoxes and so on.

6. Michael,

   Indeed the debate is only semantic. For my part, I think that my definition of what is a paradox in science corresponds to the prevailing definition and it is not, as you wrote, an a priori decision of mine alone, not to call experimental results that contradict the theory by the name "paradox". First we will examine the well-known paradoxes in science that I have already mentioned several times: Schrödinger's cat, the twin paradox, Maxwell's demon. All these paradoxes are unrelated to the experiment. When reality as reflected in an experiment contradicts existing knowledge, this is not called a paradox in scientific language, for example: the Michelson-Morley experiments were not and are not called a paradox, the radiation spectrum of a black body was not called a paradox, Kepler's observations were not called a paradox, and so on.

   Why is the definition of a paradox "a situation in which two different and legitimate ways of formulating a conclusion lead to two different and even contradictory conclusions" not valid in a case where an experiment does not match the theory? The reason is simple, science is a method based on experiment or at least observation, therefore experimental results are the only "truth". It is not about two legitimate ways of forming conclusions, there is only one way and that is the results of the experiment. The theory must explain the results of the experiment or it is abandoned (sometimes only modified) in any case there are no two legitimate ways here as you claim. To summarize the basis of things, we agree on definitions that are difficult to argue about unless you manage to find a dictionary definition for a paradox in science or you find a number of experiments whose results were defined as paradoxes by scientists.

7. sympathetic,

   I will come back again and claim that a thought experiment in my understanding is one that cannot be performed today. A normal experiment that is planned based on the existing technology and even if it is not carried out I would not define it as a thought experiment.
   Examples of thought experiments: Earthing Mars, building a time machine, flying at the speed of light, building a computer with emotions, etc. Many such thought experiments form the basis of science fiction.

8. sympathetic:
   I agree with you that the debate stems from the dispute over the meaning of the word "paradox", but I think that this dispute stems from your a priori decision not to call experimental results that contradict the theory with the name "paradox".

   If you take the definition I gave for a paradox (a situation in which two different and legitimate ways of forming a conclusion lead to two different and even contradictory conclusions) - and I am quite convinced that there is no one who would not accept this definition - including you - then you will see that a situation in which experimental results contradict the accepted theory does meet the definition ( as I explained in a previous response).

   The reason why you don't tend to call this situation a paradox is the fact that every reasonable person knows that this is the way in which science progresses and therefore it is a common situation and even constitutes a working method while outside the fields of science it is a much less common phenomenon and therefore tend to attribute to paradoxes "rarity" and the non-existence of the same characteristic "rarity" In the framework of science makes people forget that these are paradoxes after all.

9. Michael

   The disagreement between us is about what is known as a "paradox in science". Science does progress when experiments do not match the theory, as far as I know such a discrepancy is not called a paradox. To the best of my knowledge, the characteristic of paradoxes in science are mostly thought experiments that contradict either the laws of nature, for example Maxwell's demon or common sense, for example the twins paradox, Schrödinger's cat, time travel, etc... Since paradoxes in science contradict either the laws of nature known to us or the Common sense is often thought experiments.

   To honor it, paradoxes did not give rise to quantum theory, but rather experiments that did not correspond to observation, and this is indeed how science advances in the phase of a scientific revolution. It was the radiation spectrum from a black body that gave birth to quantum theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment that gave birth to the theory of relativity. As you claimed no thought experiment would have predicted these results and this was exactly my argument against thought experiments in my discussion with R.H. As I wrote in response 54
   "In my opinion, very few thought experiments have advanced science".

   In short, I do not agree with the sentence "these were paradoxes (which in science are often simply a contradiction between the predictions of the theory and reality)" because as far as I know in science there is no such thing as a discrepancy with an experiment called a paradox. Beyond that, I agree with your words so that the bottom line is that the debate between us is semantic.

   R.H.
   In science, many experiments, if not most of them, work on planning new experiments that have been done, this does not make these experiments thought experiments. Thought experiments do not come to test an existing theory, but are sometimes a tool for formulating problems in a previous theory, i.e. paradoxes, and this is how I perceive Avshalom Elitzur's works in physics. Personally, I believe in observational experimental science where real experiments are carried out and then try to explain them.

10. Ghosts:
    This is not added to their words - it is taken for granted.

11. sympathetic

    Paradoxes are an important thing, because (in addition to Machal's words):
    Result Y leads to a way of thinking C - which replaces the accepted theory
    And this is indeed scientific progress.

12. sympathetic:
    You attribute things to me that I did not say.
    I wasn't talking about thought experiments at all.
    Paradoxes have had a great influence in every area of ​​life and that includes science.
    There are the paradoxes you refer to in your response and there are others as well.
    The classical paradoxes did not change science but sharpened its understanding. I think it is very important.
    Many of the other paradoxes that you - as someone immersed in them all the time tends to ignore - that not only changed science but gave birth to quantum theory!
    The two slits experiment and similar experiments appear to be distinct paradoxes and they required a real change in our perception of reality.
    By the way - if you already mentioned thought experiments - no thought experiment would have predicted such a paradoxical result.

    It is not known if Einstein was aware of the Michelson Morley experiment when he formulated his theory, but it was paradoxes (which in science are often simply a contradiction between the predictions of the theory and reality) that obliged him to propose such a revolutionary and counter-intuitive alternative to Newton's theory.

    And that goes without saying.
    On the same occasion that I mentioned before, I said that a paradox is created when two ways of thinking that seem correct to us give different solutions to the same problem.

    This is a situation that arises every time we find ourselves obliged to change the scientific theory or correct the experiment:
    Way of thinking A - the accepted theory - which seems to us to be a correct way of thinking - leads to result X
    Way of thinking B - accepting the results of the experiment - which also seems to us to be a correct way of thinking - leads to result Y

    It's a paradox!
    We infer from this that something we thought we knew was actually not true!
    This is progress!

13. sympathetic,
    I did not claim that every prediction is a thought experiment. Notice, I said that a thought experiment is an experiment that we have no ability to perform today. It is possible that tomorrow someone will come with the brilliance and come up with a solution on how to perform the experiment. The "Ilo" experiments you suggest are exactly that, since we don't have a time machine.
    You are right, in my opinion, that predicting an observation arising from a theory is not included in the above category. Black holes or the big bang radiation are not thought experiments because there is no experiment involved here even though they were predicted from a theory and observed afterwards.
    A thought experiment would be "what would happen to an object that flew close to the speed of light" which we currently have no possibility to perform.

14. R.H.

    Your definition is too inclusive in my opinion, not every mathematical development in the model is a thought experiment. A scientific theory predicts the results of experiments not with the help of a thought experiment but with the mathematical development of the model. String theory is the exact opposite of a thought experiment, it is simply a mathematical development that turns out to be impossible to test with the help of any known technology today and probably not in the distant future. When a scientist calculates using a model possible results of an experiment it is not a thought experiment but a prediction about an experiment. The radiation from the big bang was an experimental prediction based on a given theory, evaluate what its consequences are.

    A thought experiment is really a thought about a possible experiment that could be conducted, see for example how it is defined in Wikipedia. Examples of thought experiments are Einstein's light beam experiment in a train or elevator when thoughts were a step for him in the development of the theory of relativity.

    I will try to clarify my position better with the help of an analogy. If I plan what I will do tomorrow, it is not a thought experiment, it is planning, but if I try to imagine what would have happened if I had performed a different action than what I did two years ago and how it would have affected my life, it would be an analog of a thought experiment, something that does not contradict the laws of nature, but not can be tested in reality. Predicting the Big Bang radiation is similar for me in analogy to my planning today what I will do tomorrow.

15. sympathetic,
    How do you define a thought experiment? For me, a thought experiment is an experiment that cannot be performed with the existing technology and we try to guess its results. For example if we had a particle accelerator the size of the solar system we would be able to see quarks (right?). If you accept this definition of a thought experiment then essentially all string theory, theories of the creation of life (biogenesis) and theories about the creation of the universe are thought experiments. The radiation from the big bang was predicted before it was found, it was a thought experiment in my opinion.

16. R.H.

    By the way, I took a look at the article to which the reference was made and read only the abstract, but from a first glance it seems to me that it has nothing to do with the experiment proposed by Weidman and Elizur, it deals more with quantum computing. It seems to me that Prof. Zeilinger, a highly respected scientist in the experimental field of quantum theory, performed the experiment proposed by Weidman and Elizur.

17. R.H.

    I'll start from the end. The fact that an article describing an experiment in which the Elitzur-Widman thought experiment was carried out was published in Nature does not say anything about the importance of the thought experiment. As an example I will bring the twins paradox again, if someone and I think they did so will demonstrate the twins paradox by using very precise atomic clocks, the result of the experiment may be published in Nature (or has already been published) even though the twins paradox is basically a puzzle used to explain the principles of special relativity. In the bottom line, it is not always possible to conclude from the experiment carried out about the nature of the theoretical idea underlying it.

    You write that "thought experiments, perhaps contrary to paradoxes, are a very important tool that advances science," I assume that on this point Michael will disagree with you and I also disagree for completely different reasons. In my opinion, very few thought experiments have advanced science, and when a thought experiment succeeds in advancing science, it often appears in the form of a paradox. Science is fundamentally an experimental/observational field and theories are constructed to explain observations. Theories change following observations. The surprises are in the experiment. Few of the thought experiments given a given theory are able to lead to an understanding that the theory is flawed and again if they succeed in doing so they become paradoxes. Sometimes used in thought experiments to build theories, there are several examples linked to Einstein and Leo. I would appreciate it if you could give me an example not related to Einstein of a thought experiment that contributed to science. It is not clear to me how you think that a thought experiment can advance a theory when there is no technology that allows a real experiment to be carried out, if this were the case science would be mathematics since thought experiments are a kind of pictorial mathematics.

    Michael
    You write because you value paradoxes more than thought experiments, but as mentioned, science is an experimental/observational field at its core, not mathematics. In mathematics, paradoxes were a great success, for example Russell's paradox changed set theory. In physics, on the other hand, I don't know of a paradox that managed to change a theory. Below is a list of paradoxes in physics that I believe did not have a significant contribution: Maxsol's demon, Schrödinger's cat, the twin paradox, paradoxes of time travel... I would be happy if you could find me a paradox in science that advanced science and for the avoidance of doubt I have already written my opinion on EPR.

18. Avshalom Elitzur and Lev Widman deal with foundations of physics.
    I will give you an example of research that is not the basics of physics. For example Avshalom Elitzur does not deal with the following topic. Let's say we think about optical fibers and the photons that run inside them for long distances in a kind of pulses like this. Let's think about solitons. We will explore the quantum solitons. And why is it actually interesting? It has to do with the noise level right? and building optical components. The potential of research here is so vast and diverse. In 2007, it became clear that new methods could be developed to perform dynamic manipulation and turn the attractive Casimir force, which Casimir discovered in 1948, from a force of attraction into a force of repulsion and use it for levitation, i.e. for levitation. Then they said that such research has applications to nanocomponents and therefore to nanotechnology. And I wrote about it at the time. I actually like these things.
    And regarding R.H.'s comment. It is true that he who is very good and wants, then he will succeed. But if someone puts a foot on you then what you said is not so true. He is less likely to succeed in this case...

19. sympathetic:
    I didn't want to get into the section of the discussion that deals with people, but in your last comment (50) you talked about your attitude to paradoxes and I must state that I do not share it.
    Paradoxes are one of the most important things to deal with.
    In another discussion I wrote that I am happier to solve a paradox than to solve a riddle because solving a riddle is a transition from a state of "not knowing" to a state of "knowing" while solving a paradox is a transition from a state of "feeling that you know something when that something is not true" to a state of "knowing".
    The progress here seems greater to me.

20. sympathetic,
    Although I don't understand much about the subject and all in all I brought Avshalom Elitzur as an example to Gali who is good and really wants to succeed and that the academy is not as opaque and rigid as it describes it.
    For the very importance of Elizur - Weidman, my impression from a short internet search is that you are wrong and it is important. It is presented as a thought experiment and thought experiments, perhaps contrary to paradoxes, are a very important tool as they advance science, especially in physics where we reach the limits of technological ability, and are not only used as a popular presentation of things.
    I understand that an article was also published in Nature:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/full/nature04523.html#B1

    who tested their thought experiment, but I may be wrong here.

21. The Elizur Weidman experiment does not particularly impress me, I see it only as a curiosity. Since I didn't want to bring only my personal opinion, I added the citation index, which is not particularly high for the aforementioned article, as additional evidence. I also found it appropriate to describe that this is not an exact measure "although a test of an idea according to the number of its citations it wins is an arbitrary test". What is a measure of the quality of a scientific idea? One option is someone's personal opinion about the theory, for example "Roger Penrose" and where he chooses to present this opinion in a "popular science book", another option is the reference of the relevant scientific community to the theory which is measured or at least has a high correlation with the number of citations the article in which the theory is presented receives . There are indeed articles that receive many citations without being a breakthrough, for example articles that contain extensive literature reviews, but this is not what we are discussing.

    The superficial impression to be noted of Weidman's works is that he tends to present paradoxes. Personally, I am not a fan of the genre of paradoxes in science, when most of them only present in a pictorial way the strangeness of a certain theory, for example the twins paradox. The twin paradox does not introduce anything new to the theory of relativity, rather it puts a certain emphasis on a feature of the theory, ie the meaning of inertial systems. For example, I would not be surprised to find in Penrose's book or just a popular science book a reference to the twins paradox, but these references do not make the paradox scientifically important.

    It is rare in a paradox to wake up a theory in a new light, for example the EPR paradox, but this paradox was not enough to advance science, something more was needed. John Bell's math was needed to reverse the EPR experiment
    as a scientific claim. Therefore, I am not much impressed by paradoxes in science which are just a pictorial way to present certain features of the theory. Again, in my opinion, the main place of scientific paradoxes is in popular science books.

22. The experiment was published and gained resonance:
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627596.400-quantum-wonders-the-elitzurvaidman-bombtester.html
    The number of citations depends on several factors:
    the time dimension. For example, before Ada Yonat received the Nobel Prize the number of citations of her articles was much smaller than today after she received the Nobel Prize. The number of hits on Google to search for the word "ribosome" has tripled if not more since Ada Yonat won the Nobel.
    Another figure. The context in which the article is cited. On the one hand, the citation of an article can indicate its quality, but one should be careful not to learn about the quality of the article from the number of citations (statistics by fields, journals, years and other indicators). You need to check in which context the article was cited. If we say someone quoted Einstein's article on relativity and wrote: "He sat in the patent office and wrote from Mother to Annalen." This does not indicate anything about the quality of the article.
    Therefore, additional indicators besides the citations are required to evaluate articles in a quality survey. This is despite the number of citations being the main measure.
    Avshalom Elitzor has a new idea now. I was at his lecture in Jerusalem a few months ago and if I remember correctly from the lecture he called it the "liar's paradox":
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOOn_vEFKaY

23. Ami,

    100 is not bad, but it is not enough to claim that this is a groundbreaking article. The number of citations depends on the field in which the article was written and the number of years that have passed since publication of course. If you have good articles you just have to wait for them to accumulate enough citations. Groundbreaking articles are usually characterized by over 500 citations given that it is a fashionable field.

24. Sorry, loved and not loved. I got confused

25. Fan,
    100 quotes is a lot! I would sign half of that now.

26. R.H.

    The Elitzur-Wiedmann experiment is an amusing curiosity, it does not advance science or contribute to any deep understanding. There is no new theory, new formula, or deep understanding here. This is an entertaining thought experiment, it is indeed original and amazing
    that a PhD student thought of and that no one had thought of before, but the bottom line is that no one is particularly impressed by it. To understand that there is no breakthrough here, it is enough to look at the number of citations the article received, around 100
    When 100 citations is a nice number but every average researcher has articles with more than 100 citations. Although the test of an idea according to the number of its citations is a somewhat arbitrary test and there were great articles that were not understood at the time and were later awarded a tremendous number of citations, but I do not think that this is the case.

    The fact that a person managed to jump steps in the system is indeed very impressive, but there is another step in which he must prove himself. By the way, I don't think that they didn't accept Elizur for the job because he is a type who doesn't know how to get along with people, I got to hear him several times and he makes a very sociable and nice impression. By the way, Einstein also had a lot of acquaintances and friends, while Paul Dirk, who is considered the strangest man in the world and rarely talks to an extreme, held the position of professor, which he accepted without difficulty. So you don't build a theory about the "academy" (whatever that word means, since it refers to a lot of very different groups) from stories about one person. In this context, I find Ami Bacher's response more relevant.

27. sympathetic,
    Regarding Avshalom Elitzur. As far as I know, what published it was the Elitzur-Widman experiment.
    Penrose mentioned this experiment in his book on the Emperor.
    I used to accompany Penrose here at a conference in Israel in 2005. My job was to walk with him every morning from the hotel to the Van Leer Institute for the conference and then escort him back from the Van Leer Institute to the hotel. So I had conversations with the great Roger Penrose.
    He told me about his book that he wrote back then at that time. Such a thick book. And his wife was angry when he wrote such a thick book and was afraid that he would write another such book. He was interested in the Jerusalem Municipality's excavations on the sidewalk in front of the hotel. And these were more or less the plots of Gali and the giant Prof. Roger Penrose.
    Avshalom Elitzur jumped straight into a doctorate in physics and philosophy of science without having a bachelor's degree, a master's degree, and without even having a matriculation certificate.
    I, for one, would not have been able to go through such a route. I could go straight from a bachelor's degree to a doctorate directly: skip the master's degree. But I couldn't skip the first degree. The first degree has all the introductions that provide the basis for the self-study that follows.
    And if Avshalom Elitzur managed to jump on the first degree then he is probably a genius...

28. Academy is a blessed place. Like any large body, it also has some good and some less good. Like any large body, the university's regulatory mechanisms are imperfect. Bottom line, science in Israel stands at the forefront along with the leading countries. Both quality and quantity come out of the academy in Israel and for that we Israelis and the rest of the world thank the academy.
    At the same time, it is true that the state is not doing enough to bridge the gap between what is available and what is desirable and is not learning to maximize profits with the wonderful human capital that is here in the country. We have a book where in the free market in Israel a bachelor's degree is no longer such a big advantage. A country without resources where the residents study and invest in human capital while the state stagnates behind and does not allocate enough budgets to make wise use of all this fertile material. So fertile material can produce beautiful fruit but can also remain and become compost. In order not to become compost, the state forces us to leave abroad in order to return to lesser working conditions. Too bad

    Greetings friends,
    Ami Bachar

29. sympathetic,

    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%99_%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%93%D7%9E%D7%9F

    and see also:
    http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9D_%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%A8

30. For that matter there is overwhelming agreement also that in my opinion Zvi Yanai is not a scientist and even far from it.

    Since you all know what scientific contribution Abshalom Elitzur has to science?
    And how is it related to the farm?

    By the way, the attempt to make firm determinations about the academy in Europe a century ago, the academy in Israel today is in my opinion a bit ridiculous even though the structure of the universities in Israel is based on the German model. This is a sweeping generalization and thus it becomes childish.

31. jelly,
    I agree with everything you wrote in response 39, especially regarding Elizur and the "geniuses". In your response, you are only wrong in that you wrote that I want to look for what you are not good at, on the contrary. I do appreciate and enjoy reading your articles, although a little less your comments, but what can I do and not everyone is perfect.
    : )

32. Avshalom Elitzur is a very good friend of mine and I will tell him that he was compared here to Einstein!
    Avshalom Elitzur is not a faculty member at any university here in Israel. At the time he was fired from Bar-Ilan University and I think he was fired because he was a nonconformist.
    Zvi Yanai is not an academic. He is a journalist and a writer and a thinker. He also did not reach academic achievements. He is fond of science and philosophy and other fields of thought.
    I don't know a real Finn. But Avshalom Elitzur's "Genius Farms" - I know them all.
    Regarding inaccuracies. If you want to search, then you find. And if you want to look for other things in which maybe I'm not good, or something else about me is not accurate, I'm sure you'll find a lot of such things. And if you want, I'm also ready to help you find.

33. jelly,
    Indeed a very relevant response at 35.
    However, to the point, the Einstein case and people like Zvi Yanai, Avshalom Elitzur, Fini Amitai and others whose names I will not mention reached considerable scientific achievements and high academic esteem without the formal track show you that your sweeping generalizations about the opacity and banality of academia are out of place and you should be more careful about the accuracy in your writing.
    Speaking of inaccuracies and strictness, the poem for Seder night on your blog may have been sent to you from Boston, but it was written by Efrat Stern and not by some anonymous poet as can be understood, and you who are so sensitive to your honor should also be careful to quote correctly, and this is just a tiny example.
    On the other hand, the song you wrote in 37 is really nice.

34. Torah will come out of the flames...
    And from the Negev we heard the news
    Physics woke up and stood up
    From Mahud we heard words of wisdom
    Gali of course said a lot of mistakes
    And Einstein used to talk nonsense
    Gali told everyone about herself
    They don't know me, she was dumbfounded
    But she hid the important thing
    And even on that Mela did not comment
    In order not to embarrass even at all
    The Israeli Academy!!!

35. very unfortunate,

    In science there are many fascinating discussions based on facts and not slander. The strength of an argument is internal and does not depend on an external factor such as who said it or what title he holds. Even Einstein said nonsense from time to time, all the more so as it turned out that people who hold the title of doctor are prone to mistakes. It is unfortunate to see that at the end of a discussion comes the moment when, if you ask a phrase from the street language, the claim "Why who are you?" comes up.

    As mentioned, the objective discussion is based on claims and not slander, on facts and not on personal stories or legends about celebrities. The fact that a person identifies himself by name and tells about his life does not give him additional points in an objective discussion.
    You can of course bring anecdotes that add color and purpose to the discussion, but in my opinion it is forbidden to base the discussion on them. There is also a lot of irony in the words of someone who talks about himself and his experiences constantly and then claims that they don't know him.

36. I am ready to answer you if you appear with your full name and then it will be a sign that you really mean what you say here. If you appear under "R.H.", then it's just a comment from someone under a pointless Nick who enjoys teasing or provoking a counter-argument.

37. Who told you that I sit in the academy? Do you know my personal story? And what ferocity are you talking about? Believe me, I don't have a single share in academia in Israel, just basic logic and justice. You cannot comprehensively discredit and speak with such confidence about mediocrity in the academy and that it is impossible to be accepted without protection as you wrote in your response 19 without statistics or proof.

    Unfounded generalizations and assertions are a recurring motif in the comments and articles you publish and it's a shame. And please don't start now with "chauvinist" and things like that because there is nothing personal here.

38. R.H.
    You sit inside the academy and you fiercely defend the system.
    Therefore, I don't think there is any point in arguing in this situation when someone is busy protecting the system.
    Another thing. You said "your firm opinion that everything that is said and done at the university is nonsense". I didn't say that and I don't think that either.
    And about my personal story. You don't know him and you don't know him. From some sentences I throw on the net, you can't tell. Unless you really know me personally.

39. wavy,

    Two comments to your words. First of all, being eccentric is an excellent reason not to accept someone. After all, academia is also a workplace where people spend most of the day. You too, I guess, wouldn't want your lab neighbor to be a scratchy type with problems. And believe me, I knew some of them in the academy, not pleasant.

    Second note, Einstein's equations with all due respect are neither sacred nor the word of God. Therefore, the fact that people sit in the academy and try to test them and offer alternatives is a welcome thing and not wrong. Not least when we know that there are still unsolved problems in physics that relativity does not explain. Those people whose dignity you so disrespect are examined in the normal framework of publishing works and being examined by reviewers, promotion and audit committees. Also, the same funds that you call the "Baron's account" were awarded to them as a competitive research grant (usually very difficult), so that they were able to convince entire committees that what they were saying was not complete nonsense. But what is all this compared to your firm opinion that everything that is said and done at the university is nonsense. My personal feeling is that because of your personal story in the academy you cut through and include everything. Have you heard of the parable of the fox and the vineyard?

40. R.H.
    There was no consensus against Einstein. He was not accepted because he was eccentric and did not know how to get along with people.
    Regarding unfounded theories. There are people who sit in academia and offer unfounded theories. A classic example is the desperate attempts of people in academia to propose alternative theories to general relativity. And they develop these theories and sit for days and write down formulas that may work mathematically, but a lot of physics is not there. They start from Einstein's field equations and deviate from them... and at the end of the month these people get paid for this nonsense and they also travel to conferences at the baron's expense. So why were such people admitted to the academy? They claim to be the next Einstein and no one understands them and their theory will replace general relativity.
    The academy is full of these. Simply full of those who try to replace the grand theory and become the next Newton or Einstein.

41. And one more thing..
    This argument of yours reminds me that many times people with far-fetched and strange theories get hung up on the claim that "even Einstein was not believed at first". True, but it does not follow that any nonsense that is not believed in is a new theory of relativity and not everyone that is not accepted is a new Einstein that the opaque and mediocre establishment fails to recognize.

42. jelly,

    Not everyone who is not accepted and there is a consensus against him is Einstein, although most would like to believe so.

43. Grossman was the exact opposite of Einstein: established and loved by the establishment. But he didn't have the creativity that Einstein had. That is why Grossman was able to integrate into the establishment very quickly.
    Princeton returned after Einstein only some thirty years later...
    The reason the relativity article was accepted for publication in Annalen der Physik is that at that time it was customary to write: "author and city" and not an academic institution. Einstein's story proves the saying he himself said about Bertrand Russell and I wrote it in one of my comments above and also what Jonathan Swift once wrote: "When a true genius appears in the world you may recognize him by this sign, the difficulties of perception are all in league against him"

44. jelly,

    Why did they accept Grossman and not Einstein in 1900? Did anyone prefer Grossman's hair color to Einstein's? Did Grossman have protection? You yourself state that they were both Jews so it is not the religion. So maybe simply because by then Grossman had proven himself more than Einstein and no one had a way to predict what Einstein's abilities were?
    It is a fact that when his papers were accepted in 1905 he became the most famous scientist of all time and everyone including Princeton afterwards courted him. Moreover, the articles were received from a person who was not from academia but from a patent office, so that in fact the Einstein case is exactly a counterexample to your claim. To me, Einstein's story proves that if you are good and persevere, no matter where you are, you will succeed in the end.

45. R.H.,
    You wrote "However, on the other hand, those who have achievements in the form of publications, lectures at conferences, etc. become well-known and will be accepted even if there is nothing pushing them."
    The classic counter example is Albert Einstein. He graduated from the Polytechnic Institute in Zurich in 1900 and no one wanted to accept him for any position in all of Europe. Is it because he is Jewish? No. Because his Jewish friend Marcel Grossman was accepted with open arms for a position at the same polytechnic institute. Einstein eventually found a temporary job as a high school substitute teacher and then Grossman's father got him a job at the patent office. There he sat and produced in 1905 several articles that quickly attracted the attention of the physics community.
    And they still did not agree to accept him for a position at the academy. He sent the relativity essay from 1905 in an attempt to be accepted as a Privatdozent (the entry level) to the University of Bern and one mediocre professor at the University of Bern said that it was too theoretical and had no experimental implications and he also did not understand what Einstein was talking about in the essay; It seems nonsense to him.
    In desperation, Einstein tried to apply for a position at the high school and sent his three articles from 1905, and they did not agree to accept him there either. He applied for his habilitation again and somehow in 1908 managed to teach two courses attended by only his two best friends and one other student. In the end they also gave up and the courses were closed. Meanwhile, his friend Marcel Grossman became a professor of mathematics at the Polytechnic Institute. Only in 1908 did he get a position at the University of Zurich. and why? Because the leading candidate Friedrich Adler, who was supposed to get the job, gave it up at the last minute. If he hadn't been allowed on it, Einstein would have stayed at the patent office for another year or two.
    This is an extreme example, but it reflects what happens to many Israelis who simply do not manage to get into the Israeli academy and therefore fly abroad...
    Therefore talent, publications and success and if you become well known... it is not enough for them to accept you to the academy. Definitely not!

46. First of all, what is important to understand is that the State of Israel is a small country and does not have many resources to expand
    Across all research fields. It is necessary to invest a certain amount of resources in research and leave it at that. Not every doctor
    Another helps our country. Some of the money invested in research does contribute to the state, but in practice research work is not
    Productive work that contributes a lot to society. Therefore there is nothing to complain about the strategy of our government. How many medieval history professors do we need? What about art history, linguistics, cosmology, astrophysics?

    Because we are a small country, the filtering is brutal. A scientist trained in Israel will not always find a job there, but abroad the number of possibilities is greater and it is almost always possible to find a job there. The question that should be asked is, therefore, is Israel not investing too much money in higher education?
    Decisions must be brutal and rigid not to drag people for years on two or three hours of teaching, either you are in or you are out and it is better to give candidates the decision as early as possible.

    In the original context of the article. I see several goals in the post abroad:
    1. Professional perfection.
    2. Establishing scientific contacts abroad.
    3. Option to filter candidates for jobs.

    The question asked in the article is whether it is not possible to abandon this filtering method which sometimes results in the loss of talents that could have remained in Israel. So, first of all, there are exceptional cases of candidates who were accepted without a post abroad, but as a principle, I believe that the first two sections are very important, especially for a small country.
    Science is a complicated field, today's training courses in science take longer than a sabbatical year, so it is not possible to replace the sabbatical post as a source of training. Since the research in Israel is limited due to limited resources, a post allows talented students to be exposed to the forefront of scientific research to learn research methods or work in the laboratories and pay off with research methods, something that cannot be done on sabbatical or through the Internet. The talented students study the leading laboratory abroad and set up such a laboratory when they come to Israel. Research connections are also very important to us because
    The restrictions on staying in Israel and the desire of students from abroad to come to Israel (as a result of the political situation).

    Again, because of the size of the country, it is important that the screening is done by studying abroad because in a situation of academic inbreeding, connections and politics are very important. As a rule, the method works well, perhaps it would be useful to decide on different periods of time for the post in different areas (although this is already happening in my opinion).

47. R. H.,
    Right. Generalization is a dangerous thing. The last thing I want to do is discredit an entire system.
    I also think that the solution cannot come from within the system. There is nothing to be done - there is a paucity of budgets in the academy in Israel and the entire senior academic staff is fighting tooth and nail with each other. This is how all kinds of alliances and interest groups are formed, which harms academic research. It is clear to me that in every large organization there is a degree of politics and sometimes this is healthy. But when there are too few resources - its ugly side rears its head.

    You are right that I "fell" on a bad team - but unfortunately I had no other option (as there may be in institutions abroad). This is the only group in the field. It is also important to pay attention to the trend that fields in which it is necessary to invest resources in infrastructure/laboratories/engineers - are disappearing from the academic landscape in Israel. Fields such as computer science, for example, where there is zero investment in infrastructure (computer + office) - flourish much more.

    There is not much to be done about it, this is the strategy of our government, and it is a shame because the really good people are leaving (I know a few personally).
    That's why I don't think that anything will change in this regard soon, the State of Israel will continue to lose its best minds and unfortunately the benignity in the Israeli academy will continue to rule.

48. I have to agree with Dr. Weinstein and E.G
    It is simply impossible to agree to the fact that there is a trend of smuggling the creative minds from the country to abroad.
    If only they would reward the creative minds in the country, then the country would be, at least the first, to benefit from it.

49. E.G.
    The fact that you were unlucky to fall on a bad team for you does not indicate the rule. Of course there are. I could give you quite a large number of counter-examples of amazing groups (and true, also of screwed up groups, what to do?). But knowing some groups at Harvard and MIT as well, I don't think the situation is that different. Even there you can find supervisors who are not clear how they reached a high position (and ask disappointed postdoctoral students who returned) compared to those who constitute the crème de la crème of science.
    In my personal opinion, based on my modest acquaintance with the system, your and Gali's generalization regarding the Israeli academic reality is based on a narrow view through your personal stories and is too sweeping and unfair.

50. R. H. Gali,

    I read what you wrote and I am very intrigued by the topic. I thought I would contribute a little from my personal experience, I am a student for an advanced degree in one of the faculties at the Technion. I am nearing the end of my studies, I can clearly testify that what I see happening to me in this research group is simply shameful and disgraceful. And want to reinforce Gali's words.
    Where to start?

    1) The head of the group - a professor who has no touch and no trace of knowledge in the field (he decided to pick up the gauntlet and take on the redevelopment of the field in the faculty - probably just to get budgets).
    2) It is not possible to hold any substantive and professional meeting on the subject - because the person simply does not understand (and rightly so, because it is not his domain).
    3) As a result, there is no basic guideline for the research. There are in the interpretation blatant insinuations not to develop new ideas and additional directions in research. Any unconventional or creative idea/thought is suppressed (even without being examined in depth). It is very insulting because there is not even a desire to delve deeper and understand on the part of the professor.
    4) Independent work only. Despite all the advantages involved in this (dealing with challenges alone, etc.) - there is a desire to get some feedback sometimes (for better or for worse).
    5) A sense of discrimination in the group, a clear division into "liked" students and "unliked" students. Obviously, the allocation of resources (budgets) is biased in advance, I'm talking about grants + scholarships + financing travel to the conference, etc. I remember a particularly unusual case of a "favorite" student who went to a conference without presenting anything (poster or lecture), just like that - a bonus.

    And all this is only on the tip of the fork, it is clear that the beloved students later stay in the group (what a lab turtle calls academic inbreeding). And finally, what is really serious is that if there are achievements of an "unloved" student or significant progress in research - there is a clear tendency to "slide" the subject in the hope that it will pass under the faculty's radar.

    Therefore, once again, I want to agree with Gali's every word and, knowing the system from the inside, say that her wording was gentle and softened relative to the grim reality that prevails within the walls of the Israeli academy.

51. jelly,

    Knowing the system as well, I think you are greatly exaggerating. I'm not innocent and we all know that when there are connections you don't need protection. But on the other hand, those who have achievements in the form of publications, lectures at conferences, etc. become known and will be accepted even if there is nothing pushing them. Besides, I think that what you contemptuously call "connections" is not so negative. Because what are connections? These are people who appreciate your ability, who know you from the professional field, who think you are a good teacher and recommend you. So what's so negative about it? After all, one of the main criteria for admission is letters of recommendation, which are actually "connections", you need to get people, preferably from the first class, to appreciate your work and write a letter of recommendation.

52. R. H.,
    Let's say that I want to teach only one course as a lecturer from abroad in some department in Israel. And I'm talking about one lesson only and no more than that! Will they accept me to teach? I have a doctor's resume and after the doctorate I did several post-docs, I have publications and lectures at international conferences and all. And these are the usual academic criteria according to the rules of the academy in Israel and around the world.
    I tell you that they will not accept me to teach even one lesson here in Israel.
    And the reason is that in order to teach even one lesson (!) I need connections, someone to push. It is of no interest to anyone what is really written in my CV and how many publications I have and whether I am broad-minded and can enrich the students. What is interesting is whether I am already in the system, whether I have connections, whether someone can pick up the phone and let me in. And if there is no one to pick up the phone and sort it out for me then I won't be able to teach even one lesson here.
    You can't just come with achievements and be accepted here in Israel. It just doesn't exist.
    And if someone proves to me that it is possible to be accepted to teach at a university or college in Israel without connections, let's see. Because I don't believe it's possible at all. That's why I wrote what I wrote.

53. jelly,

    Are you a little bit exaggerating, stupid and stupid? Please look at the researchers who have been admitted to universities in Israel in the last decade and you will see that most of them are of the highest rank and have no reason to be ashamed of their colleagues abroad in terms of science and publications.
    As for the lack of creativity, it seems to me that you have no idea what country you live in. Please read the book
    startup nation about creativity and initiative in Israel and we will talk.
    I don't know how much you were exposed to science in the US and Europe, but in terms of creativity, intellectual courage and originality, Israeli researchers usually surpass their colleagues. They have other shortcomings but certainly not a lack of creativity.

54. Dear Ami,
    From my experience in academia in Israel, one must not be too creative. If you are too creative then you are out of work here. You have to be a dedicated type, who knows how to get along with the professors in the department. From a conformist person. Nonconformism, intellectual independence - which of course goes with high levels of creativity and flow of original ideas - is a very undesirable trait in academia. Because they think that intellectual independence can lead to problems and provocations. Conversely, someone who is not particularly independent intellectually is seen as devoted to the department. But at the same time, he is also not very creative and doesn't have much inspiration. Therefore the level of his publications is poor. But he does not cause problems and is easy to work with. And this is the criterion for employment in Israel. And that's a fact and that's how it is! And that's how it is in Israel and you can't change it!
    And I tell you with XNUMX% responsibility that they set foot on someone who is really creative, and prevent him in every possible way from getting a job, for fear that he will cause provocations, that he will cause problems, that he will turn his creativity to non-research independence of thought. And he is really getting a foothold in the academy and similar institutions.
    And this is what causes the proliferation of mediocrity in academia.
    jelly

55. Lagley,
    I do not believe that stupidity and mediocrity are what lead the mindset in academia. This is not the problem in my opinion and yes, at least from what I know and know, in the Israeli academy there is no significant amount of stupidity or mediocrity.
    The real problem, in my opinion, is broader and related to the level of government decision-makers. When you do not allocate proper budgeting and do not create necessary and needed jobs at the national level for all our scientists. In total, there are few universities in Israel and these provide a limited amount of jobs. In order to establish more universities (at the expense of the colleges), a government decision is needed to invest in science and a scientific fund.
    I also don't think that these professors from abroad are kidnapping anyone. They provide jobs on a competitive basis - and that's a good thing. Job seekers also find their employers on a competitive basis. When the state is not educated to fight for the brain hours of available scientists, it actually loses them to other places that understand that this is a safe and smart investment.
    In Israel they invest in war and in corporations with political lobbies. The advantage in this is the electoral consensus around them. Every politician wants the general public to elect him and also to have wealthy patrons for various needs. There is not a single politician who will today reap votes from a plan for the praise and use of Israeli scientists that will yield returns (even if enormous) in 10 years and beyond.
    The public wants (with some right) to bring back Gilad, to lower the price of gas, not to give a single meter to the Palestinians or yes to give every meter, etc. From the establishment of research institutes on the right and the left (such as the Max Planck research network in Germany, where I did my doctorate), voters do not grow.

56. Lami Bachar,
    On the east coast of the USA there are several professors who are the elite of the elite. And they work with a group of professors from Europe, which is also the elite Shavalit. Each of them has a long list of publications and each article they write is not just any article. It is an in-depth study with unusual research methods. They analyze the material in an exceptionally thorough scientific way. And you want to learn these research methods from them. And they are happy to teach and establish a next generation and they know that it is worth investing in Israeli doctors.
    So it is true that it is worthwhile to do a post-doctorate in Israel and the idea of ​​Prof. Frans is very Zionist and of course welcome.
    But in the country of academia, it does everything to drive away the doctors and precisely the most talented ones right into the hands of these professors who desperately want to teach them their research methods.
    The academy in Israel often cultivates the mediocre, those who are comfortable to work with, those who are good citizens in the department. Then these great professors in the US and Europe immediately recognize it and understand it and kidnap the talented Israelis to them. And this is how these great professors grow their research group and improve it!
    Do you know how many such cases I know? I don't want to name names here because it's not allowed. But this is the main problem of the academy in Israel: stupidity and mediocrity!

57. To be truly academically talented and to live and work in Israel is like women and men....the two sexes don't really get along but for some reason nature decided that they couldn't live without each other...

    That's how it is about our brilliant minds..on the one hand there is nothing to do no matter how good and good we are here, the United States will always give more to the more talented person...but this is not home.

    I know in Israel an international level researcher in the field of brain sciences in Jerusalem who makes about 22000 per month and I won't even tell you how and what size his office is...and we all know what he would get in the sand if he worked.

    There is no simple solution to this issue...what's more, we all know that the State of Israel, like its army, has a problem locating and properly utilizing the potential that lies in talented people.

    I would move abroad for a good few years for work, but I know for sure that even if it takes 10 years, I will eventually return home.

58. First, I am glad that an impressive discussion has developed on the subject. It's encouraging to see that the public cares. Second, I disagree with the opinion of the laboratory turtle: today in the electronic age researchers are constantly exposed to the newest methods. Moreover, these methods are widely available in Israel. We are the forefront of science! Not this one either, even in Israel there are a great many research colleagues from abroad who bring a great deal with them and certainly the academic requirement for a post abroad is archaic and meaningless today.
    A smart society that is organized as a state or unfortunately a smart society that is organized around an economic interest, will know what to do with all these brains according to their weight. Whoever sets up a greenhouse (and there are quite a few who do), will reap the net profit in a big way. Those who train scientists in the industry will reap seven times the investment in training. A country that establishes institutions that will provide work, whether applied or purely theoretical, will be a scientific power for all that this implies. In the meantime we are very strong in the field of science and it seems that it is enough and "does the job" but it is a mirage vision. Science reserves and scientific development are like the Red Queen from Alice in Wonderland: you have to run as fast as possible to stay put. If you don't do it, you end up only going backwards.

    The competitive western world needs to start to understand well how to manage its risks. While Israel invests in war and maintaining land and borders, instead of training and employing a large public of scientists, in the future we will pay the price for this - as a society.

    Greetings friends,
    Ami Bachar

59. Dear Host of the Universe,
    The criterion for admission to an academic position is not always talent. There are other important criteria such as: a candidate who is comfortable to work with, who is a so-called "good citizen" in the department, whose research topic fits the department and a candidate who has the right connections in the department.
    Bertrand Russell was trying to get into the State University of New York. But the talented Russell's appointment was opposed by religious conservatives and patriotic New Yorkers on the grounds that he was provocative. They filed a lawsuit and Russell's appointment was overturned.
    Einstein was so angry that he commented in the New York Times on March 19, 1940:
    "Great souls have always encountered resistance from mediocre thinkers. The mediocre thinker is unable to understand the person who refuses to blindly bow to traditional superstitions and chooses instead to express his opinions with courage and honesty."
    This is one of Einstein's most famous sayings.

60. A relative of my family is doing a doctorate at one of the universities in Israel. With great difficulty and after many runs, she found a part-time job as a teaching assistant, at a poor salary. In the end, she was paid half of the agreed amount, because the university claimed that it could not pay what was agreed upon.
    My hope is that my talented relative will spread her wings towards an American university, where at least a summary is a summary.

61. Indeed when I read Scientific American magazine (the American version) I keep coming across Israeli names! In the most prestigious universities in the USA and the most leading researches. So it's a kind of pride but also a serious question about why they should be there and not here.

    On the other hand... maybe there is over-training of researchers here. or at least in certain fields of study.

62. If I understood correctly, then the author opposes the idea of ​​a post-doc abroad and offers a light version of academic inbreeding, i.e., the phenomenon of raising researchers within the university without going out much, or a situation of re-recruitment of the institution's graduates.
    This phenomenon has been examined quite a bit and the findings are not encouraging, academic inbreeding reduces the exposure to work methods, people, management methods, etc..., increases the importance of personal relationships with decision makers and maybe a few other things that I don't remember right now.

    It is worth mentioning in the same breath that many of those people ('minds') maintain good ties with their country of origin in the form of collaborations, sabbaticals and the like, so it is not only bad.

    The challenge, in my unconsidered opinion, is to create such conditions in Israel that will make the good ones return on the one hand, and on the other hand to create a platform for cooperation with Israeli researchers abroad to maximize their stay there.

63. I wanted to add something.
    I sat for days and days in the Einstein Archive and the National Library at the Givat Ram Campus of the Hebrew University. Researchers from all over the world come there. That is, I used the materials that are in the archives in Israel and I will include in the research things that I found in the archives and in the library in Israel. But I am doing research with the US. And since I have no institutional affiliation here in Israel, the research will not mention that I belong to Israel. Everything follows academic rules... and therefore in fact my research is not a contribution to research in Israel, but a contribution to research in the US.
    To Ami Bachar. The article was published on Ynet in the science section about two weeks ago and also in Scientific American Israel. Prof. Frans's idea is a very good idea, which also provides an answer to the problem I described above. Now it remains to publish the article in the Chronicle of Higher Education... 🙂

64. Some scientists also have a negative memory of their first 5-10 years in academia where, despite the scholarships and university teaching jobs, they had to depend on family/spouses to barely survive while they worked the quota of hours of high-tech workers. In order to stop the escape, the situation needs to be changed at the beginning, those who do not feel secure about their future in Israel will find it difficult to return even if the heads of laboratories make a good living.
    The economic infrastructure in Israel is becoming too bad to imagine a solution close to this.

65. Why, according to the article, in Israel, a doctor between the ages of 35-45 will not be accepted to a university professorship? What reason do they have not to accept?

66. This week I had a job interview at a private high school. I thought about going to teach science at a school: suitable for me? Do not know. School principals always tell me, "You are suitable for research".
    The school is located in a pastoral location, a lovely place, full of greenery and greenery.
    The atmosphere at the school is relaxed and calm and the principal, who is a doctor and comes from an academic background, received me nicely and explained to me that they are looking for teachers who will carry the students along, a teacher who is a leader, a teacher who also knows how to deal with small problems of school-age students (discipline, etc.) the science
    During the conversation he asked me what I was doing and I told him that I have been doing research with a university in Boston for a year and they also invited me to come. But I'm debating. I have two boys of school age, and it is not easy to get up and go. He answered me, if I were in your place and they invited me to Boston, I would go immediately. This is an opportunity and he advised me to travel.
    Well, what do you say? I especially want to hear the opinion of the author of the article, Prof. Yitzhak Farnes. what would he do

67. Very good and correct article. How can the heads of departments and decision makers in universities be made to read it? They don't read the science website. Maybe.
    There is a great deal of inadequacy in the management of scientific human resources and the reserve in Israel. I am sure that they understand this very well in the academy and even in the government, but the power of inertia and the lack of electoral power of a very small minority of doctorate holders are the ones who leave the system as it was from day to day.
    Israel has no natural resources and it is the Jewish brain that has been making patents for us for generations in general and in the last sixty years in Zion in particular. These precious pearls must be nurtured and preserved as much as possible in order to create a political and civil resilience that will be in line with the rest of the advanced countries of the world, at the very least.

68. Adam Red:

    At the time, the American idiot probably did not know that the Jewish minds fled from Russia to Israel.
    The problem is that those minds were received in Israel with open arms - in the municipality's sanitation department.
    Fortunately for some of those minds, they continued to escape, and in the end arrived in a country that received them with all the respect they deserve.
    Of course, Israel lost in this matter. The bigger problem is that the people who rule the country have not been educated since then,
    And because of them the state continues to lose in this matter.

69. Of course, this means brain drain from Russia

70. Without disagreeing at all with what is written, we can add an anecdotal story that the ambassador of Israel to the US at the time, complained to his American colleague about the "brain draining" of Israelis by the Americans and he answered him in response: What about the brain drain you Israel carried out in Russia?

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.