Comprehensive coverage

The public is dumb because there are those who care about dumbing it down

Things said by the Prime Minister at the meeting of the Knesset's Economic Committee on 19/10/2008 which dealt with the regulation of television broadcasts for the next decades * 20 years of the exclusion of science from the screen - and we are beginning to see the effect on the level of education from elementary to university and as a result - the beginning of Israel's economic decline

An attempt to simulate creatures living in the clouds of Jupiter, from the series Cosmos by Carl Sagan. When was the last time you watched a prime time science show?
An attempt to simulate creatures living in the clouds of Jupiter, from the series Cosmos by Carl Sagan. When was the last time you watched a prime time science show?

This document is submitted to the Economy Committee of the Knesset chaired by MK Ofir Akunis, on 12/10/2009, in the discussion dealing with the regulation of broadcasting and the transition from the system of concessions used today to the system of licenses

Presenter: Avi Blizovsky, editor of the Hidan website - the Israeli science news website

The main recommendations: ensure the assimilation of science in all programs; require a minimum number of broadcasts in the field and at a high standard; to take care of the standard of a scientific editor in every broadcasting channel (broadcast and scientific channels); to raise the status of the scientific and educational channels; Ban Mystique broadcasts during children's viewing hours

Where has science gone?

One of the absurdities of today is that we live in a technological society based on scientific discoveries (fast fiber optic internet and digital cameras, if we mention just two of the inventions that won the Nobel Prize in Physics this week) but we arranged the matter so that no one knows what science is, what it is good for. On the contrary, we have established in the media the stigma of the mad scientist, or the nerd who lacks social skills, and the only scientific programs are those that deal with intimidation against progress (vaccines, genetically modified food, Ritalin and speaking of Ritalin - surely you remember Odette's blatant advertisements for the cult of Scientology...).

Mysticism, which often masquerades as science, receives serious attention, even in prime time (an exorcist on the block show) and alternative medicine receives at least the same status if not surpasses that of Western medicine (a debate about the usefulness of swine flu vaccines on the Six People show one day last week).

The science channels are starving, when did you last see a promo for their programs like the one for the Kabbalah channel (as usual mysticism masquerading as science gets priority). And it turns out that even the science news, which was filmed in advance for several months anyway, was canceled (imagine that the eight o'clock news for another two months will be filmed today...)

When there is an opportunity, we get rid of these channels with the help of the Cable and Satellite Council (Yes fired Discovery Sciences in exchange for the Hidbrot channel, see note in the previous section). It doesn't seem like anyone will give up the Good Life channel.

The sad results

In the absence of a good example, and on the contrary, due to the negative examples - the youth want to be celebrities and intellectuals and not scientists.

The Treasury can cut billions because no one understands what these nerds are doing anyway until one of them accidentally receives a Nobel Prize, and even that is forgotten after a few weeks.

The level of higher education is deteriorating - just a week ago we heard that all Israeli universities were dropped from the TOP 100 list.

In the end it will be reflected in GDP, in fact it has already come. Studies show that the level of applicants to universities is decreasing because of the failure of the education system; and that the lack of standards for young scientists causes the best minds to flee.


Require a minimum of science programs on the broadcast channels, just as there is a requirement for a minimum of drama, etc., and set standards that will require that these programs be of high quality (and it is possible to make quality documentaries about scientists, the state of science, etc.)

Require the maintenance of a scientific editor so that he can examine procurement plans, and have someone to consult with regarding original and new plans.

To encourage the new companies to engage in the field, and not oblige them to maintain a balance between a conventional doctor who favors swine flu vaccines and a homeopathic doctor who tries to oppose any vaccine whatsoever, as if these were two equal sides.

To improve the status of the scientific channels and to ensure that they have the means to purchase or produce more recent programs, as well as to know about their existence (for example through joint productions with the broadcast channels), as well as obligate them to maintain scientific editors who will stand guard so that these channels do not compete with the mysticism channels.

Prohibit broadcasts such as Mystique Time, at times when children may watch them.

The meeting was broadcast live on the Knesset channel.

On the same subject:

274 תגובות

  1. my father
    The Ministry of Education works specifically for equality in the level of education - by lowering the level to the minimum common denominator.
    Very sad.

  2. Jacob
    In my opinion, one of the main reasons for the "brain drain" is the decline in education. To succeed as a smart person in an environment of those who lack understanding is very difficult. The GDP depends, as I understand it, on the average education and not on the number of geniuses in the country.
    So no matter how you look at it, I think you're wrong.

  3. The claim that the decrease in the level of higher education will lead to a decrease in GNP is fundamentally wrong because even if the level of education was high the GNP would remain the same because of the "brain drain" which means the answer to all your questions is: in the end the scientists are no different from the famous And they care about the GNP just like the celebrities care about science. Regarding the "runaway" scientist, he understands that it is more profitable to work abroad both in terms of working conditions and in terms of the prestige associated with institutions abroad (reminds me a bit of the celebrity you were talking about)

  4. Deciding for the entire population that there are "forbidden" areas of interest is in the possession of dictatorial stupidity that exists only in totalitarian countries, which control the media for their selfish needs.

    This is not about content that calls for violence, racism or harm to human rights and/or his body. All in all a bit of mysticism; nothing happened.

    Ethics precedes science and existence, and it is unethical to restrict content just because you disagree with it (again, as long as the content does not call for harming others). It's time to realize - scientific truth is not more important than freedom of thought.

  5. Nadav:
    It's just unbelievable.
    Maybe you haven't noticed that in all dictatorships the rulers come from among the people - that is - there is a flow from the oppressed layer - also to the leadership layer.
    If you read what you are repeatedly referred to regarding Scientology you will also be able to see exactly how this happens in Scientology.
    Among other things - it is surely a matter of understanding the fact that it is a lie. It is not part of the formal procedure but it is necessary for motivation.
    You can of course ignore the facts as you wish, but those who do not ignore the facts know that even today Scientology has leadership.
    This leadership is entirely corrupt and it grew out of the believers.
    Therefore - what you think is illogical is something that clearly happened in practice and as they say - a fact is also a fact.

  6. Shhh/Nadav the complaint about the abuse of your provider is on its way. Let's ask the question differently. Can you determine for YNET what to publish and what not? After all, every comment is checked there before it is published. Just because people are given credit here until they prove otherwise (like you) is no reason to abuse it. Your blocking in any case is because of your behavior towards other surfers, and after you changed IP like crazy, it is clear that your intention is malicious, to sabotage the normal operation of the website. You should take an example from Ron, who did the same as you and started shelling out nonsense and now agreed to settle for one response to the article so as not to be blocked.

  7. I understood very well, you did not understand, what you define as lies, others define as innocent faith, there is no necessity for the religious or Scientology establishment to act maliciously or dishonestly, if the motives of the common people and the motives of the establishment are the same, then it cannot be said that the establishment acts maliciously and takes advantage of the vulnerable The innocent, it's just not true.

  8. Michael, you sound like the people of the conspiracy theories, you create an artificial differentiation between the people of some establishment and the ordinary people and create the impression that they act from different motives, while in most cases the people of the establishment themselves believe in the same things as the ordinary people and act according to the same belief and not according to the desire to exploit people. Even in religion there are people who at a certain moment are simple people and then they become establishment people so what when they got to the establishment suddenly they realized the terrible lie they were living and decided to continue spreading it just to take advantage of other people?

  9. Since the behavior of the establishment is defined by Scientology and since it is not a democratic institution - there is no chance.
    And even if we ignore the special features of Scientology, in any case and in every religion, the establishment will remain committed to spreading lies and seducing people to serve it by believing in these lies.

  10. Father, the "blocking" is inappropriate behavior that aims to promote your extreme views and your preaching to the detriment of freedom of expression, complete disdain for anything that is not "scientific" and the pretense of a website that allows you to comment freely as long as it does not contradict your opinion.

    Michael, you are not taking into account the option that a certain establishment will be replaced by another, more decent establishment

  11. And for the thousandth time:
    I never suggested banning anyone from believing nonsense.
    Of course, Scientology, in the absence of an establishment, will probably cease to exist as a religion. There may probably be people here and there who will believe her nonsense, but every sting will be taken from her and my goal, regarding her, will be fully achieved.

  12. Shhh, besides getting punished for constantly trying to get around the block due to inappropriate behavior, you also keep spreading lies. You have received Ron Hubbard's explicit quote, and you are welcome to read it in the Scientology entry on Wikipedia. Beyond that, the legitimacy of spiritual ideas of any kind must always be denied, because the spirit is only found in one place - in the atmosphere.

  13. Michael, you may be right about the Scientology establishment and it really is a corrupt establishment that exploits people.
    But this still does not mean that the legitimacy of the spiritual ideas it represents and the right of people to express them and engage in should be denied, just as a slaughtered rabbi does not deny the legitimacy of religious belief or a slaughtered scientist does not deny the legitimacy of scientific thinking. If there is any section in The Scientology "Torah" that calls for exploiting people and stealing their money, bring it and I take back what I said and agree with you that Scientology is something that should be banned, otherwise I will continue and demand that you separate the ideas themselves and their legitimacy from the people and how they use them to exploit and harm others

  14. And an extension regarding the foundation of arguments on ignorance.
    You write that you do not know how the Scientology establishment works in general and use this ignorance to "disprove" the claim that it is grossly corrupt.
    I mean - because you don't know, then it may be true that he is corrupt, but it could also be otherwise.
    This is not a case of referring to something without knowing, but in good faith, but using the ignorance as an argument against facts that were claimed!
    So first of all, so you don't have an excuse, read here so you know at least something:

    You probably also remember the story that was published recently about Tom Cruise not being allowed to enter Germany as part of his main role in the film about the assassination of Hitler and the fact that his entry was denied due to his Scientology

  15. Nadav:
    In the spirit of your response, I can only answer you "You do what you do here on the site all the time and that is to discredit me".
    There is no doubt that there are fools who believe in Scientology just like that and they were not punished.
    The one who is punished is the establishment that exploits those fools.
    Being gullible is not a past.
    Exploiting children is a past.
    This is what the Scientology establishment does and this is what the establishment of every religion does.

  16. Michael, I don't need to know anything in order to refute arguments, you do what you do here on the site all the time, you create delegitimization of certain opinions, beliefs and concepts by giving the examples where people misuse and hurt those beliefs or opinions, this is how you make a New Age religion, Mysticism and every possible opinion or concept that goes against your idols - the laws of logic.
    I'm not knowledgeable enough about Scientology, but I have a feeling that there are also just people who believe in it, engage in it, and don't cheat and steal money from others, and to say that Scientology is fraudulent is to lump all these people into a group of fraudsters, something you don't know for sure, and even if all those involved in Scientology are fraudsters, it's still Not a reason to delegitimize the Torah itself, unless it says that a person should cheat people and rob their money, which I have already said makes it invalid for me

  17. Nadav:
    I did not expect any other response from you.
    I completely disagree with you, of course, and I really admire your ability to drink (false) arguments on the grounds that you don't know anything.

  18. I don't know how the Scientology establishment works in general. It could be that it has been slaughtered from the ground up, and it could be that this is one church that has shrunk, Scientology as I understand it is a kind of philosophy of life that is based on all kinds of pseudo-scientific and mythological things. Saying that Scientology has been fined, you are doing something dishonest, the newspapers do it because they are looking for explosive headlines and it is also dishonest, generalizing and upsetting just as it would have upset me a headline like "Science determines - a force from the future causes malfunctions in the particle accelerator" the thing is that such a headline would also have upset me you but you don't hesitate to use the same manipulation towards things you don't agree with and it's dishonest

  19. Clarification for those for whom the stupidity that Nadav attributes is true:
    Murder has never been punished. Punishments were given only to murderers but not to murder.
    The same applies to all crimes - the punishment is given to the offenders.
    Therefore, when they write that Scientology has been fined (as many newspapers do), they are of course referring to the Scientology establishment.
    This is not about members of this establishment taking advantage of Scientology in an unusual way, but about the fact that this is how the Scientology establishment works in general. That is why the church was also fined and not only leaders within it.

    Here are some more links:,0,6643393.story

  20. Nadav:
    I was debating whether to post a link with a correction to what I heard on the radio because I knew in advance that you would start comparing words with what I wrote without referring to the meaning.
    For some reason you choose to treat the link as contradicting what I wrote and not as something I added so people could read the exact details.
    Since it is already so obvious that all your pointless words are written out of personal persecution, I have no interest in continuing
    The conversation is with you.

  21. The science of the soul is of course much more comprehensive and inclusive than all the natural sciences, because it is invented and therefore there is no problem adding properties and consequences to it. The paper endures everything.
    : )

  22. Hello my father,
    I did not notice that you are the editor of the scientist - sorry.
    In any case, when they finish dismantling the atom, they will find nothing and it is already known that light is the only energy that creates or is capable of creating matter (and this is only the light that is detected by our senses by measuring devices adapted to our senses).
    The science of the soul is much more comprehensive and inclusive than all the natural sciences for the simple reason that it explains and simplifies the "why" as a cause and not the "how" as a result.
    The "Kabbalah" is the physics of the soul and the soul is the only thing that separates us as a degree of desert into the degrees of the living, the vegetative and the inanimate (although they are also included in us), and in science as in science, the more basic and simpler the form, the more refined it is (I want to say - the inanimate is more refined from the plant and so on).
    Thanks anyway.

  23. I'm sure you won't say the next time a scientist is arrested that science was arrested and put in jail, this is the type of statement that results from deliberate bias and twisting, bias, dishonesty at its best

  24. Michael, I don't believe that you preach honesty when you yourself practice dishonesty over and over again, loudly proclaim here that "Scientology" was fined, reading the article shows that Scientology was not fined but people who exploited people illegally -

    Investigators said the group pressured members into paying large sums
    of money for questionable financial gain and used "commercial harassment" against recruits.
    And I also don't understand how you still don't understand the difference between a lie and murder or theft, murder or theft directly violates the basic rights of another person, a lie does not necessarily harm and the lies do directly and clearly harm someone, of course they should be avoided, you really forgot that we were talking About the fact that the essence is whether someone is hurt or are you being stupid?

    תגובה 58

    "Michael, drugs are prohibited because they can directly cause you to lose your judgment and hurt another person, they cause addiction and physical dependence, there is no comparison here at all to one mystical Torah or another, if they taught a mystical Torah about a special spirit that tells to murder people, then of course I would Opposing this Torah, you are constantly running away to the fine line between a lie and a lie that hurts people directly and clearly"

  25. Good and relevant news:
    I just took a short trip to pick up something from friends.
    On the way I turned on the radio and if I'm not mistaken I heard the following news:
    "France has outlawed Scientology".

  26. Nadav:
    I do not agree with your words.
    In my opinion, the prohibition of dishonest actions is a necessary step on the way to internalizing the choice not to perform them.
    We both want people to pay income tax and not kill or steal out of free choice and none of us would even think of repealing the laws that prohibit these actions based on the argument (the strangest, in my opinion) as if outlawing them harms people's ability to avoid them out of free choice.
    In my opinion, this is also true in relation to lying and I did not find in your words even a hint of a reason why lying is fundamentally different.
    As I said - the only fundamental difference is the ability to prove the matter of transfer and this difference is the only source of the absence of laws on the subject.

    The media is about spreading information.
    I did not suggest that a member of the media who someone suggests to him to broadcast something he considers to be a malicious lie should in any way prevent him from telling the lie. I only said that if this is what he thinks - that he should not assist him in spreading the lie.

  27. Michael, it is completely clear to me that we do not live in the ideal world and that is why I support the imposition of tax payments and laws in general, but when a certain law harms our ability to ever reach an ideal world, then I oppose it, the banning of opinions, beliefs and teachings to be published and expressed in an accident that there is a probability X that they are false This is something that I think is incorrect and wrong and I have already explained countless times why.

    Regarding the education system, you again use problematic examples to justify a weak argument. You turn a passive action into an active one and thus lose the rationale. You don't have to spread the lie to strengthen the truth, but you do have to allow it to be expressed. To spread the lie means to agree with it, to allow it to be expressed means to understand that its existence in the world stems from more primary reasons and its imprisonment will not remove them.

    You may not want that in your ideal world people would not want to lie, but in your way of thinking, you make it so that the ban on lies may make the lies appear but will leave under the surface the reasons why people wanted to lie in the first place because these lies will never be given a chance to face the truth.

  28. Nadav:
    It turns out that the debate is also about what the debate is about.
    I did not say that there is no difference between what the state chooses to teach and what is allowed or not allowed to be said in the media.
    I repeat and mention that I presented the subject of creationism as proof that no sane person thinks that spreading a lie is the way to get people to discover the truth.
    Your description of my ideal world is also incorrect.
    In my ideal world, people don't want to lie at all.
    In a slightly less ideal world, they are not allowed to lie.
    In the real world, I propose a law that would make people not help liars lie.
    I don't know from what I said you could conclude that in my ideal world people want to lie.
    I will return for a moment to the income tax example.
    I guess even in your ideal world people would pay income tax willingly.
    Does this make you object to charging income tax payments by law?

  29. Michael, this debate has gone on long enough, I am glad that you are against the enactment of a law that restricts broadcasts of mysticism at any hour, I do not agree with you about your opinion on lying, nor about the fact that there is no difference between what the state chooses to teach in school and what is allowed or not allowed to be said in the media, but this subject for another discussion.

    For me, the difference between us comes down to this

    Your ideal world is a world where people want to but are not allowed to lie,
    My ideal world is a world where lying is allowed but people choose out of understanding and maturity not to do so.

    You will work for the advancement of your world by raising various restrictions on the lies, I will work for mine by empowering the freedom of expression more and more until all the lies are tried to die out of the belief that sunlight (the truth) is the best disinfectant

  30. And in any case - even if you continue to believe that there is justification for a different law regarding the curriculum - I repeat that the law was not the reason for the fact that I mentioned creationism (my last response shows that for a moment you managed to mislead even me on this matter).
    I just wanted to show you that when you really want people not to "buy" lies - no sane person thinks that the right way to do this is to lie to them and leave the work to the sunlight.

  31. Nadav:
    Why do I have to explain this again?
    I never suggested limiting the Mystique broadcasts to certain hours.
    I only went against what I thought and was later confirmed by you as you wish to give a lie its due.
    You just read my bill and it does not use force of arms.
    By the way - this is a proposal that is even less draconian than the proposal to ban the teaching of creationism because, in contrast to the blanket ban in the curriculum, I am talking about a responsible judgment (one that the judge is willing to take responsibility for) but independent of the ones who set the broadcast schedule.
    Rather, a blanket ban on mysticism broadcasts was more similar to a restriction on creationism.
    The difference you make between the curriculum and television broadcasts is completely artificial, in my opinion, and the fact is that the opponents of the opposition to restricting the curriculum also flaunt freedom of expression.
    And by the way, what do you think if they defined certain broadcasting hours as a voluntary part of the curriculum?

  32. To Gongman, if it uses terms from mysticism, looks like mysticism (importance for example to letters or dates) and acts like mysticism then it is mysticism. It is true that the Kabbalists claim that it is science, but their Torah does not meet any scientific criteria. Their use of scientific jargon is one big rant. Maybe that's why it's convenient for them that people don't really know science. Anyone who knows science even at a basic level understands that this is a hodgepodge of nonsense. What's more, in the last hundreds of years, no one talks about counting and the like. It is a relic from the time before Copernicus realized that we orbit the sun.
    What's more, astrology is a tool that is used in Kabbalah, and is the father of the fathers of mysticism.
    Need more explanation?

  33. That is, in your opinion, is it right to exclude mysticism broadcasts from the law during certain hours?

  34. In the same stage, it is not what is included in the curriculum and what is not, but what is allowed or not allowed to be said in the media due to freedom of speech, the inclusion or non-inclusion of certain subjects in the curriculum is a completely different matter and if we enter it, we will open another new and endless debate that I really don't like.

    Stick to the point, are you against the force of arms and the banning of the broadcast of mystic programs at certain hours or not?

  35. Hello to the writer, why do you think Kabbalah is mysticism? Perhaps because you have not yet gained any understanding about this filthy and beastly world, and you have not yet been exposed to a better world that exists around us and only our five-pointed mind cannot absorb it...

  36. And the "truth" behind malicious lies is always a matter of self-interest and nothing else.

  37. I spoke about creationism for one and only reason: if the presentation of the lie was a good way, not all the objects of eradicating this error would be fighting against its teaching in schools. I wanted to show you that you also do not think that giving a platform equal to a lie is a good way to eradicate it and that you also think that not teaching creationism does not lead to its perpetuation.

    I assume you noticed that I didn't suggest anything involving force of arms and all I said was that people who approve content for broadcast will agree to stand behind the claim that they don't know that the content is a malicious lie.

  38. The lie comes from a need, for some reason, people who lie lie because of something that is real to them, they will never be able to grow beyond this something if their lies are not put in front of the truth and their mouths are not shut by force of arms.

  39. Michael, no one talked about what a country should choose to teach in its education system, we talked about freedom of speech as a result of my father's desire to ban programs on New Age at certain hours by law, stop avoiding places where your argument sounds stronger, but for other reasons Completely.

    Regarding the ideal world, we all want there to be a world in which everyone will always tell the truth, but I do not want a world that prevents human society from developing to a level of true understanding that lying is not necessary by perpetuating the lie forever in the area of ​​things that must not be said or acted upon. An ideal world is not only a goal or a way to a goal.

  40. Banning the teaching of creationism in schools does not strengthen creationism.
    No one improves the teaching of arithmetic by teaching a lesson in which it is asserted that one plus one equals three.
    I think you're taking a practice that exists out of choice (it's hard to prove that a malicious lie is one) and presenting it as a target.
    I think this is a wrong approach.
    I don't think it is the property of most people (in fact, I think most people tend to silence others even without a malicious lie and I think they are wrong about that) but there is also no reason for any of us to take an example from "most people" when it comes to formulating his perception of the ideal world.
    The concept of the "ideal world" is meant to remind us where we have made concessions for practical reasons and the issue of not prohibiting lying by law is, in my opinion, such a situation.
    It also makes it possible to propose amendments to the law when an idea arises for a practical way to get closer to the ideal situation (and I really think that an amendment of the type I proposed would improve the law and especially our lives in its shadow).

  41. Michael, even non-malicious lies were illuminated by the light of truth and exposed and they are still repeated and presented for a multitude of different reasons, of error, misunderstanding, disagreement and a million other reasons, this is an endless and legitimate struggle by virtue of our being a free society that changes and changes what is considered true and false all the time, There are people who believe in white lies and that sometimes you have to lie in order to promote a higher goal in their opinion, I personally do not agree with this, but freedom of speech also allows such people to act, as long as they do not directly infringe on other fundamental rights, there is no fundamental right "the human right not to hear anything false Directed by his friend" and therefore lying in itself is not prohibited by law and it is good that it is so.

    There is really no point in continuing the debate, you are welcome to continue amplifying the deliberate lies and giving them extra importance by supporting the prohibition of telling them and by force of arms and taking them underground, but know that this is not the accepted interpretation of freedom of speech, in fact I think you already know that.

  42. Nadav:
    I do not agree with you at all.
    Nor is this about exposing lies - malicious lies have already been illuminated in the light of the truth and exposed and they are repeated and presented with the intention of manipulating people without any connection to the truth.
    It seems to me that there is no point in continuing the debate.

  43. Michael, the judges did not refer to motivation because freedom of speech also has the role of exposing the lies to illuminate them with the light of truth, also and perhaps especially in light of the fact that there are people with negative motivation and their lies must not be given special priority.

    Look at the absurdity, if you accept that the judges believe that the best and correct way to fight lies is to confront them with the truth, then why give special treatment to the lies of negatively motivated people?

    Freedom of expression is a democratic principle. It is not based on the distinction between absolute good and absolute evil, but only on the democratic principle of allowing maximum freedom to the maximum number of people - yes, even the malicious liars, even the most despicable people who walked the earth, they also have freedom of expression, to lie, to misrepresent, you It does not refer at all to the examples I showed you that lying is allowed and there is no principle or interpretation of freedom of expression that prevents it, I can say that I was in Zanzibar yesterday even though the TV cameras filmed me in Tel Aviv, this is a deliberate, malicious, absolute and clear lie and yet no one will prevent me from saying That's if it doesn't hurt anyone.

    In my opinion, the debate between the judges revolved around whether this lie harms the security of the state in any way by crushing myths on which Israeli nationalism is founded, and thus the opinions differ, there are even those who will say that myths, even though they are lies, are necessary for society and must be protected - not that I agree if this is the case nor that I think that is the case As for Hana Sanesh, for me she is a real hero.

  44. And of course - for the thousandth time - the judges did not refer to motivation because the law does not refer to motivation and this is because there is no reliable enough way to find out motivation. If there was such a way I guess the laws would be different too.

  45. Nadav:
    First of all, you make sure to hide the fact that there was a disagreement between the judges.
    Besides - you make sure to ignore the main thing that I keep repeating, which is that what differentiates here between "good" and "bad" is the motivation that the judges did not address.
    If you don't understand the difference between "dividing the lies between malicious lies and lies in good faith" and "dividing the lies according to/not the spaghetti monster" then we probably don't have any common ground for discussion.

  46. Michael, the judges said unequivocally that even an absolutely certain lie must be published, they did not qualify in any way that certain absolutely certain lies should be prohibited and others not, they justified this later by saying that even the most malicious and slanderous lies should be published and explained why, the same explanation Loses its validity even for a deliberate lie

    What reason do you have to assume from the judges' conclusion that a certain type of lie is prohibited for publication? And if such an assumption is already an assumption, why not give priority to a certain type over another type of lies? For example, various Spaghetti Monster lies
    Doesn't the group of deliberate lies belong to the group of absolute true lies? Where is your logic?

    It is clear that you confess it from your heart, it is clear that it can be understood from the judges' conclusion that all types of lies are allowed to be published.

  47. And by the way - although, as I said, it is not possible to know what the opinion of two of the three judges is, but the opinion of the judge in the minority position can also be known because he thought that the screening of the film should be banned, or in other words - that not only the desired law but even the existing law is not permits its projection.

  48. Nadav:
    I don't have to do anything for my words to "become" true.
    They are true in the first place.
    I don't know why you think I said it's illegal to lie. After all, I said that this is not the case, but that it is the result of a lack of choice and not of a decision that a malicious lie is useful.
    It is not possible to know what the opinion (two out of three) of the judges is on this matter from the verdict.
    They talked about the law and the words but not about the intention behind them.
    I understand that we disagree about what is good and what is bad when I think the malicious lie is harmful and you think the malicious lie is helpful.
    Okay - we already said that.
    Something else?

    And with regard to the example of the machine - I told you - according to your attitude so far - I do not want to enter into a debate about its nature because I do not believe that it will remain my concern.
    I explained to you, on the other hand, why opposition to this type of machine says nothing about the current debate.

  49. Michael, I can't believe that you keep saying the same things every time as if they will become true -
    It is also permissible to lie malicious lies, I showed you this from the judgment of the Supreme Court and I showed the reasons and rationale for it from the words of the philosopher George Stewart and also in my own words, if I want I can call a press conference and say - "that the spaghetti monster attacked me and told me that she Sent by a rhinoceros with one leg that came from another dimension, "No one will stop me, I'm allowed to lie, I'm allowed to lie, how many times can I repeat this?"

    Regarding inserting devices into people's minds, I hope you don't suggest something like reading or blocking certain thoughts, because then not only do you not understand the meaning of freedom of expression, but also the meaning of freedom of thought and the right to privacy.

  50. I must emphasize another thing and that is that the problematic nature of such a device does not belong to the matter of legality.
    For example - tax evasion is formally illegal.
    Would you agree to having a device implanted in people's brains that prevents them from evading tax?

  51. I repeat and emphasize - I would be happy for the possibility to ban malicious lies by law and in my opinion most honest people would be happy to do so.
    The reason this is not done and that lies are protected by free speech is that a malicious lie simply cannot be detected with certainty.

  52. I said that people do not understand freedom of speech because I deduced from the spirit of what was said that you support freedom of speech for the lies of liars.
    In your comments later you did prove that my conclusion was correct and therefore I still claim that if you stand on this point you do not understand the meaning of freedom of speech.
    Freedom of speech is meant to give different opinions a chance to compete with each other but a lie is not an opinion but manipulation.
    That's why I also proposed the mechanism I proposed.

    The device proposed by Aldous Huxley is not a device for honesty but a device for zombies.
    The price is too great.
    I said (and you chose to ignore) that other devices could come to mind and I gave an example of a "device" consisting of neural connections created through education.
    I can imagine other suitable devices, but I don't want to open a new discussion at the moment, especially in light of the fact that devices of the type I'm thinking about are still science fiction (perhaps on occasion - when I feel that the atmosphere is business-like enough and there's no danger of personal attacks, I can share with you the idea I'm talking about - also I am still not sure that I agree with him - but I am sure that he is very interesting and really sharpens the question of what is allowed and what is not allowed to be done in the mind of a person).

    I am completely consistent in my opinions and statements.

  53. Michael regarding the explanation you requested:
    My first reaction to this article was

    "It seems to me that everyone here agrees on the importance of broadcasting quality scientific content for all ages
    But I agree with Yael, there are drifts here, in the call to ban broadcasts of mysticism at certain hours, freedom of expression and thought are the cornerstones of a free society, the same society from which scientific thinking itself arose, to harm them is to harm science and what it represents, what's more To bring mysticism and the New Age into the underground where these teachings will become martyred sanctities and will enchant people much more."

    Your response that referred to her was…

    "I think people misunderstand the expression "freedom of speech".
    Freedom of speech is not meant to give people the freedom to lie or deceive others.
    It is true that there are cases in which it is difficult to expose a lie and in such cases one must judge the speaker, but there are also many cases in which the lie is obvious and in these cases there is no sense in helping the liar with the freedom of speech.
    This is why denial of the Holocaust is prohibited, this is why the publication of blood plots must be prohibited and this is why there are mechanisms in the law such as lawsuits for libel.
    Most of the New Age claims are just flat out lies.
    Sometimes the lie is in the presentation of claims that are known to be untrue and sometimes the lie is in the presentation as if claims the degree of truth of which is not known to be true.
    That's not what freedom of speech is for."

    You answered my claim that my father was carried away by proposing to ban mysticism broadcasts at certain hours according to law, you said that you are in favor of banning the publication of any deliberate lie and you declared that most of the New Age claims are clear and distinct lies and you brought all this as a counter argument to my claim that banning the publication of mysticism programs is wrong and offensive in freedom of expression.

    Regarding honesty, I don't agree with you that it should come from anywhere possible, in my opinion even you don't agree with you...

    "A device of this type and with a similar intention was also presented, as I said, by Aldous Huxley who really proposed hallucinogenic drugs as a device to prevent violence.
    I specifically oppose this device..."

    And here is already one place for honesty that you do not agree with, it's a shame that you are not consistent.


  54. On the other hand - I definitely think that the law I am proposing will prevent broadcasts of mysticism at certain hours (which are all hours of the day)

  55. Nadav:
    It would be interesting to hear from you an explanation of my wonderful ability to deviate from a topic I have never discussed and a proposal I have never made.

    As for honesty - it should come from any possible source.
    Education can also be beneficial, but education can also be harmful.
    A law in the format I described can only be helpful.
    He will not drag anyone into becoming a little head but will oblige the people to confront themselves and make the right decision since both the prevention of broadcasting and its approval will be open to criticism and the criticism will be targeted.
    The idea is that people should not sell others claims that they believe are deliberately false.
    I am sure that a claim that is not a deliberate lie will always find at least one media source who will agree to broadcast it.

  56. Michael, now you are deviating to a new and completely different thing, I am glad that you agree with me that it is impossible to enact a law that prohibits broadcasts of mysticism at certain hours, as far as I am concerned this debate is over and I hope that my father will also get out of this matter.
    Regarding what you said later, I didn't quite understand the idea, but I think that honesty is something that should come from education and values ​​that a person imparts to himself and his surroundings, there is no sense in forcing honesty on people who don't want to be honest, they will always find a way to bend and distort the law, after all those people They also enforce the laws and therefore any legal system will not be complete with honesty not coming from the people's choice and that is good.

    What's more, it seems to me that what you are proposing regarding the television will lead people to be small-minded and not take risks at all, for example, no controversial or overly complicated content will be shown on the television because people will not want to get involved with the possibility that there was some lie that they missed.

  57. Another extension:
    The above is a private case of a general mechanism for ensuring honesty and it is suitable for many situations.
    Think, for example, of a law requiring an insurance company's appraiser to agree - for a fee of, say, NIS 100 - to finance the repair of the vehicle for the amount he determined as the size of the damage, or of a law requiring the authority that imposes an improvement levy on the citizen according to a certain valuation of the property, to agree to buy the property for the amount she asks for (and at the same time - when there is a dispute and the citizen takes a lower amount - to oblige him to agree to sell the property for this amount plus a certain fee).
    The idea is simple: a person should be obliged to stand behind the things he says.

  58. Expansion to the two previous responses:
    When I said that they would agree to say that they don't know if there was a lie in the broadcast, I mean of course that they studied the content of the broadcast and after the study they don't know - not that they don't know because they weren't interested in what was broadcast.

    The idea behind this proposal is that the person who approves the content of the broadcast knows that he is tying his name to them and will not want to lie himself (knowing that people - at least some - do not like liars).

  59. Nadav:
    We are all law-abiding here and no one wants to encourage infringement of freedom of expression.
    What I do want to do is oblige the TV channels to prefer truth to lies.
    I don't know how to tell them how to differentiate between them, but I want to oblige them to approve for broadcast only broadcasts that, after they are broadcast - if someone asks them their opinion - they will agree to say that in their opinion there was no lie in the broadcast.

  60. Michael, we all agree here that "quality" is better than ratings, I think we all have a similar definition of what constitutes "quality content" of television programs, but the debate is whether this preference should be caused by the enactment of laws prohibiting the broadcasting of certain programs and infringing on freedom of expression.

  61. Nadav:
    I returned to the media for two reasons:
    Both because the intention was to require them to dedicate time and resources to science broadcasts and also because in my opinion they should be required to have a conscience.
    You talk as if they don't choose what to broadcast when they actually do.
    The problem is that today the only consideration is rating and not quality.
    My dangerous opinion is that quality should be preferred over ratings.

  62. Michael, I have already told you that you have the right to hold this dangerous opinion, just don't create a presentation as if this is the accepted interpretation of freedom of speech because it is not, it is your interpretation that the publication of anything that we have come to the conclusion that is "likely" to be a deliberate lie should be prohibited. And thank God (or nature) that this is only your interpretation

    And you return to the media again, this is not the subject of the debate at all, there is a debate here about whether there should be a law in a free country that prohibits broadcasts of mysticism and New Age at certain hours, it seems to me that you are running away from this issue because you also already understand that such a law is dangerous and wrong

  63. And one more thing, Nadav:
    In order to be indifferent about the behavior of the media I didn't have to believe in the sentence "every media has an opinion and has the right to express it" but in the sentence "every media has an economic interest and the right to express it"

  64. Nadav:
    As I said - the words were aimed first and foremost at agnostics who are not crazy people of the type you described.
    Such lunatics - if they do exist (and I don't think so) do not interest me. Let them believe what they want and as far as I'm concerned - in that parallel world they'll even do what they want!
    But I will not tolerate in this world an action directed against me.
    My father has an opinion and he is allowed to try to convince whoever he wants of it - even the members of the Knesset.
    According to this strange opinion - lying is bad and when it is clear that the person is knowingly lying it is better not to let him spread the lie.
    The only difficulty - as far as I'm concerned - is in the possibility of detecting a lie, but - as in any other issue - people - including media managers are entitled and even must use their logic and if they feel that they know it is a deliberate lie - not to give the speaker a platform.

  65. If you really believed in "media has an opinion and has the right to express it" you would not support my father's fight to ban mysticism broadcasts by law

  66. Michael "These people" believe in a world outside of our world in which there are other laws, I did not claim that they do not accept that in our world the laws of logic determine and they act according to them, they only believe that there is something beyond that which is not subject to it, such a belief cannot be dealt with using logic and already I explained it, even if you explain to them that their belief stems from such and such logical reasons, you will still be subject to the same logic that they believe does not exist in the other world.
    "The media has an opinion and has the right to express it" - I agree with you, so why turn to the Knesset to force certain media to express certain opinions and prevent others?

  67. Nadav:
    But of course I don't agree with the matter of the stage being equal to truth and lies.
    I'm interested in how you allow yourself to write only comments that express your opinion and not comments that contradict it.
    Aren't you a sinner to the principle of the equal stage?
    The media has an opinion and has the right to express it and not to express other opinions.

  68. Besides, one should take into account the fact that my answer was given to Moshon who spoke about agnosticism.
    Agnostics are usually people who act logically - not just secretly - but openly and the probabilistic arguments are designed to convince such a person that the term atheist "does the job" better.

  69. Nadav:
    I agree with your conclusion about the people you describe.
    Luckily there are none.
    In my opinion, there are those who claim that they are like this only to repel logical arguments that contradict their opinion, but they will struggle to adopt any logical argument that would confirm it.
    They will also rely on logic and the laws of probability when they cross the road and they will prefer that my children go to the army instead of their children because the chance of dying in a Torah tent is lower than the chance of dying in the army.

  70. Father, I have no problem with the law demanding an equal and fair platform for all common opinions and beliefs, on the contrary, this is exactly the meaning of freedom of expression, if that's what you fight for, I'm in your favor. Let the lie be on an equal stage with the truth and what will win will be the truth, when you put the lie and the truth on different platforms you are actually harming the power of the truth, and you are the reasons I have already given

    Think about it even probabilistically, let's say there is a false version and a true version of something, then it is necessary that there is another true version that shows how the false version was created and cancels it,

    That's why the ambition is to go forward and strengthen freedom of expression as much as possible without seriously infringing on other fundamental rights, this is the preferred situation, because that way you allow the truth to triumph over the lie without having to determine what the truth is - something we can never absolutely do.

    Michael, regarding the probability of God's existence, if you are a person who believes in transcendence (and I don't, by the way), you believe that there is a separate world whose laws are different from the laws that operate in this world, all the laws of logic, including probability, do not apply there, and therefore there is no way to draw or establish conclusions based on logic On the same world, logic cannot deal with claims whose basic premise is that the laws of logic are null and even if it tries to explain their origin or reason, logic will do so in accordance with its own laws and not in accordance with the laws that these claims require as a basic premise

  71. Mushon:
    Regarding atheism:
    I didn't just send you the links.
    The word agnosticism is correct but it does not reflect the situation well because it places the existence of God on the same level of probability as his non-existence.
    In my opinion most atheists are agnostic but the word atheism conveys their opinion better.
    In this regard - the link from TED explains the choice of the word very well.
    Do you believe your name is Mushon? Yes! You don't really know anything. Right?
    Does this mean you are agnostic about your name?
    Anyway - it's none of our business.
    If someone wants to believe in the flying spaghetti monster - let him be.

    Regarding the personal interpretation:
    Even when Dawkins takes down the garbage he is not fulfilling his role as a scientist.
    Most scientists do not perform their role as scientists for most of their lives (they eat, sleep and engage in other activities that the paper will not bear describing on paper).
    Conscientious scientists dedicate part of their time to working to improve the condition of the human race.
    Every scientific theory is an interpretation of the one who invented it.
    Equally - any interpretation worthy of its name is a scientific theory.
    There is no point in trying to dismiss any opinion just because it is someone's personal opinion. The only proper reference is to the opinion itself.

  72. Regarding point 1:

    Obviously, each person has their own personal opinion.
    The only question I raised is whether the same scientist adds an interpretation
    his own personal to a certain theory, an interpretation that does not exist with science
    something, in order to promote some ideology - if so then it is
    Not fulfilling his role as a scientist.

  73. To Michael:
    (for now just a comment about atheism - I'm a bit short on time):

    The question of the existence of God is a philosophical and not an empirical question!
    And therefore the discussion here from the scientific point of view is equivalent to the question of how many angels
    Can be put on the head of a pin...

    Philosophically it is impossible to prove (in a logical way) the existence of God
    Because by its very definition as a concept that exists beyond the laws of logic, there is no point in either proof or disproof
    Therefore, whoever claims that there is a God or that there is no God does so solely on the basis of his faith.
    And not on the basis of any logical reasoning or empirical findings!

    The correct opinion (in my humble opinion) is agnosticism.


  74. An example of this is our Cuckoos such as Amnon Yitzchak and Zamir Cohen, American Cuckoos (mainly Protestants) who are currently fighting a horrendous war against abortion and evolution, the Catholic Church whose mission is its soul, the Islamic preachers who unknowingly convert millions of Americans and Europeans to Islam (one named Something like Mahmoud Christensen was interviewed in favor of building a mosque in Copenhagen) and more.

  75. Mushon:
    For section 1:
    Science is a method used by us to investigate the world.
    He has no active "role" in the world. Not even discovering the structure of the ribosome.
    Active roles are roles that humans take on.
    Scientists are human beings and as such - they also take on roles.
    When scientists and other people take upon themselves - for these and other reasons - the role of eradicating ignorance and evil, they find that one of the causes of these phenomena are religions, and therefore they fight against them.
    Those people also take on additional roles and therefore, you will be surprised, but there are also scientists who take down the garbage even though it is not the role of science.
    Faith has sayings about science. The statement that the world was created by God in six days is a claim about the field that science investigates.
    The statement that the rabbit ruminates is a claim about a field studied by science.
    In fact, a lot of the claims of religion are in the field researched by science and many of them contradict the scientific findings.
    A scientist does not have to be retarded to deal with the issue of mental retardation.
    In the same way, there is no need to be religious in order to address the issue of religious backwardness.

    For section 2:
    It's just bullshit.
    Are you saying that abstinence from drugs is also a form of smoking drugs?
    Atheism also does not *believe* in the non-existence of God in the same way that religious people believe in the existence of God because atheism is not a religion (there is no law of behavior that the atheist derives from his "belief".
    Science is not subject to any belief except the belief in the laws of logic and the validity of the scientific method.
    No one proposed to subordinate science to atheism and it amazes me that you "respond" to this kind of proposal.
    The human being is a creature that uses tools and you do not have the right to determine what tools a person who thinks that religion is harmful in his fight against religion will use.
    If science well exposes the lies of religion, then it is an excellent tool in this struggle.
    After all, the whole debate is about the question of what is true and the rational person knows that only with the scientific method can one find out what is true, therefore it is simply absurd to demand that he not use science.
    Is breathing meant to fight religion?
    Do you have an objection that those who fight religion will breathe?
    Those who take evolution as proof of the non-existence of God are the religious ones.
    That's why they fight it so resolutely.
    Sane people who take part in this debate are only reacting to this fact - either by defending evolution or by attacking the religious while exploiting the beliefs of those religious themselves.
    For section 3:
    I don't know why you think there is anyone in the world whose position on any subject is not "tainted" by his personal opinions.
    what did you want? To be "tainted" by your personal opinions?
    He observes the world - sees the facts - forms opinions (which can only be personal) and says what he thinks.
    Do you drive differently?
    I have already said that one does not have to be retarded to study retardation, but I do not exclude the investigation of the retarded themselves in order to study the phenomenon.
    There are many religious people here who comment on the site and they have often been asked about the advantages and disadvantages of religion.
    Of course they never provided any disadvantages and the advantages they gave seem to me all false.
    Do you think that a scientist should accept something that he considers false just because it was said by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef?

    There is no system for "in the skin of primitive opinions". It's not a bad destination at all - but not for war.
    In general - debates on the Internet are not wars and no one has ever gone to war because atheism or science ordered him to do so.
    As I said - there is no mitzvah either in atheism or in science and in particular there is no mitzvah in them to fight someone.
    Such mitzvot are found only in religions.
    As a general rule - no sane person will fight someone else's faith.
    He may argue with him to explain to him what he perceives as a mistake but fight? No way!
    War makes sense to wage only against those who act against you.

    The religions work against me.
    The call not to vaccinate people against diseases - as well as the other delusional conspiracy theories works against me.
    The call to compel schools to teach creationism works against me.
    Wasting my fee money works against me.
    Spreading lies and lies works against me.

    It is recommended that you view the following links:

  76. Moshon, you wrote "Like religion/belief does not and should not have any statement on science issues!."

    First you will convince the rabbis to change professions and then you will come with claims to those who are defending themselves against them.

  77. What exactly is the topic of the article?

    The amount of science programs on TV
    The amount of new age/spiritual programming on TV
    Outlawing religious studies in schools
    The attempt to fight religions and beliefs and define them by law as lies
    I don't exactly understand.

    To Michael:
    I don't like Dawkins' approach (his war on religion/faith, etc.) for several reasons:
    1- This is not the role of science-in and it should not have any say on the subject exactly
    As a religion/belief there is not and should not be any statement on science issues!.
    2-Atheism is also a type of faith (belief in the non-existence of God) and science should not be subject to any type of faith
    Not for atheism either, science is not a tool in the hands of ideologies/beliefs. And I oppose the recruitment of science
    to culture wars. Those who take the theory of evolution and treat it as a refutation of its existence
    God's is no less stupid than their creation!
    3-Dawkins' definition of religions and beliefs and their role in society is, in my opinion, tainted by his personal opinions
    And in his beliefs about them - just as I will not learn about the meaning of evolution from Rabbi Ovadia Yosef
    Nor am I going to ask Dawkins about the merits and demerits of faith in humanity.

    If the war is against exploitation/cheating and deceiving people - I'm in favor
    If the war is against the distortion of science and the covering up of science, I am in favor
    If the war is in favor of more science programs on television and in favor of expanding his studies at school - I am in favor
    If the war is against silencing science in the name of religion, I am in favor

    But if the idea is a complete scheme to clarify "primitive beliefs"
    And religions in general from the world - I'm not in favor! I've already seen where you're going
    us holy wars in the name of some sacred value (the truth?)...

    Science is not a religion and I am opposed to making it so, there are enough religions anyway!

    Good Day

  78. did you understand that blessed!
    Besides, the media people themselves were there and my father's words were addressed to them as well.
    Besides, Nadav, you won't finish me off.

  79. The people of the second channel do what is written in the law. If it says they should invest in drama, they invest in drama. If it says sports to them, they invest in sports. Science is not written for them, and those who should write are the legislators.

  80. You just don't finish, my father asked to ban the mysticism broadcasts in the Knesset, if I'm not mistaken the Knesset is the legislature not the place where the sane press is, when you turn to the legislators you ask them to legislate.
    Enacting a law that prohibits the transmission of mysticism broadcasts at a certain time is simply wrong, sick and dangerous. I have already explained enough times why

    If my father had turned to the second channel system and tried to convince of the damage caused by the New Age content, we would not have had an argument here at all, on the contrary I would have fully supported him.

  81. Nadav:
    I really don't care where you put the limits of free speech.
    A healthy society needs (to stay healthy) to prevent as much as it can dishonest acts.
    Each media entity is sovereign to decide to whom it gives more freedom of expression and to whom less.
    In the ultra-Orthodox press you will not find an article about evolution, and in the Galileo monthly you will not find an article about a bull hitting a cow.
    My father's right to call on the sane press to excommunicate these liars is perfectly legitimate and the whole saga you are dragging me into I am just sick of it.

  82. Michael, freedom of speech does not refer at all to the person who expresses the thing or his motives and despicability, freedom of speech refers to the things that are said, I have already given you the example of the murderer who was caught in a murder and convicted, he is still allowed to say that he is innocent, is there any doubt that he is a despicable person who lies a despicable lie? Why not silence him?

    The question that confronts freedom of expression is whether the things said can significantly harm other fundamental rights, that's all, it's not an attempt to punish the naysayers
    You prove again and again that you simply do not understand this principle

    Moshan, your style is much more vital and intelligent than Michael and my father's and for that I thank you

    I think that deception and deception in the discussed topics should also receive freedom of expression, as long as there is no direct harm to a person or any unequivocal danger, and this is for the reasons I have already mentioned in the previous responses in the words of the philosopher George Stewart in response 26 and the words of the judges of the Supreme Court - response 39. And for that, perhaps We will not agree

    I also completely agree with what you said about the free TV and media.

    Good night

  83. Mushon:
    Those who want hope can find a lot of hope in reality.
    Do you think the possessed and the exorcists are looking for hope?
    Do you think that those who think vaccines are harmful think so to have hope?
    Do you think the same about the other conspiracy theories?
    The biggest conspiracy theory is the denial of science and scientists. - Is it the result of a search for hope?
    In fact, this is a psychological phenomenon that hopefully has nothing to do with it.
    These - just like religions - are memes that have opened up a way to preserve themselves: viruses of thought.
    Only some of them can be attributed hope, but hope is not the source of their development and preservation, but the persistent sales efforts of the people who profit from them.
    Some of these efforts take advantage of television.
    Some try to take advantage of the knowledge site.
    You should read Dawkins' book about the oldest New Age - religion - and see why such things develop and survive.
    Hope has no part in it.
    But even if the things were hopeful they would be equivalent to hallucinogenic drugs and the question is whether you are ready to confirm the legitimacy of these as well.

    I have a problem with studying the Bible as an authoritative source of facts (and that's how it is studied most of the time), I have no problem with studying it in the right context - as the founding myth of Judaism.

  84. YouTube is just a medium

    There could be a Mozart concert or soft porn

    I started to listen - hand on heart I became dehydrated.

    Michael I love your comments -

    "I just skimmed over them" and ignored the report on global warming....

    Is your response supposed to give you an image of sophistication and power?
    This? Now I'm supposed to be passed out by your answer? Why just answer without meat? Why?

  85. This discussion reminded me of the following passage:

    Come on, Ron, with all the thousands of links you sent us, try to watch at least until 6:20, and listen to it from your most loyal source, so there's a good chance it's true.
    If you don't get there at least try until 3:14 and a bit.

  86. to anonymous:

    Just to make it clear that I completely agree with Michael and my father that this is an entire industry
    of mixing nonsense with scientific acetala and adding a stupid and stupid faith salad.

    But as long as these things are not in the scope of intentional misleading / cheating / and harming people
    I don't think you should "make a mess" and it should be seen as a psychological cultural phenomenon
    which stems from the motives I mentioned above...

    Good Day

  87. To my father: By the reason for the existence of beliefs I did not mean their peddlers (completely clear) but why they are bought in the first place, and since sometimes these are educated, rational and highly knowledgeable people, you will need a more convincing explanation than calling them fools who malicious fraudsters manage to mislead them (again and again and again...) .
    In my opinion, the problem with your and Michael's understanding in this discussion is that the consumers of the New Age (and other vegetables) are not looking for truth, are not looking for certainty, they are looking for hope, maybe this is an inevitable phenomenon of a self-conscious animal that is aware of the end of the battle... I find it hard to believe That there was such a phenomenon in a world where death did not rule.

    I never proposed an anarchy of skepticism, there are different degrees of doubt, very large doubt that fairies exist and very little doubt that relativity is wrong (even as a particular case of a larger theory).
    But everything is in doubt!

    To conclude: the gray area in which the mind can be confused is constantly getting smaller, so even though charlatans will always rise again, their living space is getting smaller all the time!

    LeMichael: I never even for a moment considered introducing creationism to school, but I have no problem with Bible studies. The problem begins with beliefs masquerading as science, this must be fought against all the more when it comes to the education system.

    But television? I would fight the violence that is shown there, the chauvinism and the glorification of the money that is constantly being pumped into the children's heads long before I would jump on some bald guy in his pants who chatters about chakras!

    This is my opinion and to it I add my desire to see a lot of science on TV including
    Current and regular science news as often as regular news!

    Good Day

  88. Mushon:
    The uncertainty principle - and quantum theory in general show us that the concepts we are used to from the macroscopic world do not correctly describe the microscopic entities and therefore also some of the questions we tend to ask are formulated - in terms of nature - in a clumsy way.
    I agree with you that, at least with regard to this way of phrasing the questions, the uncertainty principle places limits on the precision with which we can test the truth.

    What you define as "logical" is basically based on your choice of axioms.
    There is no prohibition to add axioms and increase the applicability of logic.
    That's why I don't know if there is any real meaning to that part of reality that you call "illogical".

    As a principle - as demonstrated by situations of infinity and as indeed demonstrated by the principle of uncertainty - at least in our current system of concepts - there are facts in reality that are inaccessible to experiment.

    All in all - I think we agree.
    Once (I don't remember right now if it was in this discussion or another and I don't have the strength to check) someone brought up as an example the possibility that we live in a matrix that creates a virtual reality for us.
    Even in this extreme scenario I told him that if that is the case then everything our knowledge can achieve is limited by that software system and there is no point in talking about what is beyond it.

    The New Agers often talk about "what's beyond" because they know that science can't hurt them there.
    They just gloss over the fact that they also have no idea what is going on there (and if there is such a thing at all - "there") and this is one of the lies I am talking about.

    Did you ask about lies?
    How about the following lie:
    "It's not for nothing that the public turns its back on institutionalized science (especially now in the age of the Internet) when the scientists and the government join hands in distorting science - against them!!"
    The public does not turn its back on science and the scientists and the government do not join hands in distorting science against the public.
    I really didn't delve into your words - I just skimmed them and found this false statement.
    I know many people in the public and the vast majority of them have not turned their backs on science. I know many scientists and none of them deals with the distortion of science and certainly has no connection with the government on this issue.
    By the way - with all the wind and whistles - you too probably rely on science almost every moment of your life - even when you turn on the light in the room.

    Some people don't understand freedom of speech.
    I didn't squirm even for a moment and the fact that you still don't understand this is out of my control.
    Freedom of speech is not meant to allow lies. He tolerates them sometimes - out of choice - only because it is often difficult to distinguish between a lie and the truth.
    This is also what was behind the judges' decision - in my opinion. None of us examines the kidneys and heart but I tend to believe that the judges are honest people who will not act especially to allow people to act dishonestly.
    Even when talking about a nasty lie - it is a feature of the lie and not of the liar.
    I still remember situations in which programmers who struggled for a long time with a certain malfunction in the software eventually rejoiced and said that they had discovered a "nasty bug" even though it was the programs they themselves wrote.
    Broadcasting lies on television can serve no useful purpose. When it comes to mysticism, it's thousands of years old lies that no exposure to light has done any harm to until this moment. It's because of the motivational thing of people who are leading perpetuum.
    But, Nadav, I'm sure your personal vendetta will continue.

    Mushon (171):
    Let's start by saying that I hope it is clear to you that the vast majority of scientists are of the opposite opinion to yours and are waging a stubborn war to prevent the teaching of creationism in schools.
    In my opinion, this war is completely justified and if it had not been waged, many more people would continue to believe in nonsense.
    Anyone who defends science in a debate knows that doubt is a cornerstone of science and precisely because of it, claims that have no corroboration and claims that even contradict reality must be cast with more doubt than the findings of science.
    Every person's time on earth is limited and the more time he spends on nonsense, the less time he will have for serious things.
    The people who sell false ideas because of religious or other agendas are simply (literally) wasting other people's lives.

  89. Moshon, read the writings and articles of the late Carl Sagan and you will realize that what you are saying is something ideal but not realistic. People's belief in superstitions stems from the fact that there are those who make a living from it and it has nothing to do with the truth. Often these people know it is a lie but prefer to cover it up. Have you read the meanderings of the Mahbatites when they try to make a forced connection between science (as they interpret it) and the Torah, or of those who practice alternative medicine who use medical jargons (again, as they understand them, but it does not matter for the purpose of the matter because the public don't know the jargon anyway).
    Since when does war with the enemy cause damage, is it better to throw up your hands and let them win? If so,. What is Yoel? After all, the number of fools is greater than the number of wise people, by our silence we will increase this number even more.
    The skeptics and the conspirators may be temporary, but since freaks don't die but are replaced every day, new ones arise - everyone remembers the prophecies about the end of the world in 1984 (ostensibly for a scientific reason - the alignment of all the planets in one line) or in 2000 (this time for a religious reason - the return of Jesus) and again in 2012 again for a religious reason this time of the Maya who did not know how to predict the end of their culture, about 1,200 years before the end of the calendar.
    Believe me there are beautiful and inspiring things. For example, go to the "Where in the Universe" category of the Universe Today website, why do we need fictional things, no matter how beautiful they are?
    The reason there are not enough rationalists is that the education system does not teach criticism. Skepticism does not mean absolute anarchism where all scientific truth is always in doubt and therefore should never be used because otherwise there is no science at all. Every scientific truth can be examined and challenged but as long as it prevails it must be taught.
    And again, mysticism does not arise from any need other than the need for people, as social animals, to follow the shepherd in the herd, even if sometimes it leads him to the abyss - these are the charlatans. You need to catch these fake scumbags, remove them from the herd and let the herd grow good scumbags, like Einstein did in his time.

  90. Moshon agrees with you, it's good that there are more sane and intelligent voices here
    Shabbat Shalom.

  91. To my father:
    The fundamental question is whether faith is a lie
    Is it a lie that may violate basic rights

    In my opinion, the attempt to oppose certain beliefs or go against them
    (Also beliefs that fight science such as the creationists)
    Scientific tools do more harm to science than good
    And this is because science is supposed to doubt!, even in its results
    (This is why he is advancing at such a pace) and during the holy wars
    These people begin to mistakenly believe that the discoveries of science
    They are the truth, they are not!, they are the results on the way to the truth! Most of them will change and develop
    And rarely will they be canceled completely - we are not at the end
    the road!.
    In the course of these wars between science and mysticism, the revelations of science are sometimes depicted
    as absolute truths and the fight for the public's heart becomes a fight for choice
    Between one truth and another!
    And this is a mistake, father, what needs to be taught is not what is the truth and what is the lie
    What needs to be taught is skepticism! And where are the data of science as of today
    Skepticism is exactly the engine that drives science and it should be the flag of science!
    (And I'm aware of the cynical use of "skepticism" by political stakeholders)
    New age quacks and conspirators are temporary and fleeting
    The year 2012 will come and the world will not be destroyed, the aliens have not yet landed in public and said goodbye
    And people who go to read in a cafe have insurance at the health fund...

    Humanity also needs imagination, and hope (even if false at times), it needs flight
    She also needs faith (and it doesn't matter what), and she needs to be creative, she needs to see
    Certain phenomena also as an expression of this and not only as ignorance/lie/deceit.

    There is no need to crush the mystique and make it disappear! It arises out of necessity and is here when needed
    And it will disappear so that there is no need for it, we also need to make sure that people are not harmed and that they are not harmed
    In science and the study of science/the logical way and skepticism for the youth and children of tomorrow's generation

    That's my opinion
    Good day (and sorry for the length)

  92. Hi Haim
    I only showed the tip of the iceberg

    1. Why are these unfounded nonsense? A general and a scientist sent on behalf of the US government - these are known facts and there are more for those who read the material.
    you dont belive ? to satiety

    2. Regarding the first on the list - if so why did he sign the affidavit?

    3. John Rapaport is the interviewer and not the interviewee.

    All you have to do is "one and one"
    You think that I am beaming with happiness that this is the way things are - you are wrong
    Your anger is misdirected

  93. To Ron:
    You asked what was false in your response #14.
    Again, I took the first link (again the first!!!) you brought to your favorite digital tabloid, and I quote:
    "However, when a former vaccine scientist gathers courage and comes out against vaccines, is it legitimate in your eyes?"
    So here is your vaccine scientist:
    Now please show me what his scientific education is.
    If I was bored enough I would move on, but my anger consumed itself, and I really have more to do.
    And you still ask why?

  94. To Ron:
    You ask what conspiracy my father is talking about at the beginning of your response 92. He is talking about the nonsense you quoted in response 89 - about the testimony of two great experts, of their rank and above, that the addition of fluoride was intended so that it would be possible to control humans, when, to the second expert (a general in the army) "it was said This serves to take away from the prisoners the will to resist."
    These are unfounded nonsense, which do not belong here, as my father said.
    You support this nonsense on the list of scientists who oppose fluoridation. I took the first name from the list (the first!!!), and his objection is that blanket treatment of the population is as effective as individual treatment, except that some of the population will not benefit from the treatment but only harm. In addition, he is opposed to the fact that it may harm the environment.
    You can read the article here:
    What you have done, like many of your school, is to take completely unfounded nonsense and support it with "scientific evidence" completely out of context. In my opinion, such a custom also has no place on this site.

  95. I just want to mention that the debate started when I objected to my father's determination to remove all mystique broadcasts during the hours children are watching and in the process Michael's support for this by claiming that "some people don't understand freedom of speech", I showed Michael that the way I perceive freedom of speech is the same The way the judges of the Supreme Court and the political philosopher John Stewart perceive him, then Michael contorted and falsely stated that in all the examples I gave the intention was a lie that is not malicious, a mistake, he even did this even though it is clearly written in the quote of the judges "Even false, despicable and slanderous things against us" to bring to public notice in order to…”

    I don't have a problem with a person having a different perception of the meaning of freedom of expression, even though I think this perception is dangerous and can lead to the deterioration of a free society, mental fixation and damage to the truth, the problem I have is that there is a person here who does not use any means to try and convince people of a distorted world view, it started In creating a presentation that the true freedom of expression is as he perceives it and everyone else simply does not understand it correctly and this continues with many distortions, demagogues until the last one where there is a really blatant and clear lie where Michael refers to a quote where they say that these are vile lies and says that these are innocent lies that happen by mistake.

  96. Regarding the truth and freedom of expression - your words and actions are contradictory

    Let's bring the mental discussion down to reality.

    I have 2 responses here: 14 and 92

    What's wrong with them? What is mystical about them? Why are you hiding and avoiding?

    I was blocked by the website from commenting, and I have to change my computer to write this comment - why?

    You are the ones who declare truth and science here - but your actions show otherwise.

  97. To Michael:

    Again I agree with most of your points, including your definition of what is not possible (maybe)
    To find out by experiment ("infinite things"), but one should not forget that there are such things
    In physics too, there are also other principled limitations (such as the uncertainty principle) to discovery
    The truth in the experiment... there is no reason in my humble opinion that there would not be infinite factors like this or
    Others in "our" reality, all the more if it is not contained in reality

    Philosophically I tend to divide reality into four parts (two properties)
    logical-accessible, not logical-accessible, logical-inaccessible, not logical-inaccessible.
    (Of course, there is no necessity that reality is really divided in this way)
    Science can only deal with accessible logic, but it has to start from a point
    Assuming that everything is logical and accessible.

    New Agers and postmodernists who try to exploit this statement for their needs
    You miss the need for the point of assumption (that everything is logical)...well, whatever
    What appears to be random can turn out to be part of legality and also what is not accessible today
    can easily become accessible tomorrow therefore it is scientifically impossible to determine in advance the
    Its limits and your starting point is the correct one from a practical point of view, but it is not
    Theoretically/philosophically accurate

    Good Day

  98. Mushon:
    In regards to your comments about an increased sentence - read again what I wrote:
    I said that Gadel's sentence does not limit our ability to find out the truth experimentally.
    I didn't talk about anything else.
    I remind you that our knowledge was not the subject of the debate in the first place, but the physical truth, but I found it appropriate to expand and say that Gadel's theorem does not prevent the discovery of this truth in an experiment.
    In my opinion the only limit that exists on our knowledge comes from infinite things where an experiment may never end.
    I can't imagine an experiment that would test the correctness of Fermat's theorem, for example, so it's lucky that they proved it.
    The reason why a reliable experiment on the matter would not provide us with knowledge is that there really are no numbers of the type that Ferma described and all that could be done in the experiment was to check group of numbers after group of numbers.
    If Fermat's theorem was wrong, we would eventually come across a group that the theorem says does not exist, but since it is true - we would not discover such a group and the experiment would go on forever without being able to know for sure - even without increasing the probability of correctness (because how many numbers we don't check - it would be zero percent out of infinity).
    But this problem is a problem from the field of mathematical truth.
    When talking about the physical world, we usually talk about finite things.
    All of the above does not belong, of course, to the debate about the existence and unity of truth.

    I did not say that it is possible (or even necessary) to prohibit by law all forms of lying.
    I explained the reasons why I think my father (and any decent media person) should not give a platform to things he thinks are malicious lies.
    All other intentions that someone may attribute to me are the result of the brainwashing that some have been working on since the moment I ever objected to their response.

    Even in the law - most of the forbidden lies reach the court only after damage has been caused.
    This is true for most transfers and in my opinion - even though it is the law - it is not fair.
    For example - if a cellular company tries to sell you a package that includes internet and does not present you with a cheaper alternative that does not include an internet package - it will break the law, but you can sue it only if you were tempted to buy the product - and even more so - only if you did it in good faith - without knowing the the law

    A large part of the law's limitations stems from the difficulty in obtaining evidence that could convince the general public (and not just the one who experienced the relevant reality).
    That is why there are rape trials in which the rapist cannot be convicted and there are also rape trials in which a person who did not rape is convicted.

    All this does not release us from the responsibility to behave differently between truth and lies.
    In the vast majority of cases telling the truth is moral and telling a lie is not moral and there is no reason not to take this consideration into account.

  99. Michael don't worry I'm on your side, also in my opinion a person who lies knowingly will only lead to the deterioration of society.
    Of course there is the innocent mistake and no one will be thrown into any pit even in a purely scientific society.
    Even on the contrary, a society built on pure scientific principles of peer criticism and accepting new ideas with some scientific basis, there is a good chance that they will support that person with an original idea.

    I'm just pointing out that there are things that I really wouldn't want to be near my house, the same ideas that Nadav himself is trying to sell to everyone here.
    Like hallucinogens, I don't force them into my body just to give equal rights to all types of proteins and toxins. That's how I don't believe (and hopefully others won't either) in all kinds and amounts of chewing gum.
    Last time I checked cocaine is illegal, maybe you should reconsider?

  100. Mushon There is no possibility of outlawing the lie, but there is certainly a possibility of not forcing websites to publish it. And not the new editions, in the name of some "holy balance". Those who want to deceive themselves have many sites that do this. The youth should first of all know what the truth is and then if someone as an adult wants to expose himself with the lies he will be told.

  101. If I may:

    It is legally impossible to ban all forms of lying
    Otherwise the next time our women ask how they look
    Goes to prison (or we get out of one....)
    Therefore, the law prohibits lies (and untruths that are not malicious) which were defined in the law
    When lies may harm the basic rights of other citizens (while trying to preserve the right of speech/freedom of occupation, etc. of the "liar" as much as possible)

    Impersonation/defamation/incitement are examples of outlawed lies.

    The discussion is serious and deep and takes place all the time (in democratic countries).
    The law also changes all the time.
    Generally, the prevailing approach of the law is to refrain from intervening until there is a danger of actual harm

    The issue you are debating is not a matter of principle.
    The principle is clear in advance, freedom of expression is important and maintaining the other fundamental rights is important
    Both must be maintained as much as possible, the only remaining question is the degree of balance.
    And that can be argued quite a lot...

    Good Day

  102. To Michael:

    If you manage to read above the whole pile of…

    I never talked about certainty, on the contrary I only talked about feasibility
    Limitations on knowledge that arise from the above.

    Good Day

  103. Michael why are you misleading people?

    The judges meant lies of all kinds, even the ugly ones and the false ones, because it is in the quote

    "Even false, despicable and slanderous things must be made public so that the general public can deny their legitimacy. This is a better situation than for the false opinion to continue to be the property of a small number of people who will hold it in secret"

  104. Michael, the debate here is about freedom of speech, even a person accused and convicted of murder has the right to say he is innocent, you are simply missing the importance of this principle and how precious it is to the core of democracy

  105. By the way, Bolognese:
    I hope you notice the level of demagoguery.
    It's easy to see this if you take Nadav's response and change the subject of the lawsuit, say, to the daylight murder of people in a cafe.

  106. Bolognese:
    Nadav actually demonstrates in his behavior the reason why I said that motivation is important.
    When someone says something stupid because he is wrong - this should be allowed for several reasons:
    One is that if he is really wrong, the discussion about his mistake may create further understanding both for the one who is trying to explain to him and for the one who made a mistake.
    More! Maybe he is actually right and the others are wrong? Worth checking out.
    This is what the judges that Nadav mentioned meant even though he is trying to mislead us in interpreting their intentions.

    But - when someone lies out of an agenda and not out of a true attempt to find out the truth - there is no chance of convincing him with logical reasoning and in fact it is guaranteed that what is not said he will jump back in with his lies.

    How many times can you discuss the same nonsense and still get something out of the discussion?
    One? two? Three?!
    After that it starts to be a non-dawn leading perpetuum.

    This is what happens with the mystics and this is what happens with Nadav in this discussion.

    By the way - there is an interesting state of attachment of many ideas and images.

    After all, the idea of ​​the perpetuum leading is also an idea that is repeated and brought up by eccentrics such as the Nablus and the Arabs.
    Actually this delusional idea also suffers from the same problem of "thinkers with an agenda" who come back and sell it to the people even though they fail to produce it and come back and protest against the whole world and his wife for the conspiracy against their ideas.
    It is no wonder, therefore, that the US Patent Registrar does not at all test such ideas until a working device has been demonstrated.
    The light of the sun or the darkness of ignorance - whatever the considerations are - they will not be willing to even check the existence of the leading perpetuum called Nadav.

  107. Claim: You are spreading illegal New Age material that claims that space can stretch like chewing gum, we have decided that you are lying, according to Newton's laws of physics such a thing is not possible

    Accused: But I feel it's true, I believe it

    Claim: The probability is very high that you are lying, we have evidence that 5 years ago you claimed that space is absolute

    Accused: I changed my mind?

    Claim: There is a very low probability that a person will change his mind on such issues, here is a scientific study that proves it

    Accused: I don't believe in scientific studies, I feel that space is elastic and I'm not lying

    Claim: You are lying, every person believes in logic, scientific studies are based on logic, you are a person therefore you should accept this logic

    Accused: But I think there is something beyond logic, I feel that space is elastic

    Claim: liar, the probability is very high according to everything we know and understand that you are lying, throw him into the pit...

  108. to 146. When an Israeli TV channel tells you about "famous scientists" without
    A mandatory title (at least in appearance, i.e.: Prof., Dr.) that you (and many others)
    You haven't heard their name before - and those "famous scientists" say things
    Idiots, know that this is another attempt to fool the public.

  109. I imagine Nadav in court:

    Judge: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and only the truth?

    moment! I do not understand! After all, there is no one truth and if I say one truth I am not saying the other.
    Besides - you yourself said that lying is allowed, so why do you demand that I tell the truth?
    Ah - maybe you're actually just asking me to swear to tell the truth, but because of the sunlight and all that, I can actually swear a false oath as well.
    But apart from that - how do I tell the whole truth?
    After all, just to start saying "one plus one is two, one plus two is three and so on" it will take me an infinite amount of time and that's only for the calculations with natural numbers where the first one is one? When will I even get to the material that belongs to the trial? But maybe it's actually better not to talk about the trial. Maybe that's what the judge wants! Maybe he's lying too!
    But it's not fair - if I lie, will they accuse me of giving false testimony, even though the judge is the one who misled me into thinking that lying is allowed?!
    What's going on here!
    I don't want to testify!
    I'm going to attack Michael!

  110. I am very disturbed by the fact that the unidentified user is still trying to sell through the back door, which in Masitaka is not a bad thing.
    This sales attempt is nothing more than one of the problems that exist in our society today and that is the lack of decision-making in a logical and productive way for laws/decisions that contribute to the continuation of the human race or at least to the State of Israel.
    Like many reality shows (most of which I think are simply entertainment for the masses that do not challenge any thought) the New Age trend is also like that. This is now and this shows "spirituality" and "connection"...
    It is better to be a coffee reader or a herbal healer than to be a doctor or a physicist.
    To the extent that laws that limit certain content can be considered as limiting freedom of expression - there are situations in which there will be more harm than good.

  111. No problem Michael, I will tell the Supreme Court judge that you defined his ruling as "garbage", but the best tool to deal with comments like yours is this comment itself...

    "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Even false, despicable and slanderous things must be made public so that the general public can deny their legitimacy. This is a better situation than for the false opinion to continue to be the property of a small number of people who will hold it in secret"

  112. Mushon:
    I apologize for the late response.
    I did not see your words because they were buried in the pile of garbage that came in the response that followed them.
    You are not accurate in quoting my words and it is not clear to me why.
    I wrote:
    "Not only does it not limit the truth - it also does not limit our ability to ascertain it experimentally (and not as a conclusion from the system of axioms)"

    My intention was (and remains) that even things that cannot be deduced using the axioms (those chosen - because you can always add more axioms) the possibility of deducing them experimentally is still open.

    By the way - this is exactly how scientific research works.
    The electromagnetic force could not be deduced from the laws of mechanics that were known before him.
    This force was discovered in an experiment and when they discovered that the experiment was consistent and rare they formulated new physical laws (added axioms to the existing system of axioms).
    The impossibility of deducing the existence of the electromagnetic force from the laws of mechanics did not prevent us from discovering it experimentally.
    Therefore my words on the matter are completely accurate.

    Gadel's sentence raises the possibility (not the certainty!) that this will always be our situation - that is - that there will always be things that we cannot deduce from the axioms we have formulated and we will have to conduct an experiment to find out the truth about issues that the existing laws do not cover (and I have already explained why this is also only a possibility and not a certainty) .

  113. Haha, how can this be a power from the future? - If the scientists succeed in finishing their mission, and this "force" is right, then the world will be destroyed, if the world is destroyed, there will be no future, if there is no future, there cannot be a force from the future that will prevent its destruction.
    If the scientists do not succeed in destroying the world, there will be a future, but then there will also be no reason to change the past that did not cause the destruction of the world.

    As for the claim that it is God - if it is God then he is all-powerful, if he is all-powerful then he can prevent the scientists from destroying the world without committing faults that raise suspicions about the accelerator's activity and in general he could have taken care from the beginning that there would be no such danger

    In short, neither this nor that

  114. It's okay, you are allowed to have a different interpretation of freedom of speech than the accepted interpretation, freedom of speech guarantees that

  115. I have already said everything that needs to be said so that those who are open to understanding will understand.
    I have no interest in going into an endless loop just because someone thinks it's a good tool to spread their lies.

  116. It's absurd and twisted, if you believe that telling a lie on purpose gives you greater power, then you don't believe in the power of the truth to stand up to a lie, any lie, what does it matter what the motives of the lie are?

    After all, any false fact can result from a mistake or can result from deliberate deception, but the truth is not required to deal with the motives of the fact but with the fact itself, the belief is that the purity and correctness of the truth will always win, as long as it and the lie have an equal platform. Not only I interpreted the freedom of speech in this way, the judges of the Supreme Court also...

    Even on the assumption that before us it is a certain and absolute lie, the solution to this is not in limiting freedom of expression, but rather in increasing it. If all the historical versions are brought before the public, the historical lie will be revealed anyway. That is why freedom of expression should be allowed as much as possible. As has been said before: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". Even false, despicable and slanderous things must be made public so that the general public can deny their legitimacy. This is a better situation than for the false opinion to continue to be the property of a small number of people who will hold it in secret

  117. To Michael:
    I have no argument with the things you said except for one (that an increased sentence does not limit the ability to know):

    1- You wrote Q: "There is no debate (in the scientific community) about the existence of truth but about the question of whether there is a definitive description of it through a system of axioms"
    2-And on the other hand you wrote that:
    "Not only does it not limit the truth - it also does not limit our ability to ascertain it... as a conclusion from the system of axioms".

    In my opinion, I see a certain contradiction here:
    If there is no definitive description of the truth through a system of axioms, it actually ***does limit*** (or can limit under certain conditions) our ability to ascertain it as a conclusion from the system of axioms.

    Regarding the rest, again, we have no differences of opinion

    Good Day

  118. Finally:
    Even in response 139, which is among the most sane of his responses, Nadav could not avoid lying and defamation.
    I agree with many of the things that are said in the continuation and what I am against is the intentional lie - the one for which a person is called a "liar" and not against the lie that some people call him that just because it is not true.
    I have already explained this many times, but I find it appropriate to repeat it because one of the purposes of Nadav's latest answer is to spread the lie that this is not what I said.
    This lie - that I am talking about - is a lie that in the first place uses the power of the arm (in the general sense of using tools that are not possible for the honest person) and it is not possible to overcome the power of the arm without the use of some kind of force.

  119. In conclusion, I will bring my first response and what I wanted to say from the beginning before the attacks of the lie chaser (in his opinion and while telling many lies)

    It seems to me that everyone here agrees on the importance of broadcasting quality scientific content for all ages
    But I agree with Yael, there are drifts here, in the call to ban broadcasts of mysticism at certain hours, freedom of expression and thought are the cornerstones of a free society, the same society from which scientific thinking itself arose, to harm them is to harm science and what it represents, what's more To bring mysticism and the New Age into the underground where these teachings will become martyred sanctities and enchant people much more.

    I will only add John Stewart's words regarding the importance and meaning of freedom of expression

    John Stuart Mill, the 19th century English social philosopher, presents four reasons that clarify why restricting freedom of speech and thought is an obstacle to truth:

    1. It is possible that the thing you are forbidden to say is the truth.
    2. There are no complete truths and the more complete truth is achieved as a compromise between different opinions containing partial truths. That's why you need to hear all opinions and not limit them.
    3. Truth itself is strengthened during its struggle with falsehood. Therefore, even if the forbidden things you said are false - they should be said.
    4. The truth loses its persuasive power when it needs the power of the arm. Even if by restricting the freedom of thought and speech the truth is protected - it is harmful to it

    Thank you and good day.

  120. Faster!
    Before you write twisted=twisted
    And once again twisted=twisted

    And while overcoming the urge to act like you and say "not true, you liar, twisted is not equal to twisted"

    I will expand the explanation to my claim that you are rambling.
    After all, I explained exactly why those who are convinced of your lies are of no interest to me, and I repeat the explanation: because I made sure that people understood that these were lies - we are not talking about people who will be convinced by the lies in good faith, but only people who have a false agenda to begin with.

  121. Michael - "Then it's fine, because whoever is convinced is lying to me, I'm not interested"
    Michael - "And indeed the liars need to be defeated also because of the people who buy the lie without realizing it is a lie"

    Michael, the things you say have no meaning at all

    You distort the meaning of freedom of speech, you distort the meaning of the laws of logic, you distort the meaning of the things you yourself said a few comments back
    You just sound sophisticated at first and that's outrageous, but then when you get down to the depths of your words their meaning completely evaporates amidst the many contradictions and logical fallacies

  122. The article deserves wide circulation. On the other hand, "send to a friend" does not work.

  123. And don't tell me what to talk about - especially when you make sure not to understand my words.
    There is a difference between personal persecution and fighting a wrong idea.

  124. Nadav:
    I've already decided that I don't spend any more time on your nonsense and it's time to stick to the decision.
    Although the broadcasts of mysticism on television are also lies based on malice and it is true that the liars must be defeated also because of the people who buy the lie without realizing that it is a lie (and I made sure that it would be very difficult not to understand that you lied - precisely because of my desire to defeat the liars) but you will continue to assimilate.

  125. And don't talk about persecution, because you have taken upon yourself the role of persecuting any person whose opinion does not fit your logic gods and you are terrorizing here fanatically on every article and every comment, you are looking to defeat people who have a different opinion than yours, your goal is no different from the goal of comment filters on other sites , only you do it in a more convoluted and nasty way, they are at least more honest.

  126. Michael - "Then it's fine, because whoever is convinced is lying to me, I'm not interested"

    You talked about someone who will be convinced in the future that he is not of interest to you in the present

    How does it make sense that you care about who is trying to convince and you don't care about who will be convinced by him? So why do you even care about him?

    Regarding Milton's quote, you are once again twisted and running away to other places, the debate was whether to allow Mistaka programs to be broadcast on television and not what is happening on certain websites

  127. Of course, one of the non-kosher measures I was talking about is the personal persecution measure that is so successfully demonstrated here.

  128. My previous response of course referred to response 125.
    Of course, response 126 brings a quote that is acceptable to me and not to the quoter.
    Hamilton spoke of "false" here but meant "not true".
    The "lie" I'm talking about is a lie that has an element of malice in it.
    This lie cannot be fought on equal terms because those who advocate truth and honesty cannot afford to use lies, demagogy and slander.
    The level playing field is also violated by the fact that sites whose entire role is a lie defend it against the truth in ways that here on the site have never occurred to anyone.
    Try once to write a comment expressing disagreement on the website of Mahbatim.
    There - after all, all the comments are checked in advance and only the sympathetic comments are released.
    Here - every comment is published and only when there is a gross violation of the discussion culture is it blocked.
    Therefore - I am in favor of equal conditions, but the liars have to give up most of their tools for this.

  129. I am amazed every time again by the simplicity of the things that people manage not to understand.
    In the latter case, it is of course a difference between the one who convinces and the one who tries to convince.

  130. Another quote for those who are afraid of mysticism and New Age

    "Let the truth fight the lie on equal and free terms; Is it possible that you will win?"

    – John Milton

  131. Michael - response 116

    "I also know that someone who sees a lie and understands that it is a lie and yet is convinced by it is not my target audience.
    It has already been said about this - "Give me the strength to change what can be changed, the patience to put up with what cannot be changed and the wisdom to differentiate between the two".

    Michael response 124

    "For someone to demonstrate dishonesty means in advance that no logical argument will convince him. He is in a war where all means, for him, are kosher and this means that the only way to minimize the damage he causes is to defeat him (since "convince him" is not a relevant expression! It may even be that He was convinced, but since he did not like the conclusions, he resorted to lies and slander)"

  132. Mushon:
    I have already explained the confusion of concepts you are making.
    A growing sentence speaks of the possibility of drawing conclusions from the axioms.
    It does not limit truth but only our ability to deduce it from a finite set of axioms.
    Therefore it is incorrect to say that it follows from it that there are things that are not real and are not unreal, but only that there are things that cannot be proven or disproved using the final set of axioms that we have chosen.
    Not only does it not limit the truth - it also does not limit our ability to ascertain it experimentally (and not as a conclusion from the system of axioms).
    All this stems from the fact that the Gadel theorem does not speak at all about the world or about any structure, but only about descriptions of structures through a system of axioms.

    I have also already answered the matter of the sequence hypothesis.
    The Continuity Hypothesis is an example of a claim that neither it nor its negation can be derived from the accepted set of axioms.
    In this sense - it is a hypothesis of the type of hypotheses that Gedal talked about, but linking the two things is similar to linking the claim that 7 is a prime number greater than both 2, 3 and 5 and therefore 5 is not the largest prime number with the statement claiming that there is no prime number that is the largest .
    In fact, the similarity is even weaker than in the above example because you can use the theorem that there is no greatest prime to prove that 5 is not the greatest prime, but you cannot use the theorem of increasing to prove that the axiom of choice is undecidable within the accepted set of axioms.
    Therefore, what you wrote about the axiom of choice is not relevant to our case even if this axiom is mentioned in the Wikipedia text.

    The poignant discussion that exists around Mishpat Gadel is - I repeat - about the possibility of the existence of the "theory of everything" and not about the existence of truth in the universe.
    I repeat and remind that a theory is a collection of axioms to describe the world and not the world itself.
    There is no debate (in the scientific community) about the existence of truth but about the question of whether there is a definitive description of it through a system of axioms (I really hope I don't have to repeat this!)

    I completely understand what the origins of the various beliefs are and when I say things that may offend someone I do so for many reasons unrelated to this understanding.
    I usually do this because that someone is arguing while showing dishonesty.
    When someone shows dishonesty it means in advance that no logical argument will convince him. He is in a war in which all means, as far as he is concerned, are kosher, and that means that the only way to minimize the damage he causes is to defeat him (after all, "to convince him" is not a relevant phrase! He may even have already been convinced, but since he doesn't like the conclusions, he turned to lies and slander)

  133. To Michael:

    A hug is not mysticism!
    Mysticism is a hug! (bear hug)

    I was just stating that in order to solve a problem, face it and fight it,
    Sometimes you need to know where it comes from, and sometimes I'm not sure you understand...
    It is easy to solve social/religious/psychological processes with words like "stupidity"
    "Stupidity" "ignorance" etc., I personally do not think that "salvation" will come from there...

    Good Day

  134. To Michael:
    1- We agree (by the way, I did study group theory and I got a good grade, certainly not at your level, but it's still not about passages that I write and don't understand!)
    2-I didn't formally study Gadel Laws, I just read material from books, and I
    I don't really understand the difference between what I said and what you said (regarding Gadel's incompleteness sentences), me
    I would appreciate it if you could explain…
    Reminder I said: "It has already been proved that in every logical group that relies on certain axioms there are sentences that cannot be proved or disproved based on its axioms."
    What's wrong?
    3- Regarding the sequence hypothesis - you said that it is not related to Godel's incompleteness theorems, here is a quote from Wikipedia:
    "Gadel's first incompleteness theorem, which became a cornerstone in mathematical logic, added a third possibility to the expected fate of a mathematical claim. The theorem states that in any comprehensive logical system, it is possible to build using an algorithm claims that on the one hand cannot be proven and on the other hand cannot be disproved from the same set of axioms. The claim is similar Much to the liar's paradox (a paradox in which a certain person who says "I am now lying" is neither telling the truth nor lying). The formal proof of the theorem shows in a constructive way how such a claim can be constructed.
    An example of this type of claim is the Continuity Hypothesis proposed by Georg Kantor and states that there is no group whose strength is greater than that of the natural numbers and less than that of the real numbers. In 1937 Godel proved that this conjecture cannot be disproved within the ZF+C axioms and in 1963 Paul Cohen proved that this conjecture cannot be proven within the ZF+C axioms.

    Did I get this part wrong? can you explain (Thanks)

    Regarding the connection or lack of connection between logic/mathematics/set theory/Godel's incompleteness theorems and reality - in the other decades there is a sharp discussion about the connection between set theory/Godel's incompleteness theorems and their relation to the limits of principled knowledge, the claim that there is no connection is a matter of personal opinion Yours and not a scientific consensus! You have the right to be in the school of thought that claims there is no necessary connection between mathematics and reality and my right to be in the school of thought that there is a connection, but you have no right to present the school of thought that I support as illegitimate/non-existent/a figment of my imagination and as if there is no active and fruitful debate on the above issue.
    And this debate has a very serious connection to your two claims that there is one truth and it is logical, and to your claim that every significant statement about reality is either true or false.

    Good day and thanks for the discussion

  135. It seems to me that the Knesset sleeps, and passes laws that are no longer relevant.
    For those who do not yet see the near future: there is no more Yes or Hot TV
    This is going to change radically in the near future, a year or two at most
    Global television that works on the Internet band
    The channels can be purchased individually from a huge selection of stations
    Including ordering courses from the most sought-after universities and lecturers in the world.

  136. What is not a cliché? Did you say Shaffer? phrase? What a good disappointment I will give one to emphasize the importance of all the variety of opinions and teachings both New Age and mysticism and to hint at the danger in a world where it will be forbidden to voice them

    Imagination is more important than information. Knowledge is limited. Imagination - infinite.
    Albert Einstein

  137. But surely you will have a good cliché about that too, accompanied by a new lie

  138. Clishall

    1. The point here is the respect that a person has for the truth, when you defy someone but lie, you harm the respect that the spoken word has, you create contempt for everything you say

    2. There is no such thing as someone who sees a lie and realizes that it is a lie and yet is convinced by it, in order to be convinced you have to think that it is not a lie and the potential people who can be convinced are people you really care about, you care so much that you propose to disqualify the freedom of expression for those who can instigate

  139. I understand from the beginning of your response that your hypocrisy hurts you.
    First of all - it was indeed said only as a defiance and it is not true that things said as a defiance (in general) express a position.
    But your logical conclusions are also screwed up.
    I'm against lies and that includes your lies.
    I also know that someone who sees a lie and understands that it is a lie and yet is convinced by it is not my target audience.
    It has already been said about this - "Give me the strength to change what can be changed, the patience to put up with what cannot be changed and the wisdom to differentiate between the two".
    This was an example of coming to terms with something I don't agree with but can't change.

  140. But the hypocrisy...

    Michael Response 61 - "I just said that I am against the presentation of falsehoods as truth - whether in the course of studies or in any other setting."
    Michael response 104 "Then it's fine because whoever is convinced is lying so and so I'm not interested"

    If Michael is against persuading people with various lies and in favor of banning it as he claimed at the beginning of the debate, then response 104 is false and he also cares that people are convinced of lies. Even if response 104 was said only to defy it, it is still defying a lie, meaning Michael does not mind lying a little to put people on in their place.

    Anyone who is sane will judge and understand who is involved here

  141. And another interesting clarification:
    The synthetic examples that Gadel constructs in the proof of the incompleteness theorem are of true sentences that cannot be deduced from the axioms. This is the basis of the philosophical claim of the sentence which basically shows the difference between correctness and probability (provable from the axioms).
    As I said - all that needs to be added to the X axiom system in order for the example he built to be proven is the additional axiom that says that the X axiom system is consistent.
    Of course, this way a new set of axioms (Y) will be created on which it will also be possible to run the growing process and get a true sentence that will not be proven and again - what will have to be done in order for the sentence to become proven is to add the axiom "Y is consistent" and so on.
    That is, as I have already explained, this is a completely formal process that does not add axioms with actual content at all.

  142. Another small thing for expansion (which I also mentioned in the links) - Godel's incompleteness theorem does not even apply to any set of axioms but only to those that include the axioms of arithmetic.

  143. Nadav:
    You're a liar, it's just a pleasure.

    I responded to your comment (93) which did not talk about anything related to the Gadel trial.
    She only tried to talk about reality as a "logical group" - an absurd confusion of concepts like no other and to claim all kinds of vague things related to Russell's paradox.
    I see that changing history is a regular custom for you.
    Towards the formulation of your last response - 109 - you went to learn some professional jargon without pouring any real content behind it.
    Section 1 is more or less correct.
    Section 2 is completely incorrect. If you want to say what the sayings of Gadel say, you can read the links I provided.
    Section 3 is partially true, the sequence hypothesis does not derive from the axioms of set theory, but it is not an example of an increasing theorem because an increasing theorem also exists in a system where the sequence hypothesis is added as an axiom.

    All this has nothing to do with claims about reality and here is your main mistake.
    It may be difficult for you to grasp this, but reality is not a set of axioms!
    Reality is reality!
    Science tries to find axioms that describe reality well, but this does not turn reality into a set of axioms!

    Regarding your comments below - they are not related to the topic of the article.
    A hug is not a mystical thing and does not contradict logic.
    It is best to hug the child and also explain to him that there are no monsters.
    The worst is to tell him that God will protect him from the monsters but will kill him if he chops wood on Shabbat.

  144. To Michael:

    I didn't mess anything up!

    1-Naïve set theory contains paradoxes axiomatic set theory
    Relies on axioms that prevent certain groups from being read
    In general groups and thus solves the paradoxes.
    2-Gedel's incomplete sentences mean exactly what you said
    3- Godel's incompleteness theorems prove also in axiomatic set theory
    There are sentences that cannot be disproved/proved.
    (The sequence hypothesis is a good example...)
    4-This has something to do with the discussion going on in the enlightening decades regarding the foundations of mathematics
    and logic and the fundamental limits of knowledge that exist or do not exist. (And we both know that we don't
    I invented…)

    It is absolutely clear that there is no necessity that it imposes anything on physical reality
    But it does show that your claim - (that *every* claim about reality is *necessarily*
    true or misleading) is not necessarily true - this may be one of the claims of the world
    We will not be able to prove or disprove (think about it for a while).

    Regarding the article:
    It is allowed to go against all the egg confusions of the New Age especially when they constitute
    Also a danger to the body and mind (there are some that I don't think are harmful to anything except the pocket)
    But this is not the way in my opinion, because the attraction to those places does not come
    From a faulty logical process it comes from an emotional process...

    Any child who wakes up at night from a bad dream would prefer a hug to a logical proof
    that there are no monsters under the bed and because science has not solved the problem
    The main thing of humanity (the finitude of our lives) Don't be surprised that people don't act
    From logic...

    Good Day

  145. Michael, when we think about it if we continue with your line of reasoning, in response 105 there is a logical view that you lied in response 104, which means that you behaved dishonestly, but you are against dishonest behavior, therefore if you have to meet the standards you ask of everyone and simply do not respond anymore (at least not during the viewing hours of children)
    : )

  146. My father - you don't need to waste time on movies and nonsense, but there is an interest in the matter, the law came into force in 2001 and I only suggest that if you want and your time allows it, look at the document prepared for discussion in the Knesset by the Research and Information Center of the Knesset:
    The subject is very problematic and mainly there are very interesting medical, scientific and legal issues, of course not everything should waste your time I can't begin to imagine how dense it is, but since it is a scientific issue and really deals with all of us it is very interesting from a multitude of aspects and if you can get your hands on interesting scientific material on the subject, Pros, cons, etc., precisely because people don't need to go to the conspiracies websites that are talking themselves to death to learn about this scientific and legal issue.

  147. Michael, this is a contradiction, after all the whole argument started with the fact that you supposedly care that people lie and that you want to prevent people from being convinced by people who lie, the result is that your last response is a lie

  148. If that's the case, it's fine, because I'm not interested in anyone who is convinced that you lie so much

  149. Michael, it's fine, it's not for you, it's for anyone who can accidentally get confused and convinced by the things you say

  150. It's n-adav

    Michael - I see that you have come back, in your reply to me you wrote that the laws of logic are the only truth. After that, probably following my response, you realized the magnitude of the mistake.
    And you changed to "that the correctness of the laws of logic are also part of the "only truth", you cannot change everything you say all the time while talking to the laws of logic are the only truth so they cannot be part of the only truth because then something else exists outside of them which is also true

    Regarding your concept that "every significant claim made about the world has only one truth value" again this is just your belief, it is true that in logic every claim can be either false or true but this is a logic in which the basic assumptions or axioms are absolute (like mathematics), In other words, the sentence is basically, if my basic assumptions are correct, any claim I make about them can be either true or false, the problem with the "world" is that there are no absolute basic assumptions, all the basic assumptions come to us from the world and go through a process of interpretation, they are not invented on Our hands are like in mathematics, therefore the assumption that "every significant claim made about the world has only one truth value" is a matter of faith only and not necessarily what exists in reality, many of our axioms derive from human intuition, as in the past the axioms of absolute space and time, or the axiom that photons Can be either a particle or a wave but not both.

    Who are you to claim that we can't be trapped in more false axioms that are only the result of partial vision and limited intuition?
    The idea is to free human intuition and free yourself from mental fixations as you present, and there is also another danger in silencing the mystics and the New Age, even though their ideas are not based on logic or scientific testing, they can still serve as the inspiration to free yourself from finite intuitions, I am sure for example that the idea of multiple dimensions or universes existed in mystical teachings such as Kabbalah before science suggested that this could be the case in nature as well. The scientist has to draw inspiration from somewhere in order to free himself from the intuition that binds him. This is not only a matter of calculation and measurement, it is also a matter of offering possible explanations for the results of those calculations, these explanations will always be a matter that requires creativity, inspiration and emotion,

    In short, those who are afraid of mysticism or New Age are afraid of the free human spirit freed from limitations and shackles, the same spirit that created great scientific theories such as relativity and quantum, the same spirit without which science is just a collection of empty numbers

  151. D:
    I didn't really understand what you think is inaccurate, but it doesn't seem important to me because I get the impression that we basically agree.
    I tried to explain the things using the parable given in response to which I said the things.
    As far as I'm concerned - there's no need to see the Matrix as a computer and you can see it as the set of things that exist to deceive us.
    Has anyone seen the movie True Man?

  152. Ecuador:
    Moshon's claim is not true and in fact the confusion of concepts in it thwarts the treatment of it as a claim at all.
    Godel's incompleteness sentence is really irrelevant.
    I wrote a lot about him here on the site as well.
    All that emerges from the Gadel theorem is that reality cannot be completely described by a finite set of axioms and there will always be things that will require additional axioms to prove.
    The thing is that it is not even certain that these things have physical meaning and more than that - it is possible that all the axioms that will need to be added are of the form "the system of axioms that I have used so far is consistent" (these are all the axioms that need to be added to deal with the examples that Godel's proof produces).

  153. To the user from response 87:
    Don't you identify specifically to avoid the correspondence?
    I do not intend to specialize in every subject in the world.
    There are enough areas that I deal with and water fluoridation is not one of them.
    In areas where I am not an expert, I rely on the opinion of experts.
    If, in your opinion, the state is doing something illegal, you are welcome to sue them.
    Class action can be a very profitable business!

  154. Mushon:
    I am a mathematician by profession and yet, I am sorry, I do not understand your words.
    Do not try to explain because there is nothing in the field that you can explain to me.
    You mix gender with non-gender throughout the entire comment, you don't use the correct terms and in short - it's a shame.

  155. "Hypothetical and therefore it is possible to define the scientific enterprise, in this case, as a quest to discover the laws of the matrix.
    This is a claim that there is no possibility of verifying or refuting, and therefore it is a claim that there is nothing to discuss at all."

    Hmmm not accurate, if it really happened that Michael would be able to fly because a code was embedded in this matrix that does it, or someone -claimed- that it happened, it will lead to a discussion even though to a certain extent it is not possible to reach firm conclusions.
    And the discussion will take place because we supposedly witnessed an event that affected our world and the source of the event started outside because of a reason outside the matrix.
    Well, this example is suitable in my opinion for discussions about God and different religions. So maybe you're right, maybe there's nothing to discuss, but we do discuss anyway, and people claim miracles or things like that, right or wrong, it turns out that it's impossible to prove.
    The fact that remains in her eyes that those claims themselves have far-reaching implications for the conduct of humanity. for better or for worse.

    For me, there is nothing more to expand on the subject, your detailed explanation regarding the knowledge of what is true and what is not true (regarding the second point I mentioned that there is one truth -and I know it-) works well for me as long as you remember to follow it and not exaggerate for any reason.

    By the way, regarding the topic of the article itself, if asking for more science programs is too much, then at least the level of the programs will not be so flat. It is possible to show non-scientific programs that are still of a high quality, unfortunately these programs are mostly not made in Israel, here they like cheap reality shows and telenovelas.

    Good Day.

  156. According to my very basic understanding of a (legal) sentence, Gadel, Moshon is right and raised a valid point, and Michael, your love for computer science - mathematics and groups in general will surely allow your short response if the claim is true or not, I would love to follow..

  157. To Michael:
    That you have to accept the axiom of logic to start talking is true.

    The fact that all reality can be included in the "logical group" is not necessarily true.
    Group theory shows that there are types of groups that are necessarily paradoxical! Because of this
    Invented the axiomatic set theory in which there is no inclusion of the illogical sets
    And there is an axiom why it is a "legal group"... you have no proof that our reality
    Does not contain illogical groups inside!

    The fact that everything in reality (some logical group) is either true or false is also wrong.
    Proved already grown that in any logical group that relies on certain axioms
    There are theorems that cannot be proved or disproved based on its axioms.

  158. Avi :

    What conspirators are you talking about?

    Over 2600 professionals sign a petition against fluoridation, here are some of them:

    • Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate for Physiology or Medicine, 2000

    • Vyvyan Howard, MD, PhD, Immediate Past President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE)

    • Ingrid Eckerman, MD, MPH, President, Swedish Doctors for the Environment (LFM), Stockholm, Sweden

    • Raul Montenegro, PhD, Right Livelihood Award 2004 (known as the Alternative Nobel Prize), President of FUNAM, Professor of
    Evolutionary Biology, National University of Cordoba, Argentina

    • The current President and six past Presidents of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

    • Three scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters Union in Washington DC
    * William Marcus, PhD, Former chief toxicologist of the EPA Water Division, Boyds, MD

    • Three members of the National Research Council committee who wrote the landmark 2006 report: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS; Robert L. Isaacson, PhD; Kathleen M. Thiessen, PhD)

    • The Board of Directors, American Academy of Environmental Medicine

    • Two advisory board members of the UK government sponsored "York Review"

    • Andy Harris, MD, former national president, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Salem, OR

    • Theo Colborn, PhD, co-author, Our Stolen Future

    • Lynn Margulis, PhD, a recipient of the National Medal of Science

    • Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, President and Executive Director, Environmental Working Group (EWG)

    • Ron Cummins, Director, Organic Consumers Association

    • Magda Aelvoet, MD, Former Minister of Public Health, Leuven, BELGIUM

    • Doug Everingham, former Federal Health Minister (1972-75), Australia

    • Peter Montague, PhD, Director of Environmental Health Foundation

    • Ted Schettler, MD, Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network

    • Stephen Lester, Science Director, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice

  159. Ron, I'm sick of your bullshit. Every day there is a new intimidation against anything the government supports. When you support something government I will agree that you spread this nonsense here. In the meantime, there are enough sites where they distribute, and for those who asked me to check the subject of fluoridation, I am not ready to waste my time on any nonsense that some conspirator invents, nor to watch the films, my time is more important.

  160. "The public is stupid because there are those who care about making it stupid"

    Fluoridation is not a mystical issue

    Historical review:

    Charles Eliot Perkins is the scientist sent by the US government
    At the end of the Second World War to Germany in order to take control of the company
    The German giant A.G. Paraben

    The information he received from the German scientists -

    a scheme which had been worked out
    by them during the war and adopted by
    The German General Staff, this was to control
    the population in any given area through
    mass medication of drinking water.
    In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

    Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts
    of fluoride will in time reduce an
    individual's power to resist domination
    by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area
    of the brain and will thus make him
    submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him.

    also -

    Major General Racey Jordan

    who was responsible for shipping sodium fluoride from the USA to Russia says -

    I was told frankly that it was to put into the drinking water of the prisoner of war camps to take away their will to resist.

  161. My dear, I've been there quite a bit - such a stupid example I can't relate directly to you, but only to the lack of knowledge, but believe me, this is not a country you want to present as a country with advanced ideas in the distribution and sharing of knowledge

  162. Michael, I just asked that if there are things on the subject to bring - and Michael, logic is something you encourage and so do I
    Medical fluoride improves by 20-40% the chance of caries... in the right dose - = medicine
    The fluoride added to the water is an acid that is converted into "industrial fluoride" and contains, among other things, heavy metals "under the European standard" - according to the Ministry of Health's document, this was done to save costs
    In any case, the dangers far outweigh the supposed benefits - check it out and you'll be surprised... by the way, to simplify - the fluorine ions have a strong binding capacity for heavy metals, which increases their absorption in the body - I'd be happy to send you or your wife's email some material on the matter -
    But in conclusion, poison in water according to state law - and finally, ask your wife if it is permissible to give medicine without consent - and if so, when... it goes against some basic principles or constitutions in other countries

  163. Chest:
    I think you are right, at least in principle.
    It's not that the expression "Western medicine" is incorrect - it is derived from history because it cannot be denied that the entire scientific method is something that originates in the West - even if today it is also applied by the people of the East - but it may be time to stop with this pride and move on.

  164. What is this nonsense? Do you even know that many more Israelis have won the lottery than the Nobel Prize? Instead of investing in the nonsense of scientists, all Israeli children should be taught how to fill out a lottery form! Above all educational institutions should be the symbol of the lottery in a big way! Because only those who really want and pray and put their lucky numbers - will win and that's for sure!

  165. Father, well done for the righteous fight. But I have a side note on two terms you used, and I would love to hear comments on the matter. In my opinion, the terms "western medicine" and "conventional medicine" should not be used, but "scientific medicine".

    The term "Western medicine" creates the impression that it is an exclusive product of Western culture, so there are those who would argue that the same legitimacy should be given to Chinese or Indian medicine - ancient cultures with many achievements. I am sure you will agree with me that this claim has no real basis, because nowadays scientific medicine is developed all over the world, including in Japan, China, Mexico and Brazil. The fact that the history of medical science (and science in general) began mainly in the "West" is a historical case (very interesting in itself), and not a matter of principle that is important to emphasize in the current context.

    The term "conventional medicine" is merely a way of saying "ordinary medicine", but the fact that something is ordinary does not necessarily make it correct or beneficial, and similarly the fact that something is unusual does not necessarily make it false or harmful. In light of this, it seems to me that the use of the terms "conventional" and "unconventional" in the context of medicine suffers from an unnecessary artificial neutrality, exactly the kind you aim for when you complain about being equated with a vaccine expert and a homeopathic healer. Those on the side of "unconventional medicine" are happy to claim that it is the establishment that arbitrarily and self-interestedly determines what is considered normal and acceptable and what is not, therefore using such terms plays into their hands and may create the impression that there is truth in their claims.

    In contrast, the term "scientific medicine" emphasizes exactly what is important - the use of established scientific knowledge and scientific method for the purpose of advancing the medical procedure. In doing so, we insist on reminding that it is not appropriate to give all healing methods the same status, because methods that are based on traditions or arbitrary ideas are not similar to methods that are based on scientific knowledge and that continue to be examined and tested critically every day.

    Of course I don't expect them to volunteer to call their methods "unscientific medicine". So they will continue to call it "unconventional medicine" or "traditional medicine" in order to try to place it on a level comparable to "conventional medicine" and "Western medicine", and we will insist on using the term "scientific medicine" and thus emphasize the abysmal difference between scientific and non-scientific.

  166. To the anonymous user who is not Nadav (response 71):
    I hope that despite the fact that every now and then people try to defend the lie, the site still manages to maintain the honorable custom, in my opinion, of speaking only about what one knows.
    Usually, the discussion is also limited to things related in some way to the article that appears at the top of the page.
    The website does not have an organized and qualified mechanism of peer review, so it is difficult for it to publish original articles.
    That is why most of the articles appearing at the top of the page are not published here for the first time and they were published in scientific press in other settings.
    Other articles are published only if they have received some kind of peer review - whether one initiated by the author of the article or one that the site, with its meager powers, managed to organize.
    So all in all - the fact that the subject of fluoridation is not discussed here is simply a result of the fact that the editor of the site did not come across an article on the subject in the scientific press (and of course also of the fact that the site "Another Truth" is not a scientific press).
    If an article is published about fluoridation, all I can say is that my wife - who is a pediatrician - is ready to swear - based on her many years of experience, that this is a really beneficial operation that improves the condition of the children's teeth beyond recognition.

  167. Anonymous user (unidentified):

    In what you said: "The statement in itself that there are ghosts can harm people just like the statement that the sun will rise tomorrow" (response 34) you are so wrong; You have no idea what the magnitude of the damage is caused by the delay (superstitions, mysticism, etc.). It is the foundation of society's degeneration, and as a result - its destruction.

    Someone said here that a mystic is rightfully a knowledgeable reader. If you ask my opinion (and I know you probably don't ask): Dean Mystic - Legal Terrorist.
    It is not for nothing that it is said: "The greater are those who err more than those who are killed"

  168. Friends:
    Last comment on the subject.
    Without faith in the laws of logic it is not even possible to decipher a sentence.
    The laws of logic are imposed on us as part of being human. These are actually the most important laws of nature - so important that evolution has embedded them in us and we don't need to learn them.
    I don't know how to argue with someone who doesn't recognize the correctness of the laws of logic and I also don't believe that such a person exists (but even if he does - I have no possibility of talking to him. I don't know how to interpret his sentences and I don't know how he will interpret my sentences).
    When they say "there is one truth" it is meant that every significant statement about the world has only one truth value. Either it is false or it is true.
    This does not mean that there is only one claim. The truth is actually a mapping of the collection of significant claims to the group consisting of the phrases "true" and "false".
    Therefore it can certainly be (and not only that it can be but that it is even the reality) that both the correctness of the laws of logic are part of the "single truth" and the fact that my name is Michael is part of that single truth.
    I tend to believe that the claim that comments 69 and 73 are just demagoguery is also part of the same truth, but I'm not sure about that because it's possible that Nadav really didn't understand my intent.
    Just as a conversation without logic is not meaningful to me - so is a conversation about life in the matrix not meaningful.
    Everything we can ever hope to know and everything that will ever affect us is limited to that hypothetical matrix and therefore the scientific enterprise, in this case, can be defined as the quest to discover the laws of the matrix.
    This is a claim that there is no possibility of verifying or refuting it and therefore it is a claim that there is nothing to discuss at all.

    I'm surprised that no one addresses the only point that can really be considered a weak point in my words, and that is the question "Okay - so there is one truth, but you yourself said that we don't know it for sure, so how brazenly do you claim that something is not true?"
    This is a significant and true claim, but it is merely an expression of the fact that beyond practicing philosophy - we must also live, and therefore we must make operative decisions that will allow us to act.
    Theoretically, it could be that all the laws of physics are wrong and nothing will happen to me if I run towards a car speeding towards me, but still - I don't think there is a person striving for life who would dare to trust this possibility.
    If we want to have a meaningful conversation - we cannot begin - with respect to any claim - to say that it is true with one probability or another (especially when we do not know how to calculate the probability) and therefore we usually decide to say that claim X is true and claim Y is false, although we cannot To know things with 100 percent probability.
    We also have special bodies that will decide, when there is a dispute or question, what the truth is, even though they too cannot discover the truth with absolute certainty.
    These bodies are the courts - when it comes to conflicts between people, and the scientific establishment - when it comes to questions about nature.
    Since these bodies cannot know what the truth is with absolute certainty - it also happens that they change their minds as they learn more evidence.

    Note that I never said that a false claim should not be made.
    To lie is to make an untrue claim when you know that it is not true or that you know that you do not know whether it is true or not (and again - the word "know" - also in this sentence - is loaded with all the meanings of the fact that there is never absolute knowledge and therefore - here too - it comes to represent a state of belief with a very high probability).
    The lie - is what I presented as wrong. not the mistake.

    And yet - how do I know if someone is lying? After all, I don't know what he knows and what we don't know!
    Again - I really don't know this with absolute certainty, but there are situations where I can attribute a very high probability to this and when this happens - I say that the person is lying.
    This includes trivial situations in which a person claims not to have said anything that appears in black and white in the response he wrote and less trivial situations that require faith in the ability to think on the part of that person who comes and emphatically claims that one and one are three.

    In any case - whether they can recognize it or not - the lie (like any other malicious action) is wrong in my view and must be condemned.
    In my opinion, the claim that he should be accepted and respected is also invalid.
    That is why I will never claim that it is permissible to lie.
    At most I can accept the claim that since it is impossible to know for sure if the person is lying - you should not treat him as if he lied but (I am starting to repeat myself) - there are situations where a decision must be made because even treating a lie as a mistake is harmful in the end.

    Anyway - if I think someone is lying it would be a lie on my part to say or give the impression that I think they are not lying.

  169. Okay, after re-reading one of the comments regarding "the only truth" I understood this point better and I want to add this comment
    I want to present a hypothetical situation
    Let's assume that this entire universe is actually a computer program running somewhere. Like in the Matrix, say!
    Now, isn't it possible that someone wrote in the code of the software something like the laws of physics and everything works as it should and added at the very end a condition that says if there is a person with such and such a genetic load and is called by his relatives as Michael then in the space around him suddenly gravity will not work and he will be able to fly .
    Of course it is possible to do! Assuming it's all computer software, what's the problem with doing it!
    So it is equally possible to do everything, everything is possible and everything is practical. So what does this say about the laws of logic? After all, the conclusion drawn here (assuming I didn't make a logical mistake in anything here) basically means that every physical law that exists on Earth can be canceled just because in fact the universe doesn't work as we thought at the highest level and it's actually a computer program.
    This basically means that you can never know, even with the help of logical reasoning and the laws of physics, you can always conclude, but who knows what the absolute reality is?

    All the brain confusion I write in the previous comment and this one only come to show that modesty regarding knowledge is a more correct approach, at least in my opinion.

  170. I also have a problem with one truth, is that one truth?
    Can the fact that light is both particles and waves be called one truth?
    Even if there is one truth, is there even the possibility of being so sure that it is the truth?
    Even when there are proofs, for example, Newton's laws are basic and established, and in the end Einstein comes and brings the formula for calculating speed that includes reference to the speed of light. So Newton's formula was very close at low speeds but the bottom line was it was not the correct and absolute formula. And it was possible to prove Newton's formula, it's not like someone just said.
    So if in such a case we don't know what the truth is, how will we know when we can't even prove otherwise.
    And leave claims such as the burden of proof lies on those who claim it is not really relevant to the issue, because I am talking about this final decisiveness which in my opinion is wrong and cannot be proven regarding most things in the world.

    So please fight for your opinions especially when you believe an injustice has been done to the public, but this attitude of there being "one truth" and I'm sure I know it seems wrong to me and may lead to wrong conclusions.

  171. And let's say, Dan Solo, that we throw the televisions out of the house and then we will have to throw the internet out of the house as well and then we will also have to prevent our children from going to the school stutology center which according to them is the center of violence of the educational hierarchy that proceed from a criminal assumption (like the principals, so the conduct), initially and unfortunately, that the children are They are the tribe of idiots and violence..and then?
    If we discover that we are in the midst of an anarchic world, then neither money, nor education, nor even a huge fortune will help. Any license that my father offers to channel this or that program on television according to his taste and world view, of course, it is not necessary that you will find it reliable and worthy of weighted consideration by the rule
    So, apparently having children at such times is a heavy matter of "gambling" despite all the fake or real training we thought we had acquired before bringing them into the world.
    That's what it is.
    Besides that, there is Channel 8, which is full of science, National Geographic and books of all kinds, and those who like what suits them, find:
    One thing is clear: the children know something, that the adults(?) don't see anymore because they think they do :) and that is a kind of desire for the future! Whatever it is, theirs!
    Is it any wonder they see survival? For those who don't know, the idea for that imported series and the badly chewed imitation in Hebrew stemmed from the idea of ​​a book from about 50 years ago, if I'm not mistaken, "Baal Zevov", for those who read.

  172. In Ecuador, these programs have already been banned for exactly the same reasons. I uploaded the article in the link.

  173. I don't think science should be televised. It can't be done it's like broadcasting cartoons.

    One must start from the philosophy of science and the basics of thinking.

  174. To say that the laws of logic are the only truth is like saying that there are no numbers, only arithmetic operations - absurd

  175. And just because I got angry and went to see what you were talking about all the time on sites with a different truth... So I checked and you will hear that on this site there is no burning, serious and scientific discussion about the acid that is added to the drinking water on the effects of the fluoridation law... maybe just a request to my father to look into the matter and if there are any studies on the matter ??

  176. "The laws of logic are the only truth" - so there is no universe, no nature, no people, there are only laws of logic, I wonder who these laws actually apply to, themselves? After all, a law by its definition needs to be contained in something otherwise it has no meaning

  177. It's time for children to treat science as a part of life, the way I grew up - I breathed science at home, without even being aware of it. Don't let there be a situation where, when I say that my field of study is physics, people ask "why is that good?" And it sounds to them like a waste of time or madness or both.

  178. The concept of "one truth" can also be an imaginary concept that exists only in our intuition, just like the concept of "does not exist" or like many other concepts that the human mind trusts, such as absolute space, a particle or a wave, etc., etc.

  179. Nadav:
    Really tired me.
    To me the word "truth" is only meaningful if the truth is one and therefore I freely alternate between "truth" and "the only truth".
    I was already desperate for you to understand my words, but still - to give you another chance - I will clarify that in the sentence "but this contradiction will be accepted, of course, only by those who believe that the laws of logic are true" I meant to say "but this contradiction will be accepted, of course, only on By those who believe that the laws of logic are the only truth."
    I don't know what exactly you call an "imaginary concept" and I'm not really interested.
    What is clear is that when I say that something does not exist I am saying something significant about the world and usually it is even a scientific claim that can be disproved by showing the same thing that I claimed did not exist.

  180. You are misleading, I did not ask for proof of the existence of the truth, you asked for proof of the existence of "one" truth, a priori, it is clear that there are truths, but it is not clear that there is a truth, the fact that our brain combines every possible sentence into a truth or a lie, this does not make it something that exists in reality, the sentence "maybe there is "many truths" may be true, but treating it as true does not make it the one truth just like I would say "that everything that exists is not what does not exist" This may be true but that does not mean that I said anything about everything that exists because the concept of "does not exist" is an imaginary concept

  181. Nadav:
    Come on seriously!
    I have said dozens of times and I do not deny that the axioms of logic (and in the content - the existence of truth) are for me a belief, so don't try to create a presentation as if I ever claimed otherwise.
    And yet - when you demand from me proof of the existence of the truth - you are demanding something whose very existence is conditioned on the existence of the truth and therefore it is an inconsistent demand.
    I believe in the existence of one truth. Yes. believe
    I also know that the claim that there are many truths is a claim that contradicts its very claim to be recognized as truth (but this contradiction will be accepted, of course, only by those who believe that the laws of logic are true).
    You are really tiring.

  182. Michael - for any clichéd question, the concept of proof is valid in the formal system you established for yourself on the basis of certain axioms, the claim "there is only one truth" is an axiomatic claim and therefore cannot be proven without exaggerating it, as I have already shown you before, if theoretically there are two completely complete explanations that would explain All of reality is different from one another, one cannot logically be preferred over the other and the matter is left to faith, which of them is generally the right one or maybe both together.
    In short, you base everything you state on faith, some say faith exists in those who don't want to know, if you wanted to know and you were a real scientist, I doubt if you would hold such a firm opinion about the nature of the truth

  183. Ron, you will not determine what is legitimate and what is not. Tired of flooding the site with nonsense. The amount of comments you wrote is enough for 20 mystics. Go find another truth and leave us alone.

  184. Nadav:
    And of course you take things out of context and try to attribute things to me that I never said.
    Did I ever say I'm against studying?
    I just said that I am against the presentation of falsehoods as the truth - whether in school or in any other setting.
    A student who learns the description of creation in the Torah as "truth" will find it difficult to accept that it is a lie when he is exposed to the theory of evolution (and in addition to that, will lose trust in his teachers).
    The only way to do it right (if you want to teach the Torah at all and not say the Bababhagita) is by presenting the story in the Torah as something that people from the Jewish people (but not the Indian people) once believed in but today no longer because so and so.

  185. Nadav:
    Of course you ignored most of what I said, but I'm not surprised.
    However - it won't make me repeat them because I'm tired.
    You are welcome to read my comments again, if you feel like it.
    Regarding the "hypothetical" mystical Torah you describe - it is interesting because the Torah of the religion of Moses and Israel meets the criteria!
    Regarding your request for proof - it simply reveals an inconsistency of thought.
    Know that the concept of proof is not valid when there is no single truth.

  186. I was interrupted in the middle of a sentence - I said that I'm glad that you say that the mind should be allowed to develop from study, that's exactly what I said, the truth should develop, not reach it with a quantum leap, I'm sure that even in your head you also made a mistake regarding your perception of the world at some point and from understanding the ideas you had as wrong you came to the truth that you Holding it today

  187. Michael, drugs are prohibited because they can directly cause you to lose your judgment and hurt another person, they cause addiction and physical dependence, there is no comparison here at all with one mystical Torah or another, if they taught in a mystical Torah about a special spirit that says to murder people, then of course I would be against To this Torah, you are constantly escaping to the fine line between a lie and a lie that directly and clearly hurts people

    In any case, I'm glad you oppose such a device, I'm also glad you say so

    I would also be happy if you logically prove to me your belief that the truth is one and that it exists a priori

  188. Unfortunately, the only thing that comes close to the term 'science program' is science fiction series on various action channels.

  189. In relation to self-deception:
    I said that the original answer is still relevant because I already mentioned both in it and before it the device that works exactly like the self-deception that makes a person feel good.
    In fact - hallucinogenic drugs are nothing more than a tool for self-deception and we prohibit them.
    In your opinion, they should have been allowed.
    The truth is that I very much welcome the fact that the ring of restrictions on smoking in general is also getting tighter.

    Regarding a device that works the other way around - that is - one that prevents lying - it very much depends on the nature of the device.
    So that you understand what I mean without having to use too many words, I will ask you a similar question:
    Suppose they were to invent a device that every time a person wants to pee in your plate, the device will prevent him from doing so.
    Would you support installing such devices in the minds of humans?
    And what about a device that would prevent people from punching others in the face, or one that would prevent them from murdering?
    Should your non-support of some of the above devices be interpreted as agreement with the behaviors they prevent?

    A device of this type and with a similar intention was also introduced, as I said, by Aldous Huxley who really proposed hallucinogenic drugs as a device to prevent violence.
    I specifically oppose this device, but what about a device that develops as a natural part of the brain as a result of learning true facts about the world? For such a device I actually agree!

  190. Nadav:
    I got confused and talked about another device.
    It's still relevant, but we'll see if I have a more suitable answer for the device you were talking about

  191. Nadav:
    Maybe you haven't heard but they already invented such a device and I also mentioned it before.
    It's called hallucinogenic drugs.
    I am indeed opposed to their concession and certainly I am opposed to their distribution.
    And in relation to the truth - it is not true.
    The truth remains one and only our knowledge of it improves.
    I am not against the presentation of New Age or religious views in school - while showing their flaws.
    The purpose of the school - if anyone has not understood this - is to save the student from self-development of all the knowledge that humanity has accumulated.
    To teach him a lie is worse in my eyes than to teach him at all.

  192. Michael, are you against allowing a person's dishonest behavior to himself? If, say, tomorrow someone invents a device that sits in your brain and every time you try to lie to yourself it prevents you from doing so, would you support such a device?
    Of course not, you're not that extreme either
    Therefore, if you accept that it is a person's right to lie to himself because it makes him feel good, then why don't you accept that it is a person's right to offer the same good deal to another person?

    By the way, your opinion really does not agree with scientific thinking, science sees the truth as something that develops and not as an absolute thing, in the same way that human thinking is also a developing process - from religious, New Age thinking, one can grow, grow and understand and receive scientific "truths". If you show a person only the truth about the beginning and tell him that this is the way it is, it is doubtful that he will have a true and deep understanding of it.

  193. And to your question, if a school is built that teaches incorrect mathematics, the students who will study there will soon see the errors when they try to apply this mathematics to something real and thus really internalize the error and the power of the truth will be strengthened by being more correct, if a regime under your authority bans this school the teachers in it Go underground, the very ban will cause this Torah to gain renewed power and magic until it grows to be much more than it was in the beginning.

  194. Nadav:
    I'm tired
    As I said - I am against allowing dishonest behavior and you are for it.
    That's all about it.
    This is not a question of truth but of personal preferences.
    The matter of lying for psychological needs is not acceptable to me either (except in extreme cases) and it completely justifies the definition of religion as the opium of the masses.
    Drugs can also improve the feeling and allowing their mass use may turn out to be as harmful as religion.

  195. Michael, again you use extreme examples, I am against incitement to murder and injury to human beings, but I am not against a person's right to say that there are spirits or parallel worlds or karma or whatever

  196. You also ignore reasons and human psychological needs because of which "lies" or certain beliefs exist, such as the existence of deviant teachings that aim to give people some kind of existential meaning so that they have a reason to get up in the morning, we have already talked about it before, a person's right to lie to himself and his right to try to convince Others lie to themselves as well, if the power and charm of the "truth" can't withstand it, that's its problem, I of course believe that its power can withstand it.

  197. Nadav:
    Set up a school where the children are taught that one plus one equals three and leave me alone.
    Unlike you, I don't think that people's lives should be sacrificed just to strengthen the power of the truth - especially when it is already strong.
    And between us - do you really think that the power of the truth will be strengthened if they learn in school that one plus one equals three?
    Do you think that the madrassas of Islam also strengthen the truth?

  198. Michael, the last time I checked, we don't know anything with absolute certainty, therefore, as the judge said, it is not certain that there is a certain and absolute lie, even things that seem absolutely absolute like 1 plus 1 = 3 can, with some different and different premise, be true, and the premise is all a matter of interpretation, except From this you completely ignore the second reasoning which says that the power of the truth is strengthened when it is confronted with a lie and the power of lies is strengthened when they go underground.

  199. The problem with mysticism and children is that they do not understand its meaning properly, as the Knesset member suggested.
    The same with every subject, by the way, without parental guidance and supervision.

    I agree with what is written above. As a teenager I am disappointed that they canceled the Discovery Science Channel.

  200. Nadav:
    You have returned to the language that is used and I will not continue to answer you.
    There are many ways to die but not all are the result of the dishonesty of others.
    In general - we are constantly harming the choices of school students by not teaching them that one plus one equals three and by not teaching them that Jews need the blood of Christians for unleavened bread.
    There is a difference between presenting a list of options that we do not know for sure which of them is correct and presenting the truth and the lie on the same level.

    In my opinion, dishonest behavior should be banned.
    In your opinion, it should be allowed.
    This is the essence of the difference between our approaches.

  201. Michael, your way of thinking leads to absurdity, the myth and the New Age do not constitute a direct harm to anyone. You can also die relying on scientific medical treatments, and also from overeating McDonald's, you are missing the whole point.
    Hiding the lies is only harming the power of the truth in the end, your way leads to the creation of a sick society in which the individuals are unable to choose and filter the truths and beliefs that suit them and the regime chooses for them what is right and what is wrong, this is a patronism that stems from an absolute and one-dimensional world view

  202. Nadav:
    This is indeed an example that shows that in the case of the trial regarding the film about Hana Senesh - two judges thought like you and one judge thought like me.
    I still think like me.
    I also think that in the discussed matters where there is a potential for damage - the other judges would also think like me.
    The answer to the question about the exact course of Hana Senesh's life does not endanger anyone, but relying on alternative "medicine" can lead to death.

  203. Michael, considering that these are judges of the Supreme Court, maybe they are also postmodernists?

  204. Michael Here are reasons from the rulings of judges regarding the film that deals with the life and death of Hana Sanesh

    A. It is not certain that there is a certain and absolute lie. Everything changes with time and what was considered a lie in the past may be considered factual truth in the future.

    B. Even on the assumption that before us it is a definite and absolute lie, the solution to this is not in limiting freedom of expression, but rather in increasing it. If all the historical versions are brought before the public, the historical lie will be revealed anyway. That is why freedom of expression should be allowed as much as possible. As has been said before: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". Even false, despicable and slanderous things must be made public so that the general public can deny their legitimacy. This is a better situation than for the false opinion to continue to be the property of a small number of people who will hold it in secret

  205. And I don't do the opposite of what I say, but exactly what I say.
    I gave the example as an extreme case of freedom of speech.
    Your statement is logically equivalent to the following statement:
    "You give one example of what should be prohibited from publication and you try to deduce from this that the publication of all things whose publication is prohibited must be prohibited"

  206. I assume that you made sure not to read about the tort of fraud and instead invented a new entry (which you have yet to add to Wikipedia) of the tort of telling the truth

  207. And I'm not confusing anything.
    As soon as someone tells a lie and someone else acts on some lie and it becomes clear to him that it is a lie - he has grounds for a lawsuit.
    The lie of homosexuality can also be grounds for a lawsuit if it is discovered by a woman after she married a man who lied about it.
    In general - when lies are published on the Internet or in any other means of communication - it is impossible to know who will act on them and what damages will be caused to him, therefore this must be prevented.

  208. And in the same breath, I would also recommend bringing back nature programs instead of cooking (some cooking programs) that will get to know the country and the topographical structure a little
    About the world of animals and plants

    By the way, the first channel has several science programs, but they are quite hidden from view

    Every time I see a TV guide I am so happy that I disconnected from cable and satellite

  209. Regarding bringing the principle to extremes, you are doing the exact opposite of what you say you are doing, you are not taking it to extremes in order to show that this is not true, you are taking it to extremes in order to include the extreme case in the less extreme cases, your logic is this - denial The Holocaust is a lie and its publication is prohibited This proves that things that are lies should be prohibited from publication, the fallacy here is clear Holocaust denial is not prohibited just because it is a lie, it is prohibited because it is a dangerous lie that can lead to the harm and destruction of a nation due to the (still) existence of anti-Semitism. Saying in itself that there are ghosts can harm people just like saying that the sun will rise tomorrow

  210. Michael, you are confusing a lie in itself is not prohibited or allowed according to the law, I have the right to lie as long as my lie does not directly and clearly harm another person, the emphasis is on the harm, the proof of this is simple, even the truth if it harms a particular person is prohibited from publication if that A person wants to hide it about himself, let's say someone is homosexual and declares that he is straight, because in your world this is a lie and he should be banned from publishing it.

    It is absolutely clear here that the issue is the people, the thing harming another person and not whether it in itself is a lie or the truth, the law does not pretend to decide that at all.

  211. Nadav:
    The method of bringing a certain principle to extreme situations is an accepted method in the scientific and philosophical world and its function is exactly the function for which I use it - to show that this or that principle - when applied comprehensively - is incorrect.
    Therefore, what you disparagingly call "habits" is a habit that you should adapt too.
    The examples I gave show exactly that there must be restrictions on freedom of expression and the question is therefore not "if" but "where".
    I made it very clear where this border should be crossed - in my opinion.
    The border is the one that will leave the things that are clearly false on the outside and leave inside only things about which there can be doubt.

    The law also limits freedom of expression.
    Although he usually only does this retrospectively by punishing those who have been convicted of a fraudulent act.הונאה

  212. Don't mix things up. Psychology is not an exact science and mental illnesses cannot be seen under a microscope, meaning they have no biological abnormalities (ibid). I know senior researchers, scientists and doctors who do not recognize the necessity and reliability of psychiatric drugs. I recommend reading this article:

  213. Father, I don't believe in ghosts at all, I believe in the right of people to say they exist and I think you also believe in this right, otherwise there would not have been an advertisement on your website about a mattress that solves back pain with random acupuncture

  214. Nadav, again, after you came back with a new nickname, you started again with your New Age. Ghosts and demons only exist in children's fairy tales, and no scientific revolution will bring them back to reality. If you want to think like that, there are enough websites without criticism and conscience. On the science site, they behave properly, and do not treat other writers.

  215. And please Michael, don't try again to justify the rule with the help of the exceptions as usual and choose extreme issues in order to strengthen a weak Tiev, obviously there are things like Holocaust denial that should be banned,
    But between that and taking away someone's right to say that there are spirits and you can communicate with them, the distance is enormous.

  216. Michael, it seems that you do not understand the freedom of speech correctly, of course it is allowed to lie, it is not allowed to divert it to harm or murder, but it is definitely allowed to lie, then if we follow the line that you are weaving, the sentence "Coca Cola, the taste of life" is also a lie, in fact all the advertisements lead you to think that you will get something Other than what the product really gives you, then maybe we should ban advertisements, what do you think Michael?

    Here are the words of the philosopher John Stewart, I hope you don't interpret him as a postmodernist as well

    John Stuart Mill, the 19th century English social philosopher, presents four reasons that clarify why restricting freedom of speech and thought is an obstacle to truth:

    1. It is possible that the thing you are forbidden to say is the truth.
    2. There are no complete truths and the more complete truth is achieved as a compromise between different opinions containing partial truths. That's why you need to hear all opinions and not limit them.
    3. Truth itself is strengthened during its struggle with falsehood. Therefore, even if the forbidden things you said are false - they should be said.
    4. The truth loses its persuasive power when it needs the power of the arm. Even if by restricting the freedom of thought and speech the truth is protected - it is harmful to it.

  217. All true.
    All the people marking here are retarded and me too.
    We are slowly becoming a country with a third world culture and the economy after that.

    You have to make an effort to get rid of the mystical and alternative nonsense

  218. In my opinion, people do not understand the phrase "freedom of speech" correctly.
    Freedom of speech is not meant to give people the freedom to lie or deceive others.
    It is true that there are cases in which it is difficult to expose a lie and in such cases one must judge the speaker, but there are also many cases in which the lie is obvious and in these cases there is no sense in helping the liar with the freedom of speech.
    This is why denial of the Holocaust is prohibited, this is why the publication of blood plots must be prohibited and this is why there are mechanisms in the law such as lawsuits for libel.
    Most of the New Age claims are just flat out lies.
    Sometimes the lie is in the presentation of claims that are known to be untrue and sometimes the lie is in the presentation as if claims the degree of truth of which is not known to be true.
    That is not what freedom of speech is for.

  219. I noticed that Sharon always goes against the style articles
    Fooling the public
    They sell him nonsense
    And as usual Michael words for girls
    And here's some more
    Life on sale!
    "Could someone please just tell me what happened? I mean, first we paid for fast food that will make us all fat and tired. So then we pay for elevators, so we won't have to climb the 3 stairs up to our apartments. Then we buy freaking stairmaster machines so we can burn away while watching someone make real food on TV. Now if that doesn't make us winners, I don't know what will. I bet we would hang ourselves if the world would just cut us a slack. And now you think maybe you should see a shrink, help (me) feel alive again, yeah, that's a plan! Just tell us who to pay.”
    and a little more [further explanation]

    "See, it's really all about time and choice. The fast food saves us enough time to squeeze lunch in exactly when we want it. The elevators save us just a little more, the stairmaster lets us choose exactly when to walk the stairs. Time is so important these days, it's becoming a fucking disease, and I guess in a way it is since it's bound to kill us all in the end. Now with all the time and money we stashed away on others' expenses, I can only assume that the tickets to hell are really expensive. For some reason, it's important to be first in line.”

  220. I agree if my father, this device is stupid. The sole purpose of this media is to provide cheap entertainment, momentary thrills that operate on the lowest levels, gunk food for the mind.
    Among the many damages that the media causes is a low tolerance for violence, when children receive daily brainwashing seasoned with violence at a very high dose, the road to street violence and knives is short.
    Another alarming example of the damage of the media is the extreme increase in the obesity of the population, which the mass media instigates, by virtue of its role as the main propaganda tool of the consumer culture.
    I think that ideas to correct the media in "good" programs such as science programs that my father proposed, will contribute very little because the viewing segmentation shows that the garbage programs receive very high viewing percentages and all the other programs are watched by a tiny percentage.
    In my opinion, the only way to deal with this media, especially if you are parents, is to throw the TV out of the house, I don't see the possibility of keeping an addictive drug at home and not using it.
    I strongly recommend reading the books of the American sociologist Neil Postman: Entertainment to Death and the Loss of Childhood in which he analyzes media culture and its effects in depth.

  221. As for the nonsense that is broadcast on TV (singles) - I absolutely agree with you

    And I also completely agree with the title of the article.

    But you want to wash your hands and the scientists of personal responsibility for the matter.

    Let's differentiate between science and junk science

    A few examples:


    You took the example of vaccines where a doctor speaks in praise of them and an irrelevant homeopath speaks of cursing them.

    But when a former vaccine scientist gathers courage and comes out against vaccines, then is it legitimate in your eyes?

    When the medical workers in New York issue restraining orders by a Supreme Court judge against forced vaccinations - are they also a stupid public?

    It's not just that the public turns its back on institutionalized science (especially now in the age of the Internet)

    When the scientists and the government join hands in distorting science - against them!!

    Get official minutes of a closed conference held in 2000 on the subject of vaccinations.
    What is published regarding the safety of vaccines and what is said behind closed doors by the same parties is a world of difference.חיסון-קטלני-פגישה-סודית-אוטיזם-חיסוני/

    You mentioned Ritalin - director of the company that produces Ritalin Dr. John Rangan
    Tell you this is an extremely dangerous drug and all the safety approvals revolve around silence and bribery.

    Secondly -

    On the issue of global warming caused by humans -

    You all know the graph that shows this is the hottest period in 1000 years
    The latter is based on Tree ring reconstruction

    This is the backbone of the "warming scientists".

    Real and honest scientists have asked countless times for the data that created this graph - but have been denied.

    But finally we have the original data of the graph:
    And it turned out that the warming scientists decided to cherry pick specific data
    And not to enter all the data, why?
    Because the graph becomes like this (see the black line):

    Here is the whole article

    And the data on the ground in the world confirm the data of the authentic graph:
    90 percent of the world's glaciers are growing
    Only 10 percent shrink - which they always show us on TV, by the way..

    The call should come to the scientists who choose a wayward path - to return to the bosom of ethics.

    With all due respect - cleaning should first of all come from home.

  222. I miss Yusef Tergin's mythological shows on Saturday mornings and the science monthly.
    The things that shaped me as a teenager.
    It's a shame there aren't things of similar quality today.

  223. Yael, what I added orally in the yeshiva was that of course I have no expectations that the managers of the broadcasting companies who are people who care about their immediate profit will think long term. This is the role of the members of the Knesset, who are now enacting a law that will allow the granting of licenses to anyone to open a TV station when nothing can be done against him if he deteriorates the level, a good example is what happened in Italy.

    As for mysticism, I didn't mean to ban it, but certainly like cigarettes, I meant that teenagers should not be exposed to this nonsense, so that we don't lose them too. After all, we have already lost their parents after 20 years of televised stupidity. It's not exactly a beneficial hobby for society.

  224. Reminds me of the excellent series "Dinosaurs" ("Dinosaurs TV Show") that aired in the 90s
    In the episode "Network Genius" when the father is appointed a TV editor, and starts broadcasting stupid programs and the IQ tests show a drop in results. Then he starts caring about science broadcasts and the level of intelligence increases, and Bibi tries to launch a rocket to the moon. The episode ends of course with the publication of the "TV-Guide" which brings the level of intelligence back down.
    By the way, it was not a scientific program, but very enjoyable and includes some kind of lesson, and in my opinion is still relevant...
    About Wikipedia:

  225. Yesterday I was exposed to the above site for the first time and read very interesting and intelligent articles and talkbacks
    I am very interested in science (physics and astronomy) and find this site full of interesting material
    And no less important in Hebrew (easy and fast)

    Every now and then some movie flashes to him (the last one I saw was "Journey to the End of the Universe") excellent, charming and amazing
    Also well made and interesting as well as instructive.

    Apparently, most of the people involved in science are closed and locked in their projects and therefore do not have time
    For television, and they don't have time to preach to such and such scientific programs and the population "suffers"

    I hope that everyone knows how to find their way (scientific programs that pop up from time to time)
    and the things that interest him as I found this site. well done.

  226. It seems to me that everyone here agrees on the importance of broadcasting quality scientific content for all ages
    But I agree with Yael, there are drifts here, in the call to ban broadcasts of mysticism at certain hours, freedom of expression and thought are the cornerstones of a free society, the same society from which scientific thinking itself arose, to harm them is to harm science and what it represents, what's more To bring mysticism and the New Age into the underground where these teachings will become martyred sanctities and enchant people much more.

  227. Words for girls, my father!
    There is no doubt that the lack of programs dealing with science and focusing on shallow entertainment on the main channels causes a narrowing of horizons. Similar to the fluorine that is added to the water, here too there should be some kind of public responsibility of the channel operators (and I'm not just talking about the stupid commercials that underestimate the intelligence of all of us) beyond the demand of the audience.

    The fact is that many young people simply do not know about the possibilities they have in life because they are not exposed to them, instead they are exposed to a pile of nonsense that distorts their world view. Too bad.

  228. I am quite moved by the call that comes up here against the thought police - as if there is one here.
    It seems to me that people here tend to employ thought police against those who say that delusional ideas are delusional.
    There is no party in Israel that imposes its opinion (religion) on another except the religious and the time has come for the matter to be internalized.
    Only they led to the enactment of laws that limit the freedom of people who do not believe in vanity and only the ultra-orthodox public allows itself to harm others by taking their money and risking their lives in the army to allow themselves a life of parasitism.
    Besides - I do not at all accept the claim that those who choose to live as a mystic are wise.
    In my opinion he is a perfect fool and don't use the thought police against me and say that I shouldn't think like that.

  229. I have a few spelling errors, as usual, but "to no one" is a bit shocking even to me. It means "to a person". my apologies

  230. Change, Yael, does not start with a shout or a smile. The business world does not move around facial expressions but rather through money and power. Science should not be on every newscast or prime time show! God forbid. Science is one aspect of life and its respect is placed in its place (and if it is still not enough then maybe awareness should be increased - but certainly not as you wrote above). There is a whole world beyond science just as there is a whole world beyond religion. Not everywhere you have to push these two and it's good to put things in proportion and taste.
    I believe that the reference will not make any noise, not even for 5 minutes.

    I do agree with your opinion that a dictatorial regime of thought should not be preached as to what is right or wrong for a people to engage in their hobbies, even if these are stupid, complete stupidity: whether in ideas about God, the tarots or the stars. Every person and group, no matter how large, may engage in what they choose to engage in as long as they do not harm their environment and the freedom of other human beings.

    I would generally advise the preachers of this or that law (religion or science) to take a step back and look around and at their teaching. The public is stupid and it will remain so - that is the nature of a public. As a public it is stupid but it is made up of many smart people who make their choices like any other of us and therefore a mystic's law is like a scholar-reader's law: everyone has the right to choose the path.

    Best regards,
    Ami Bachar

  231. A little exaggeration no?

    My father, I also think that science should star in every news release, in every prime time show, but who will take care of it, the greedy franchisees or perhaps the ignorant and corrupt members of the Knesset? In other words, there is no one to trust up there.
    And it may be that an appeal like yours will make a lot of noise and it might get 5 minutes of fame, but a serious change starts not with a shout, but with a smile.

    And regarding the "world of mysticism" and the other kinds of programs from the field, I hope you are not really preaching a dictatorship as it might sound. Everyone has the right to enjoy their hobbies - some collect stamps, others go fishing, some like to gamble in poker, and some read cards. have fun

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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