A country haunted by demons XNUMX: Do you want stupidity? YES

190 תגובות

1. Dear Friends. No arguments and no discussions. The television and satellite is public and there are full of channels and you can see everything there - Christianity, Islam, nature, talk shows, poetry, art, acting (maybe we can also include Judaism please???). There are serious things and there are silly things, there are interesting things and there are nonsense and nonsense.
   Everyone will decide what they want to see and what they don't or that they don't want to see anything from there at all!
   Who are you to decide what will be there? See what you want and the other will see what he wants! Like on the internet…
   Let's be real liberals and not fake!!!

2. Evolution has been flourished since then, so why teach children nonsense and lies. The children of Israel need Torah!! And not disproved imaginations

3. I'm sad .
   This article really hurt me.
   I am really against religious preaching and lately there are too many "strengthening"
   It saddens me that people prefer to "strengthen" religiously rather than intellectually....
   I'm a little worried about the black future we're heading towards...

4. anonymous
   Note what I wrote, I was not speaking against people training as a group. A man will live by his faith, and I have no problem with that. There are wonderful things in religion, along with less good things. I was talking about a very specific subject - repentance.
   I'll put it another way - I don't know of any valid argument that can convince a secular person (soon I'll explain what I mean by "secular") that there is a God, especially the particular and only God you believe in. For a religious person - faith is enough. A secular person needs a basis for his opinions.

   I'm probably making a generalization here, after all, there are a huge number of secular people who believe in all kinds of nonsense such as chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, numerology, astrology, conspiracies of all kinds (landing on the moon, vaccines, Kamtrilez...) and so on. There is an organization called The Brights that represents the secularism I am talking about. I agree that they are not very successful…. Another organization is the Skeptic Society. What unites this group is the belief that everything comes from nature, and everything can be tested. What sets this group apart - as opposed to religious groups for example - is one simple thing: if there is something we don't agree on then we check. that's it.

   Happy New Year 🙂

5. For taxes, don't generalize two completely different things. It's interesting that you 'and the orthodox barbarian' from Bnei Brak live in the same bubble of 'everything is lies except x'. As a person of faith, I am against all Kabbalah and astrology, and still when I look at the Torah, the Mishniyot and the Gemara, the Halacha and the morals, I see wisdom And it's good that they are above the human. So if you just open your mind a little, listen to understand and not to give a crushing answer. I'm not lying that I have a way, because there is none. I'm a man of faith and faith defies proof. Just don't put me in the same basket as all the Babas And the Kabbalists who have not studied enough to know that it is forbidden to study Kabbalah 'until he fills his belly with Shas and puskim'. Otherwise, when he opens the channel of dialogue and sees the coming, he will conclude that the entire world of Judaism is huge enough to contain superhuman wisdom and morality, and religious fanatics and Kabbalists will also push in.

6. my father
   Pseudoscience is a lie. Repentance is based on lies. Those who want to believe in God will be perfumed to him, but those who try to convince a secularist that there is a God, must base their opinions on... what shall we call it... lies.

7. Indeed, in a democratic country the secular have no right to express their opinion, only the repentant...

8. You're quite cheeky, Blizovsky. Although as a national religious person I do not agree with the pseudo-science represented by the ultra-orthodox converts, some of the content on the channel is indeed wrong and some is related to religious and moral questions that have nothing to do with exact science and do not pretend to be such, just as the propaganda of the left's moral worldview takes place on other channels. Every channel has the right to exist, you sound like an extreme secularist who is not willing to hear opinions different from his own and that's where it all comes from. You have the right to criticize science matters specifically and at least to qualify your statements about other areas of the channel. I thought that since the uniform education system, the days of secular coercion were over. I was fooled.

9. the scholar,
   What is the science of Judaism?

10. the scholar
    The Jewish sciences are related to what is found in the natural sciences and in English humanitis, it is a discipline completely different from the natural sciences and has its own research methods...

11. To my father
    Maybe open a label that will have the science of Judaism, it seems to me that it will solve a lot of problems

12. What is up?
    Science is an agenda. Not good?

13. This is a site with an agenda - to burn the flames, even if it is represented by a person wearing a kippah, a robe, a monk's hat, an astrologer's garment, a numerologist, etc.

14. Is this a science site or a site with an agenda?

15. Discovery is back in a big way

    Website index of TV websites from around the world
    http://goip.co.il/tv.html

    Go to: veetle > shows > The Universe And Beyond

    Pleasant viewing 🙂

16. Thanks to Citizen No. 17, "Words for girls". I'm secular, and we have a lot to learn from the Torah of Israel, and Mazar'el. And it's ours.

17. It's a shame that there is no test for granting citizenship by knowing the language and it's a shame that there are citizens who, apart from swearing, don't say anything.

18. citizen -
    Completely different opinions can be found in the holy books of other religions - Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.

    How do we know which are the right books?

19. You claim sanity and wisdom that you yourself dismiss other things
    Perhaps you are in the stream of stupidity that has emerged in the last two hundred years with support from the ignorant West.
    What do you know about the Torah in general and the history of your people?
    Your entire thesis is general heresy and arrogance above science and nature.
    If you would learn a little but only a little true Torah without distorted arrogance
    You would understand something about life and this world and see the truth in science
    You use all these tools to freeze and say I and nothing.
    You don't need to repent to know a thing or two about our world
    And an explanation for everything can only be found in the Torah
    Parallel and anti-matter locations and as much as you want
    But there is an attitude of study in the West and it is the attitude you breathe that accept my opinion and I will not accept yours
    Without learning, without listening, not even for a moment
    And there is a reciprocal relationship with the laws of the Torah to all the laws of the world and this is only possible to understand by studying
    You don't have to repent or do mitzvot to understand, just be open to wisdom
    But you are probably immediately put off by the very fact that you can become addicted to it or believe in it and then pretend to maintain what is necessary as a connection and affinity to religion automatically. But that's not true, it's a wrong thought. The Rambam said that it is the science and you admire the science, so you don't study it and believe in it? Make up your mind? This is proof that you do believe, but you didn't sit down and talk to the right people. There is no contradiction between science and the Torah, you just need to reconcile things.
    And God first wants to be recognized and then only if man wants at all then he will only do what he can. And God really, really doesn't want a person to repent in one moment or be horrified in the next, it's really wrong. God wants them to come close to Him, not to be crushed against Him. And all these sites and the curiosity and affection you have for science is the same thing towards God, so you are also doing a mitzva whether you want to or not. Just like the founders of Hasidism said and state in their holy books that a person should learn the internals of the Torah, Razi Torah, I recommend Taniya. There is an interrelationship and a close connection between our religion, Judaism, the world and the universe, and only through proper study can one arrive at an explanation of everything. Depends on your approach to the truth. Because the wise fact will live on.

20. There are no channels of Christianity or Islam on Israeli television, and the Bible, Tosheba and the Jewish tradition are taught many more hours in school than any other religion.

    And as my father says beautifully, there is indeed truth and we are trying to reach it in the best way that man has discovered - science.

21. First of all, who said that Christianity and Islam are better than Judaism? I am not dying for religious preaching from any religion. And what to do the truth is indeed one, and it does not belong to any of these religions.
    Science at least tries to approach it.

22. Christian channels on TV are fine, but may there be one Jewish channel
    God help, this may have an effect on God, people will "go crazy"
    Teaching Islam in schools is fine, but democracy is not
    But Judaism is not allowed in any way
    It's not you, God forbid, it's "his" fear of the truth
    Lying has many types and ways
    And what to do, the truth is one and will not help anyone, nothing, only it will remain at the end of a situation

23. Not sure it's that bad:
    http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/110/2/
    Read and think

24. I watched this site's channel not on a regular basis, but definitely from time to time. The truth is that it consisted of programs that were several years old and when it comes to science and space, a large part of the programs in it were out of date.

    Even so, I'd rather have a sterilized science channel than nothing.

25. Gentlemen,
    I have already talked to Yes representatives. How surprising they tried to ramble on with the same mantra of an unwatched channel and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Of course, I drew their attention to the fact that they were violating an agreement by taking 40% off the science package, Disc Science and Adventure! Out of 5 while I am paying the full cost for this package, for some reason it did not interest them and when I asked for a credit and after their lack of response to disconnect, they threatened me that they would charge me 390 NIS to refund even though they are violating the agreement!!! Also, the same "girl" who was called a "service manager" did her job faithfully and tried the "exhaustion" tactic that says we are the big ones and you are the small consumer and we will determine how when and in what way we will give you our "services" or is it correct to say "the lack of service" and you the small ones will continue to pay like big
    Although my commitment ends in two months, I do not intend to give up on this predatory company and will fight to the bitter end for immediate termination. My recommendation is to spread as much as possible the exploits of Yes (e-mails, talkbacks, etc.) to fight them as dirty as they treat their customers.
    To remind you that Yes also took down the ANAME channel in a similar way..

26. Raphael Prag is right!!

    You have to call Liss and threaten that we'll move hot!
    My father did it with Cellcom... and they brought him 6 free devices...lol
    Maybe it will work on Yes!

27. I had no idea yes is going to stop providing Discovery science to its subscribers/
    I am going to call them now and tell them I shall move to hot
    I suggest everyone does that

28. to riff:
    I hope that when you grow up, your logic will increase and you will understand that the fact that you think a certain situation is not desirable for you does not make it wrong.
    In other words, if you think your life without God and religion is worthless that doesn't make God exist and religion reflect something real.
    Beyond this general consideration, there are many more reasons not to believe all this nonsense and some of them have already come up in this discussion - I suggest you read the responses written (also by me) according to Shaul Bar Ilan.
    I, by the way, was born in a religious family and I know exactly what religion gives and what it takes in return (and the main thing it takes is the critical thought which by definition is contrary to the concept of faith).
    By the way, relax. The world without God and without religion is a wonderful world and I am surprised that among the things you listed as its characteristics you did not include scientific research. Do you think that in writing these lines I only sleep, eat or travel?
    I suggest you learn a little about the contents of the secular world before you judge it so superficially.
    You should read, for example, Dent's book: Darwin's Dangerous Idea and Dawkins' book: The God Delusion

29. Hello Rif, and thank you for your response.

    There are scientific explanations for clinical death, and even laboratory experiments were conducted that proved that a person can be put into a mental state that simulates clinical death (without harming his health) - and in this state the person does feel as if he is floating above the body and is able to see his body and the room around him.

    Thanks for your advice to try. I already tried, when I was four years older than you. It was interesting, but not convincing. So no, we are not 'just afraid to repent'.

    Good Day,

    Roy.

30. post Scriptum.
    I am a 14-year-old boy and my father was completely secular for 40 years and I only repented at the age of 4 and don't think that I was forced by God's blessing from the age of 4 I knew how to read my father watched TV and I saw a tape of some rabbi and I only heard a story and it penetrated my heart and really as a 4-year-old boy I told my father mine that I want to put a kippah and a tassel and after that my father bought it for me and he went to the rabbi and the rabbi explained to him what he needed to know and father repented
    And today I feel that I went the right way when I was in trouble I just asked for help and I got it
    I suggest that everyone take at least one small mitzvah that they can and that is at least to have a shield

    Try, you never know what will happen, just try

31. If they put this channel on, what do you care, then don't watch it, watch it on other channels, you're just afraid to repent, think for yourself what the meaning of living life is to just eat, work, sleep, travel and so on
    And after that, it's dead, we just wasted our energy, we just wasted our time
    Heard stories of those who went through clinical death, interestingly one who lives in America and one who lives in China and one who lives in Russia tell the exact same things they saw without omitting even the smallest detail
    In conclusion: I think they will upload the channel and those who want to watch and those who don't want to not watch and those who don't want the channel at home (as far as I know) can block it

32. Too bad... nothing to say

33. The previous message was directed to ask….

34. I admit that I did not read the whole discussion to the end, but I found some things in your words that I disagree with. Some are superficial, and others are more substantial.
    1. Regarding Bernoulli's law, you claimed that Bernoulli's law predicts that an airplane will be able to fly due to the curvature of its wing. I am sorry to inform you, but according to Bernoulli's law, you will have to reach an enormous speed in order for a plane to be able to rise in the air... however, the answer lies in another phenomenon called the "Coanda effect". I will leave the job of searching for the answer to you in order to create interest.
    2. I do not agree with you about your views on the theory of evolution in particular and about science in general. Although the theory of evolution is not perfect for all cases, after "renovations" here and there it will prove to us everything that has happened so far. The fact that you claim that evolution does not explain the fact that so many species of creatures have evolved does not mean that this is indeed the case. You did not take into account the initial conditions of the system (you can never know them precisely either), nor did you take into account time The vastness that has passed from the formation of the first amino acid to the present day. If life on Earth did not look like it does today, it would look different, and you would still wonder why it is so.

    Food for thought.

35. DISCOVERY SCIENCE is down, but the DISCOVERY channel remains, and most of the content broadcast on SCIENCE just moved to another channel, there is nothing to get excited about.

36. It's a shame that this channel is being taken down, it's one of the best channels there is, it's a shame that there is no exposure to science in Israel and only when little is exposed to it and the amount only decreases over time, I have no idea what poor achievements the school students in Israel will be able to achieve in a few more years, the trend has been negative in years the last ones
    It seems to me that I will switch to the basic package of Yes, I am very disappointed with the content that is on the TV and I can't believe how much money is charged for mediocrity.

37. The comment was sent by mistake!! Continued
    The ban should perhaps also include controlled use of existing theories that may lead to harmful solutions and it will be much more difficult to correct!
    Returning to the entities in the past, I concluded that the human world is controlled by those entities and God is actually used as a convenient marionette in their hands, but I could not understand what they get out of it! Maybe now there is a partial answer and it is "our ability to ask" which they may not have or have to a much lesser degree than us !
    I hope that you don't think Shuki that I stink up the site!
    I don't recommend Shuki to read so as not to harm that tiny part of his mind that is the last survivor of his "wisdom"!

38. With your permission, I would like to return to the matter of the solutions provided by spirits/angels/gods, in a dream or in any other situation whether requested or not.
    I mentioned in one of the comments referring to this that the person has to ask the questions in order for those entities to "bring" the appropriate solution!
    As we know in most solutions the important part is precisely the questions that get into the depth of the topic/interest/problem! And this can be 80% of the solution, which leaves a small part for the "gods" but enough for them to be able to direct the solution in the direction they want!
    That is, if we assume that entities exist, they are only engaged in providing solutions, and not necessarily for the benefit of humanity, but for their own benefit!
    Now I'm going to say something that might change the whole way of thinking/scientific work!
    We will now remove the entities from the story and be left with solutions that do not take into account the damage that those solutions can bring!
    That is, there is no limit to the solutions that science can reach..there is no red line that must not be crossed while finding solutions! There are no formulas marked in red with which one must use extreme caution. In fact, everything is open, politicians and industrialists use what is available and not what is not. So if there were scientific solutions that included calculations of possible future damages such as the continuation of the crazy birth and the continued development of fertilization methods as if the human world was about to become extinct, continued Development of consumption methods for different fuels directly and indirectly

39. Apparently there really is no limit to human stupidity. The famous saying "there are two types of fools: those who doubt nothing, and those who doubt everything", and so on.
    Bye

40. For the user who is both afraid and does not understand what is called:
    You repeat your nonsense endlessly and without learning.
    For my part, you will continue to accept the faith of many as proof. Have you already accepted the religion of Islam for this reason?
    The truth is, you're already boring me, so I'll take Peretz's advice.
    Bye

41. I am 11 years old and I really like this channel!
    Let them do something!

42. Avi:
    What you say about Spinoza is not true. There were philosophical reasons at that time for believing in God, which he must have known. What you are doing is asking what if Spinoza had lived in our time - maybe he was an atheist or maybe not. In any case, his views were extreme enough that a century later Spinozist and atheist would be considered synonymous. In any case, all of this is irrelevant: what is relevant is Einstein's perception of Spinoza's God, and Einstein clearly said that it is a mistake to say that Spinoza is an atheist, naming him and the founder of the Franciscan order, as I imagine, as sharing his form of faith.

    For a user who does not understand Hebrew:
    I'm very tempted to just copy-paste my previous post. Nevertheless, we will try the third: Einstein believed in an impersonal God. Einstein did not believe in God in a personal God. You can find twenty more quotes from him that prove the second, but it doesn't prove anything about the first.
    As I said (reading comprehension) I agree to a puzzle from you on the condition that you agree to a problem from me. I'm not going to tell you where I'm going to take her for a spell.
    I have not heard that Avi Blizovsky was harmed by violence because of his writing.
    My faith is not the point of the debate here: I presented only facts, as opposed to your wishful thinking and crooked interpretations. The evidence that I am illegitimate if I believe in some kind of deity shows deep stupidity and bigotry. I hope you clarify that this is not your intention. If your goal is to show that I hold beliefs that contradict each other, then on the one hand you did not show it, as you would have seen if you understood what was being read, and on the other hand I admit this wholeheartedly; I have many conflicting beliefs, and as you know dialectics is one of the most important knowledge bases. If it doesn't seem legitimate to you, maybe you should give up on classical mechanics and general relativity altogether.

43. Led. breach:
    Ramot Sheshavim is between Ra'anana and Hod Hasharon and south of Kfar Saba.
    It is a neighbor of Kfar Mellal (Arik Sharon's quarry) and has been famous several times with the unflattering title of the settlement with the highest property tax in the country. This fact is no longer true since Ramot Shaviv was annexed to the South Sharon Regional Council.
    In the more distant past, Ramot Shaviv was known as the Kokuriko neighborhood because almost every farm had a chicken coop (Ramot Shaviv was then one of the largest producers of edible eggs.
    Another name that was attached to the returnees' plateau was Yaka-Land because the majority of its population was Yakim (Jews of German origin).
    As you already understand - to this day, yikes live here.

44. For the user who is afraid to fade:

    My father has already answered the nonsense you wrote about Einstein's god.
    The only thing you can depend on is the use of the word God, but as you would understand if it were not for your mistake in which you disapproved when you referred to the understanding of what was read by Einstein, he claimed that he does not believe in a being that intervenes during the events in the world.
    I will repeat again the part of Einstein's speech that appeared above and which you decided not to refer to:
    The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events.

    Is there any clarity on this?
    You did not understand?
    Want more?
    Here's something that didn't appear above:
    The idea of ​​a Being who interferes with the sequence of events in the world is absolutely impossible. [Albert Einstein]

    The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of ​​a being who interferes in the course of events... He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion . [Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions]

    You have a hard time believing that the existence of an accepted claim is not a reason to believe it, and on the other hand, you have no trouble at all ignoring the multitude of examples I brought to substantiate this claim.

    I don't know how you define a problem Ramanujan would have solved.
    Is it again with the help of the Indian goddess?
    If you are going to identify these problems by having him solve them then you are actually offering to test my ability to search the internet and the literature.
    The problems I propose to send you are those whose solution does not appear anywhere.
    are you still in business

    In relation to the invisible pursuers, as far as I have heard Avi Blizovsky has already had the pleasure of feeling their arms and the fact that you do not reveal your name was and remains evidence that you are ashamed of what you say.

    I did not try to delegitimize your words based on any belief because your belief is the essence of the debate here and the resulting delegitimization you achieved on your own.
    What I did try (successfully!) to show is that you hold beliefs that contradict each other.

    Ramachandran's name is spelled in English like this: Ramachandran and one of his books Phantoms in the brain was translated into Hebrew under the name "T'at'aoei Mooh"

45. Spinoza's God is not really God. He doesn't interfere with anything, he just created the universe and let it work. And this is only because Spinoza lived in a time when atheism was de facto outlawed by both the Jews and the Christians.

46. Do you have difficulties with reading comprehension? Try to read all Einstein's quotes. In which one did he write that he does not believe in God? (Nobody) The closest to this is his statement The idea of ​​a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. But I clearly wrote that Einstein believed in an impersonal God, and this again sharpens the question about your reading comprehension. The fact is that Einstein specifically said: I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind - you have no right (or reason) to determine that this is a metaphor .
    If you have already revealed to all of us what Einstein thought about people "like me", let's see what he really thought about people like you:
    The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer (with an emphasis on bigotry).
    I find it hard to believe that someone seriously writes that the existence of an accepted claim is not a reason to believe it. I wonder, then, what do you base your knowledge on? Maybe for the unacceptable claims. So far you haven't come up with any reason not to believe the goddess' claim, except of course you don't like her for some unknown reason. I already wrote clearly in the previous message that there is no reason to doubt his reliability (reading comprehension). On the other hand, there is evidence against the claim that Einstein was a bad student and against the claim that the Torah was transmitted without interruption or disruption from Mount Sinai. When you find a real reason, then please come back to it.
    I would of course be happy to hear one of your riddles, but since you present it as a challenge I require as a condition of reciprocity: I will give you at the same time a riddle that Ramanujan would have solved easily, and we will both publish the solutions together. wants to??
    In the meantime, all my claims have been limited to your claims only, and you are the one who centers his claims around, for example:

    1) The foolish attack of my maintaining anonymity, as if the fact that I do not identify somehow reduces the strength of my claims in front of you. Unfortunately you don't understand sarcasm and saw my implied criticism of it earlier as a criticism of your anonymity. No one is impressed by the fact that you revealed your personal details, and I suggest you ask Abi Blizovsky to at least remove the address because no benefit can grow from this (and no, not from the invisible persecutors, from the sides of religion and the new age).
    2) The attempt to delegitimize my claims based on my belief in Torah Israel.
    3) The attempt to delegitimize my claims based on my belief in Indian gods.
    [The apparent contradiction is because I am not stepping into this infantile trap, and I will not reveal here whether or not I believe in any deity, because my disbelief or disbelief has no relevance to the discussion and no effect on my claims, and the readers are smart enough to figure it out on their own. In particular, this attempt is part of your ongoing failure in this discussion and is the claim that you are right=>atheist.]

    DA, how do you write Ramachandran in English? His research sounds interesting to me.

47. Hello to Mr. Tsanani.
    I've seen clips on TV where he's put together half-truths with things he thinks are science. I had enough. In retrospect, you can prove anything you want, with a little interpretation.
    I'm not a New Age person - if you don't understand the New Age is a code name for people who believe in all kinds of nonsense such as auras, telepathy, and also certain types of cults in the main religions.
    I have a suggestion for you, first learn science and then you will understand that I am not afraid of your "truth", but that innocent people who will be convinced by his anti-scientific reasons that he presents as science, will flock to him and be lost to the enlightened people.

48. Hello Mr. Blizovsky, I have a few questions for you.
    Have you ever seen a lecture by Rabbi Zamir Cohen?
    probably not!!!
    In every lecture on science and the Torah, he proves that what is invented and developed today has already been in our Holy Torah for thousands of years
    And you as a person of the "new age" it's just scary why don't you open your head more and try to learn the things???
    The truth probably scares you. You're just a little man.

49. To Michael
    Until now I looked from the side!
    I must point out that you are sentimental in relation to a scientist who is supposed to be more vocal, you forget that this is the internet and not the academy, and therefore the form of discourse here is different, you have no idea what it is to be slanderous when it comes to news sites... here it is kindergarten compared to other places, there also " Cursing" means using other people's nicknames to say things on their behalf that are the opposite of what they usually say and other different methods to gain an advantage!
    To be honest, I don't find the words "anonymous user" (the name is clever by the way.. upside down) too blatant or outside the bounds of good taste!
    Why do you have all this headache? After all, you probably have a higher degree than a job and a career. So you miss those battles? what are you worried about For science to collapse, will we continue to speak here and there? And also some innovations and words of wisdom from time to time (unintentionally)!!
    By the way, where is Ramot Shaviv? Sorry for the ignorance, I haven't left Gush Dan for a long time!

50. Another little thing:
    I sit within my people and I know that by presenting rational and secular positions on the one hand and revealing my name and address on the other hand I am putting my soul at risk.
    This is in contrast to the proponents of religion and the new age who can trust the sanity and decency of people like me.
    Sometimes, it turns out, you also have to take risks but I must admit that there was something in the claim that I was afraid of being exposed and now you know what that something was.

51. In my previous response I wrote several times Ramachandran instead of Ramanujan. I hope that Ramachandran, who does not believe in idols and who, in the course of his research in neurophysiology, discovered among other things how it is possible to create in people a sense of divine revelation by stimulating certain points in their minds, will forgive me.
    I do not ask for forgiveness from Ramanujan because he is dead and therefore was not hurt by my words nor will he be able to forgive me.

52. For a user who is afraid to identify himself:

    For some reason you have decided that the puzzles I am dealing with are mathematical amusement puzzles. It is interesting. Some Indian goddess is probably whispering in your ear too.
    It's true that puzzles are fun for me, but I'm ready to challenge you.
    I will give you some of them and you will look for someone who will solve them among all your acquaintances. wants to? just say

    Einstein used the expression God as a metaphor and whoever tries to perceive this word as representing the God of religions or the God of believers of any kind is wrong and misleading.
    Since Einstein encountered types like you already in his day, he took the trouble to clarify his words. for example:

    It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it. [Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press]

    The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exist as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task... [Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941]

    The idea of ​​a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously. [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]
    If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? [Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years]

    So you can continue to seek refuge in the word and avoid the meaning, but I bring these quotes so that those who want to understand will understand. I, unlike you, spread as truth only the truth.
    Attributing to the story of Ramachandran and the goddesses - the story of Einstein being a bad student is also common, anti-Semitism is also common and so is the belief that the Torah has been handed down to us without interruption and without disruption since the time of Mount Sinai is common despite the fact that it contradicts what is written in XNUMX Kings chapter XNUMX.
    The fact that a claim is common, it turns out, has nothing to do with its truth.
    By the way, for the sake of full disclosure, if you accept the things attributed to Ramachandran does that mean he believes in the existence of Indian gods? Do you believe in the Torah of Israel at the same time? Please plaster - answer both questions please.
    You can describe your words as you wish - I see them as an insult and an attempt to hurt me personally.
    Michael Rothschild
    Magen Alley 8,
    Return levels
    Focus 45930
    Weight 78 kg
    Married + 3
    Number of shoes 2
    Shoe size 43
    Above average number of legs

53. To a user who is afraid to identify himself (that is, to give his last name, identification number, current address and zip code):
    The comparison between the math fun puzzles and the problems Ramanujan solved is quite ridiculous. Einstein testified to himself that he believed in an impersonal God - if he chose to call it God, you have no right to decide that he did not mean what he said - even if you don't like it - and certainly not to spread it widely as truth. The story about the Indian goddess is extremely common and plausible and there is no reason to doubt its reliability. Peretz and I, unlike you, did not interpret his intention beyond what was stated (that is, in his dream Ela Hadit gave him the solution).
    I would love to see the psychological studies that explain how one-time geniuses think exactly - after all, if I see them, I too can be as smart as Einstein and Ramenogen. That is of course unless you just made them up in the hope that no one will notice this ridiculous claim.

    As for eloquence: one of the limitations of written dialogue is that it castrates speech to a great extent. If we were to talk face to face you would hear in my tone of voice that I am not angry and I am not nervous (although cynical). That's why if you detected an exaggeration, it's only because that's how you wanted to interpret things. I usually try to interpret the things written on the Internet in a friendly way (of course, in some cases this is impossible), and this is beneficial to my discussion ability in my opinion. It is recommended that you try it too, for example in this message.

54. For a user who is afraid to identify himself:
    Every difficult mathematical problem is...a puzzle.
    That's why there are no more complicated things than puzzles.
    This is the kind of problem I solve. Those who know me know that I am one of the best in the field.
    The fact that I give testimony from my personal experience does not give you the right to attack me.
    What Einstein thought he said himself so clearly that no further information is needed to know what he meant and he by no means believed in God or any other supernatural being.
    The fact that Ramanujan said something about Ella Hidit we only know from some anecdote from a TV show. I have already seen a lot of nonsense in such programs (including the stupid and baseless claim that Einstein was a bad student).
    We have the information about how people think from brain studies and psychological studies.
    Even if Ramanujan said something about Indian Ela - neither you nor Peretz are more qualified than me to interpret his intention.

55. When you are as smart as Ramanujan or Einstein then you will be allowed to decide for them what they meant when they said quite unambiguous things.
    And no, the fact that you solve mathematical puzzles does not mean that you understand how Ramanujan thought - certainly in light of the fact that people who solved things a little more complicated than puzzles do not understand how he thought.

56. to Michael (doesn't commit recently)
    A. If in every event there is one truth and there are infinite events, this means that at any given time there are correspondingly infinite truths!

    B. You say that the real fact that you have a cup of coffee in your hand does not explain anything! really? Here are some details and explanations for this statement..it means that you are holding a cup of coffee and therefore at the time you are not doing anything else with that hand, that there is coffee in the cup and not another drink, and if I could see I could know what the cup is made of, so on...if I knew in what situations And sometimes you drink coffee, this would have led me to more conclusions, in the police they call it circumstantial evidence, I think even in research we use indirect evidence from time to time!

    third. I don't agree that every event has one truth!! Let's take a football game for example, every spectator sees something different, not to mention the players closest to the event, and everyone according to their angle will see different things, although quite close to what happened (because no one will talk about a plane or a bird flying overhead!).. I mentioned in one of the comments that the truth It is a relative matter and especially when it comes to dynamic events, any aspect you do not bring will not cover the whole truth.. When we see a three-dimensional object we always see only one dimension of it until we surround it and in fact we use memory to know how the object looks in its entirety!

    It may be that you mean a principle or formula that does not represent any realistic truth, but through which the inner truth of the phenomenon can be reached!

    Speaking of dreams, there was once an idea to build a bed that would be called the "dream bed" that would move right and left and up and down during sleep and even rotate at different speeds! I thought of this because of the fact that displacement affects the dream and the idea was that after experiments and adjustments the bed would be able to treat people while they were dreaming by movements and displacements in the "correct" directions. The few that slept on the bus because my dreams were different than usual! There must be dreams of trains and what does a homeless person dream of? Probably about discovering an abandoned building full of empty bottles!

57. Led. Peretz - really last word:
    You are confusing truth with explanation.
    Truth is what actually happens or happened.
    An explanation may or may not explain the truth.
    There is no need for the truth to explain anything.
    The fact that I currently have a cup of coffee in my hand is true. Does that explain anything?
    When I say that there is one truth, I mean that for every well-defined claim there is one and only truth value - either it is true or it is false. It cannot be both and if someone thinks that it is both then he is wrong either in his thinking or in his belief that the claim is well defined.

    No one is looking to be convinced, but we all, I hope, are looking for the (only) truth, and if it turns out that we are wrong and what we thought was the truth is not so, and on the other hand, the words of another seem to us to represent the truth - we are convinced even if we did not look for it in advance (this , of course, only if we are rational human beings).

    I have a 250 page book (I already put the coffee mug down) on the life of Ramanujan and his mathematical work. In none of its pages is the Indian goddess you spoke of mentioned.
    It doesn't mean that he didn't say that he gets the solutions from some Indian people, but then I think there are two options:
    1. He said it as a metaphor, just like Einstein talked about God
    2. He was wrong

    I have a lot of experience in solving mathematical puzzles and to this day I don't know exactly what the process is that creates the brilliance that suddenly flashes in my mind but I have no reason to believe that there is some Indian or other goddess that does the job for me.

58. Another thing I had to add now on the topic of dreams is predicting the future (mostly near) !!

    I didn't dream about it, but I remembered it immediately when I woke up a few minutes ago.. Everyone knows Lincoln's dream about his death, as well as thousands of people who dreamed things (negative and positive) that came true.. and here I must add something that in the past made me jump and will probably jump some commenters in addition to Michael and he is scientific discoveries" that they looked clearer and clearer after a "good" sleep!!
    Just a week ago in the program about the prime numbers they brought the life story of Ramanujan, the Indian mathematician who is considered a mathematical genius who claimed (when he was alive) that an Indian "goddess" to whom his community prays brings him the solutions in a dream!!

    This does not mean that all the development of science comes from beings who walk among us and jump every night into "important" dreams to bring the scientific news
    But there are cases in which people themselves claim that they were guided in their dreams regarding the desired solution (I don't remember names at the moment), of course after those people properly formulated the problem that may have been perceived by the beings who are probing our world as a challenge and perhaps this is the only way they found to promote the situation here without getting involved with us In unnecessary conflicts as a civilization whose divine perception made it difficult to open its mind!

    I hope that it has not gone unnoticed by the commenters because all of this is just my free thinking.. and a lack of consideration for what is accepted when it comes to a possible truth, for those who pay attention.. I presented the divine concept as blocking!

    There may have been and there are people including scientists who use solutions in dreams as a method but they are smart enough not to talk about it!
    Personally, I prefer the hard way of thinking and making mistakes. But in the past I had quite a few cases in which I raised questions on various topics and "waited for the accumulation" of data from reality so that the answer could be formulated! Today I don't give much of a chance because with the idea (a problem that raises questions) comes the initial solution (good or bad) and from there I continue later, but these are small and focused ideas!

59. To Michael
    We really differ in that you think in an orderly manner and I am free-sailing in thought! You also don't have much room to play with your thoughts..with me, most of it is a game until the thought settles in the right place for it!

    You were really wrong when you realized that I accepted the matter of the one truth (and therefore I must respond) if the principle of the one truth existed, it means that everything but all the phenomena can be explained by the same truth! But if you meant some other kind of "one truth" you have to spell it out in detail because otherwise I will only understand the wording literally! For me, the whole world is made up of infinite truths and phenomena which together create a uniformity that appears to us, and the further away it will appear one/one and the closer you will see many details that make up the same "whole"!

    Regarding the penetration of the entity into the human body by taking advantage of the dream state.. How did you understand that dreams are controlled by entities? This is really beyond my understanding! I wrote and I meant that in those people in whom an entity/spirit enters (I mentioned "imaginary" in parentheses) one of the possibilities can be through the dream which weakens the The protection of man! It is not clear to me how you understood otherwise and the inclusion for all people who dream!
    Regarding the brain, I have no intention of specializing in its activity, I am content with the various "pics" from various programs and articles.

    In my opinion, you have a basic mistake when you think that people here want to be convinced! For example, I'm not looking to be convinced and I'm not trying to convince others.. I voice my opinion and read the opinion of others that interests me.. In short, this is a site of opinions and not decisions one way or the other, no award or certificate waiting at the end!

60. d. breach:
    This correspondence has long since left the subject of the article, so I will only add this final response to it.
    I didn't say that our thoughts can harm the grandmother, but that thinking about dreams can harm the thought of the grandmother. I referred here to the fact that you defined the dream as an "entity" and I thought that was how you intended to explain why you called an entity in the previous response. Please read the last series of comments carefully and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.
    Part of the problem with the discussion between us is that you do not see the need for a precise definition of the things you are referring to and I find it difficult to give a precise answer to questions that have not been precisely defined. Occasionally I come up with the source of the problem in retrospect (like, apparently, in the discussion about the only truth in which I hope and infer from the cessation of your reference to it, I managed to convince you after pointing out that the claims about the plurality of truths of which you claim are actually a plurality of claims about each of which there is truth one and not a single claim with many truths) but at other times it is more difficult since you allow yourself to use the same word (like an entity) for different essences and thus it is not possible to give an answer that will not confuse you.
    I will only summarize my opinion on the subject of supernatural "beings" (such as spirits and demons) which are different from the beings that the mind creates (such as dreams and thoughts) and I will come back and claim that I have no problem with the latter, but I completely disbelieve in the existence of the former. In my opinion, there is no external entity that takes over us during sleep to create the dream or influence it because it is entirely and completely a creation of our mind and therefore, obviously, there is also no need to defend against such entities or to take any steps in relation to them.
    I think I also explained myself sufficiently on the topic of the creation of the "conscious" by the mechanism that produces the dream when I showed that there are things that the brain knows but it prevents them from reaching the conscious part to allow the continuation of the dream. He actually acts as a kind of censor who examines the input of the senses and other facts and decides intelligently which illusions to accompany this input so that the conscious does not take unwanted actions such as peeing the bed, waking up, moving our legs in running movements or our hands in fist movements or talking in sleep or to explain why Actions that the ad tried to perform were not performed.
    In order to understand all my words to Ashuram, one must read a lot of material about how the brain works and I strongly recommend that you do so.
    The book I would start with is Ramachandran's "Illusions of the Mind" and after that I might read "How the Brain Works" by Steven Pinker.

61. To Michael
    Earlier I meant a being in the sense of a spirit as someone who can do harm and the second time I thought it would be better to define a dream as a being for the sake of convenience!!
    I did not understand how it is possible to harm a grandmother or a neighbor (more interestingly) through thoughts or dreams or a combination of both?
    You wrote "I already mentioned" .. I searched in your comments (not an easy task) and found that you did talk about the subconscious, albeit in a different way, but you may have meant that too, except that I still don't read minds and even from afar!
    You wrote another "According to my understanding, the dream mechanism actually creates the conscious" very interesting! It is clear to you that you are entering the psychophilosophical field of defining the self here!! It is interesting ! Can you elaborate more?
    I would like to go in a slightly different direction and precisely "with the help" of the wind! If we go in this direction in which the dream does gain control over the body during sleep, then it is possible (only possible) and this is a time when it is easy for the spirit to enter the body by taking advantage of some loophole in the body's defenses that weakens somewhat during sleep (let's say the spirit of the Akrit ..so that the computers will be interested!!).. If we look at it from the practical side, it is possible a. Find ways to close the loophole!
    and in Much more interesting is to use this loophole (imaginary at the moment) to influence the body during the dream for different and diverse reasons..like tests or treatments or introducing changes in consciousness more easily if access to the subconscious is available in such a situation! But of course, unlike the spirit that came to harm and does not care what the results will be, we will be responsible, therefore any such equipment must include accompanying equipment that will regularly transmit information about the state of the dream and possible damages as a result of our external intervention under the auspices of the dream!
    Of course, provided you find a way to penetrate the subconscious in different dream states (are there 4 of these?)

62. Led. breach:
    I have no problem with defining the dream as an entity as long as it is clear that it is an entity produced by the mind and has no existence without it. It is clear to such entities that we can harm them through the actions of our mind (for example, our thoughts about grandma is also an entity and we can harm her by thinking about dreams). If these are the entities you were talking about, then you will be dismissed, but if which entities you were referring to, it is not clear to me why you thought I would object.
    I have already mentioned that in my opinion the mechanism that produces the dream has something to do with the subconscious. According to my understanding, the dream mechanism actually creates the conscious and it does so in such a way that the input of the senses that are still active and the important subconscious facts will not conflict with the conscious image it produces. This sensory input and this subconscious information can be anything. We talked about noise and the need to urinate, but it could equally be a feeling of physical pressure from a certain direction or the fact that it is difficult for us to move our limbs (whether because of the blanket or because of brain mechanisms that "paralyze" them for part of the sleeping time or because of a subconscious knowledge that we moved our limbs We may hurt those around us or look ridiculous).

63. To Michael
    We again see things from different directions!
    In your opinion, the dream is the important thing.. ok, I thought along these lines and it occurred to me that in order to stay in a state of dreaming it is necessary to maintain the state of sleep, which means that the dream (a separate entity?) manages the affairs in the state of dreaming and part of that is to provide us with reasons in the dream itself that will explain what is happening around us in this way That we don't have to leave the dream and ruin his work in the middle!
    By the way, what may be more interesting are the conditions that the dream sets (we will treat it as an entity or essence) in which the dreamer can continue to sleep and other conditions that require the dreamer to wake up. It is said that there is an individual formula for each dreamer, but a clear formula according to which his sleep is governed by his dream software!
    Since this is usually related to noise, i.e. to the intensity of noises and their meaning (predator or friend) is it possible that the dream has access to the dreamer's subconscious from there he retrieves the data according to a certain order of importance depending on...let's say their location in the memory!
    An easy dream sleep for everyone

64. d. breach:
    Indeed, you did well when you wrote that this is only one of the reasons for the existence of the dream.
    What I wanted to say is that this may actually not be a reason for the existence of the dream, but only a reason for part of its "script" and that it is possible that this part of the "script" is not meant to protect sleep, but rather the dream itself (which of course requires sleep). To clarify the difference - describe to you a situation where dreaming had no other role and dreams were not needed to maintain the brain. It is possible that in this situation no dreams would be formed at all because the role of "protecting the dream" is only necessary when the dream requires protection.
    This can be compared to the army.
    Imagine someone claiming that the role of the army is to protect itself. This is of course one of his functions, but the need for this function is derived from the necessity of the army for other things, because if the army was not needed, there would be no need to protect it.
    You are correct in assuming that I even less accept your ability to harm the entities in your dream.
    The possibility of "planning dreams while awake" is known and as far as I've read it can also be practiced (I've never tried to do this) but of course it has nothing to do with any mysterious "beings"

65. To Michael
    I would like to refer you to my response from yesterday 13:12 to the paragraph "And the last that should have been first! Last night I discovered "one" of the reasons for the existence of dreams (only one so there will be no misunderstandings)..they help us continue to sleep!!" I emphasized to make it clear that this is only part of the role of the dream and maybe a small part!
    I know that in a dream the body is being maintained ..and as for the zakah in the dream I did not mean someone but an entity (and of course you will get even less of that)! By the way, I had a dream that lasted something like twenty years or more in which I was attacked by Arabs and woke up in a bad condition. This happened quite often, two or three times a week. Also, every night after twenty minutes my right leg would "pull" and I would wake up. A bit and goes back to sleep because it was already a regular ritual as an integral part of sleep.
    About 6 years ago I decided to think about it (then I didn't think anything could be done about it because it happens in dreams!) and pretty quickly I decided that I was preparing an ambush in a dream for those "Arabs" (unidentified) .. I laughed, how, what, etc. On the other hand, I don't care I have nothing to lose.. I concentrated on preparing a thought in which I get out of the passive state in the dream and react as soon as the same dream appears again! Fortunately for me, the same night the dream returned and to my great surprise I "mowed" the Arabs! They "ran away" and I woke up tired but satisfied.. From that night until today this dream has not returned! And from that night until today, the leg has not jumped anymore!
    I have no explanation for what happened, but it happened!
    Regarding the model/sculpture in the program from last week, the initial numbers reached Riemann and the new geometric shapes he developed... and for me it's like 90% work just taking and making adjustments of position and size, etc.! Yesterday, part of the radiator radiated light from the sun onto the floor in a very interesting way, even though it is just elliptical, and part of it created a complex shape on the floor that is difficult to reproduce, and this is also suitable (plus dozens of variations) for expressing the phenomenon of light reflecting off different surfaces...but at the moment it is only on a light thinking and writing level, not on a practical level!
    By the way, when I was looking for drawings showing the electromagnetic spectrum (in connection with Valerie Hunt's runners) I came across a display in a room of some 40 by 40 meters whose walls and floor were paved with tiles painted inspired by the spectrum! Because of the small size it is difficult to see the details. But if there is such a thing, they probably did other things presented on the subject of science that are unknown and less known!

66. Something else about dreams:
    Note that I mentioned the need to allow us to continue sleeping as one of the functions of the dream and not as its only purpose.
    This diagnosis is important, especially since there are probably long periods of time in our sleep when we are not dreaming.
    In the studies that were done, it became clear that people who let them sleep but disturb their dreams (wake them up every time they dream) suffer from increasing disturbances.
    During the dream year, processes are probably taking place that are important for the normal activity of the brain and the dream itself can be a part of these processes. Therefore, it is perhaps correct to say that one of the functions of the dream is to prevent the interruption of the dream itself - perhaps more than to prevent the interruption of the year.

    And as for the possibility of harming someone in a dream, of course I do not believe in this possibility at all and I invite you to try to harm me in your next dream.
    It reminds me of the joke of an entertainer who appears in front of an audience and says:
    All those who believe in telekinesis - raise my hand

67. d. breach:
    You do use the word "truth" to describe something different than what I used. From a lexical point of view, anyone can justify their use and it's really not relevant. In terms of the "truth" that interests science - this is the truth I described.
    Science is not looking for what happened when Galileo dropped the balls from Pisa but what is the general law by which it can be described.
    Although he also attributes "truth" values ​​to the specific event of the balls falling from Pisa (like the question "Did it or didn't it?" or "Exactly when did it happen?" or "How long did the fall last?") but these are questions that do not interest him apart from their contribution To understand the general law.
    Whenever they say that an experiment disproves a theory, they mean that it contradicted the general law. After all, the fact that a heavy ball will suddenly fall faster than a light ball does not disprove the specific event of Galileo's experiment.
    The starting point of the scientific enterprise is that there are probably general laws that should be discovered. This is the truth that interests science and is part of reality.
    Even in law - the fact that it is difficult to find the truth does not mean that it does not exist. If the starting point is that the truth is in the eye of the beholder then there is no point in the trial and everyone is right.
    Your "plurality of truths" is ultimately based on the non-definition of the thing whose truth you claim.
    If someone claims, for example, that he saw aliens in the State Square, then one can ask about the truth of his claim as language and one can ask about the truth of the claim that there were aliens in the State Square.
    Both claims belong to reality but they are different and therefore can have different truth values.
    Regarding the presence of the aliens in the State Square - most likely the reality is that this claim is false.
    In relation to the one who saw such - it can actually be and it is quite clear what should be done with him in this case.
    I have something else to add but I must leave now

68. To Michael
    There is no doubt that each of us defines the truth in a way!
    When I say an infinite number of truths, I mean (and do not repeat myself) that every thing and event is a truth in itself! Not necessarily a theory or an abstract thing, but actual tangible things...in fact, every action that is done in the world, anywhere in the cosmos, treasures its own truth!
    Secondly, every event has several angles of view and everyone sees it from a different direction! And before you bring up the matter of objective reality...I'll answer you already: reality exists regardless of us and this is completely clear, but within that dynamic reality an infinite number of events take place, each marked by its own truth, and we are not talking here about a truth that floats in space without connection to anything, but one that describes a reality starting from an event of crime to eating, walking, etc.
    When you testify in court...what do you say there? The truth ! And what is that truth? is she one When someone tells another to tell the truth...does he mean the one and only truth? So why ask at all?
    Let's take an example from a field close to you, mathematics (really not my field) Is there one formula that describes it all? If not, and this is what is reasonable, it means that there are hundreds and thousands of formulas that describe different situations in the world of matter or in any other field, and it is not possible for a single formula to describe everything!
    Therefore, in my opinion, the mistake is not mine!
    I'm happy that we came to the same conclusion about the dream..I would add one more thing about dreams and you almost certainly won't get it, and that is that people can be harmed through dreams and unfortunately I have experience with that as well..but this is more difficult to prove and it is tangential to the new age or supernatural even though those who have experienced This hurts him in a completely natural way! But let's leave it because it's also scary and disturbing!
    And just one more thing about the truth from the historical aspect, most of it is a biased truth and each historian will write about the same event from his point of view.. and so the historian's job is actually impossible and not only difficult, and yet we read history from ancient Greece to the present day knowing that it is not the absolute truth, no Only the unit, but in most cases only the partial, so you will agree that the history books and other theoretical fields will be difficult to examine through your one glass of truth! So we will actually stay mainly with the sciences and with the experiments from which the truth comes out to us, victorious and prosperous as some scientists like to see it almost dancing before us the ancient dance polished of all the remnants of the last particles of lies that were sprinkled from it in the lathe of scientific truth!
    And if we wake up...we see neither dance nor bears but only imagination, a one-dimensional imaginary field in which one truth is enough because if we approach three dimensions every object has infinite points of view and each one is its own truth. !

69. Kant is right in his claim that we are only exposed to the input of our senses but from any practical point of view I don't think it matters to us what the world is in itself because things that do not affect our senses are things that do not affect our lives.
    As far as I'm concerned, it's enough for us if we formulate a theory that can correctly predict what the input of our senses will be in any situation, without claiming that this is the world as it is (which, as mentioned - we have no access to).
    To explain our sensory input we build a theoretical model of what the world as it might be but it might just as well be simply a model that allows for a more compact representation of the sensory input without reflecting the world as it is.
    The point is that Gadel proved that even to the exhaustion of this modest ambition (of predicting the input of our senses) we will not be able to reach it. According to his proof, no finite set of axioms allowing the description of the natural numbers can be both consistent and complete.
    Because the collection of natural laws known to us at any point in time is actually a set of axioms and because due to quantum theory the natural numbers must be described in this collection of axioms and because we try as much as we can to build a consistent set of laws - there will always remain claims about the world (about the input of our senses) that we cannot verify or to refute by the linen from the existing collection of laws.

    Practically, it follows from the fact that depending on your approach to life - there will always be things that you will not be able to predict and you can decide on them only through an experiment (and perhaps - formulating a new law based on the results of the experiments) and alternatively - there will always be a place for God of the gaps and those who build their religious worldview on the fact that there are things that science does not yet know can always claim that there are things that science does not yet know.
    These things will, of course, change from time to time, and every time a new law of nature is discovered, God will be able to free himself from some of his activities, but there will never be a need to completely dismiss him.

70. To Michael,
    Nice, there are things we agree on...

    As a matter of fact: I also know Godel's incompleteness theorem. I am only satisfied if his intention was to describe the limitations of human perception (which was Kant's intention) or the absolute limitations of logic and mathematics (which was Godel's intention - as far as I know). In other words: there may, in principle, be extraterrestrials who hold a completely different physics than ours because they have different categories in insight than we do, but there may not be extraterrestrials who deny Godel's incompleteness theorem.

    A quote from Wikipedia edited by Immanuel Kant: "Kant assumed that there is a difference between the world as it is perceived by our reason (also known as the "world of phenomena") and the world-as-it-is-for-itself. While the world of phenomena is the world that we experience every day, through our senses, we do not have direct access to the world-as-it-self, and there is no way to investigate it directly... Kant claims that the limit of our research is in the seam between these two - we can use the scientific method to investigate the framework in which the world of phenomena operates, as science began to do already in Kant's time. We can discuss the categories that our reason imposes on the world of phenomena as if they were the essence of the world-as-it-self, as Kant does, for example, in his moral theory. We cannot, Kant repeats and emphasizes, fundamentally investigate the world-as-it-is-for-itself.”

    Bye.

71. to ask:
    I think your analysis is correct and I have personally dealt with both questions a long time ago and my opinion is, as you can understand from my words, that in the first question I am convinced beyond any doubt that there is one truth (and secondly, for me, the word "truth" has no meaning).
    In relation to the second question, I claimed that at the moment we of course do not know all of it, but I am ready to add and claim that it is clear to me that this will remain our situation forever and the reason for this is Gadel's incompleteness theorem.

72. I don't want to be squeezed between two mountains, but it seems to me that there are two types of arguments, each of which needs to be dealt with separately (and maybe this is the reason for the 'short' between you):
    A. There is not one truth but several truths.
    B. There is one truth, but it is very possible that in certain areas we will never be able to become aware of its truth, even if our senses experience part of it (if it is in areas where the categories in our consciousness (according to Kant) have not yet matured to contain this truth).

    Bye.

73. to d. breach:
    We must be speaking a different language.
    What is "the science that decided there is one truth and it doesn't matter what happens in reality"?
    According to science, truth is defined by what happens in reality. In reality, one thing happens - not two - not thousands and certainly not infinitely. Therefore, the above quote from your words shows that the term "truth" represents different things for us.
    I ask you again and this is no joke:
    Is the claim that there are thousands of truths true and if this is the truth, is it possible that another claim about the number of truths is also true?
    If your answer to both questions is positive it will be a sign for me that we are still not speaking the same language and then I will ask you to define for me how you define truth.
    If your answer to the second question is negative, then you confirm my claim and say that your perception also cannot have more than one truth (but then you contradict your claim about thousands of truths).

    I think your confusion is between "truth" and "theory" or "claim about the truth".
    There can be many theories but still the truth is one (and it may even be that none of the theories describes it).

    If you agree with these words then all you have to realize is that science has a method to filter out theories that do not describe the truth and that is the experimental method.
    All that Randy "annoys" the New Agers with is his uncompromising demand for this standard. What to do? After all, we really have no other way to identify what is real and what is not.

    Regarding your words about dreams, I completely agree with the fact that one of the functions of the dream is to allow us to continue sleeping.
    I have noticed this before and also took it one step further.
    At the time, I encountered claims from all kinds of people regarding the impossibility of the suppression process. If you also read Galileo then you might remember an article that appeared there under the title "Freud under analysis". One of the claims that someone mentioned there made is that in order to suppress something we first have to understand it and only then can we decide that it should be suppressed but in the meantime it has already reached our consciousness. It can sound quite convincing but I already knew it was a mistake and I based my knowledge on the phenomenon you describe in relation to the dream. The most common phenomenon in this regard, and which I assume each of us has experienced, is the excuses that our brain invents so that we don't pee in bed - on the one hand - and so that we don't wake up and go pee - on the other hand. This is a clear state of suppression because at some level, our brain, the conscious part of which is currently focused on the reality of the dream, knows that we are currently asleep and this third is important and that we need to find excuses that will put the mind of the conscious part to rest without bringing it to the conclusion that we need to wake up.

    Again, I see that even now you are looking for what I call the "truth" on this subject and the very fact that I can talk about the "truth" in the news is because there is only one. In my opinion - the fact that you are looking for it shows that you also believe that what you are looking for is one and only and identifiable only that for one reason or another you have chosen not to call it "truth" and this is what ultimately fails you and leads you to the concessions you make to the new era also regarding the experiment.

74. to Cezanne
    As I have already mentioned, I do not speak English very well, so I will not be able to refer to the "nonsense" of a professor who did not have her degree revoked for saying nonsense!
    It is true, as I mentioned, that it is necessary to bring her work and examine it, and I have no idea where her work was published.. Yes, it is stated there that she published 25 articles (it was not specified on which subject).. I also have no idea why she waited until now to get a medical device, etc.. I do know from the book I read that the so-called "Master Mind" was developed as a result of her research and that these drugs have long been used for relaxation and balance and the like, I haven't seen it even though I tried to buy 10 years ago or more (without knowing about Hunt's existence) but their stupid marketing method where you have to leave a phone (something completely strange ) without even knowing the price annoyed me and I did not return to them! By the way, today you can buy without a problem online from the United States!
    I would just like to bring something that may not seem to belong... From a program on TV yesterday about people in a vegetative state, one of the treating doctors said that in an examination (of any kind) it turned out that 40% of the patients who were defined as vegetative were not such (to varying degrees)!! And the question is whether we should have all the patience in the world for this and similar things just because they are supported by the medical and scientific establishment and we should say Amen for everything they do and it doesn't matter how many die or are injured during errors that are made with them also as a result of insufficient knowledge and on the other hand show total impatience When it comes to alternative medicine or an unconventional medical approach, even though it probably kills and is much less harmful!!

    And one more small thing, if you find an article by an American or European researcher that supports your words, I would love to see and receive a link

    A good day for you too

75. Mr Peretz,

    I read the link you gave about Valerie Hunt. She may be a professor, and she may have received a scientific position at a university, but the confusion she spouts there has nothing to do with proven experimental science.

    Straightforward, I can't think of any experiments she could have done to get all that crap out of her mouth.

    Believe me, professors can blurt out just as much as anyone else, and Mrs. Hunt is no exception. I define her as a woman who just aims to make money off people who don't really care about their health.

    A few selected quotes:

    "When the energy of the therapist performing a particular therapy moves and changes the anticoherent energy field, that disease will be healed." Dr. Hunt says. "But it has to be both the therapist and the therapy that creates this field. And the energy of the healer combined with the energy of the therapy has to transact with the person being healed in order for results to occur.

    "Here's an example: Cancer people don't like red, and yet their auras, the bioenergy fields around their bodies, need energy in the red frequencies in order for them to heal. If therapists have too much red in their energy fields, cancer people will not transact with them. So the therapist who can heal them is going to need to have some red, but not too much, or the cancer person will refuse to 'transact,' will perhaps even alter his or her own energy field so that the field cannot receive the healing frequencies. When that happens, no healing can take place. So the therapist has to establish transactions with the people being healed, approaching them in ways that they can transact with — and gradually lead them to accept the needed frequencies.”

    Also, says Dr. Hunt, "There are many 'reds.' Sometimes, what's needed is the lower frequencies of red. Sometimes, it's the higher ones. The AuraMeter shows what's missing.”

    "Watching members of the cat family" is one source of healing energy for certain anticoherencies, Dr. Hunt says. "Frequencies can be put back in many forms, not just sound and light. Some are better for some diseases, some are better for others.

    She also manages to contradict herself:
    "We can see right away how the AuraMeter approach is superior to allopathy," she says. "With energy fields, the person cannot be harmed, because he simply will not transact with harmful energies."

    She manages to nicely avoid the question about a previous life, while affirming and denying at the same time. Just a skilled fortune teller:
    Does the AuraMeter Deny or Confirm Past Lives?

    "I call them lifetimes," Dr. Hunt says. And they are, she claims, right here and now. All of the problems we have not resolved are sitting in our energy fields, and will stay there until we resolve them.

    But, amazingly, there is still no Aurameter in active use. Isn't that weird? She is able to read all these things, understand and know so much... but she doesn't have a device that works!
    Unfortunately, however, the AuraMeter is not yet available on a clinical basis

    Fortunately, she is raising money to build such a device…
    At the present time, the level of expertise needed to use the AuraMeter is possessed only by Dr. Hunt herself, but she is seeking to correct that situation. She and her colleagues are in the process of raising the $2 million in seed capital that they will need in order to make the AuraMeter a device that can be used in doctors' offices and laboratories throughout the world. Before this distribution can happen, software programs will have to be written which interpret the energy patterns and allow the doctor or technician to diagnose and prescribe. These devices, she says, will sell for anywhere from $10,000 to $13,000.

    Finally,

    Dr. Hunt knows from personal experience that "we can become the magnificence of the spiritual beings that we are — clairvoyant, knowing, mystical, in command. I look young [she is 84]. I am clairvoyant, I am mystical, I can heal from a distance, I can dialogue from a distance, I can lay on hands, I can read minds — and that is because I have handled my lifetimes, reorganized them, and taken them into one person, one soul who is Valerie Hunt.”

    Mr. Peretz, this is not a scientist. She is many other things, but there is no connection between her experiments, whatever they may be, and the nonsense she spews into the air - simply because there are no experiments that can confirm everything she says.

    Have a good day,

    Roy.

76. To Michael
    I am not in anyone's pocket, neither of the new era, nor of different concepts, including what is called science or the scientific establishment.
    Regarding the model/sculpture/monument/mini-museum... I intend to invest only time and also get paid for investing my time. If you understood otherwise, then here is the clear clarification. And another thing, this sculpture will have to include all the beams of science, including mystical parts and divine conceptions during the time of the Greeks and to them, and then in the religions that arose, as well as mythology, as far as I'm concerned, all of these were the beginning and I'm not one of those who destroy an old world in order to supposedly create a new world..with me, things merge like in reality, And what I wanted to show is the new science that grows out of all these occurrences without denying them, that they will be done in the appropriate place for this and there is no lack of them!

    As for the thousands and actually infinite truths as the number of things they represent, this is actually supposed to be the line of science and goes against the religious line that advocates one truth! Or I was wrong about the engine that pushes science that decided that there is one truth and it doesn't matter what happens in reality!!
    I will try to explain the matter of multiple truths because I have probably entered into an existing debate here that I am not familiar with. It is important to emphasize that the matter of truths came up in response to Blizovsky who wrote that there is one truth, something that jumped out at me immediately... I find it hard to believe that serious scientists advocate one truth without understanding the consequences and The meanings of such a concept leading to stagnation..because if there is one truth and suppose we are in 1895, a year in which some of the scientists of the time thought that science already knew everything and there was nothing more to discover (free quote from Emilio Segre's book - from memory) (or in any other period) that is the truth This one would stop everything!!
    It's strange to me that you mention it in connection with objective reality! Reality can contain an infinite number of truths and the work of science is to reveal all the truths that make up reality, so I don't see any contradiction here.. that concept denies the existence of an independent reality including any truth found in it!!

    Regarding Valerie Hunt, a research professor at well-known universities such as UCLA and more, suspected in your eyes of being a charlatan? Have you read what is written on those sites? (Unfortunately, my English is weak) If there is something specific there that contradicts a scientific work, all of us here would be happy to hear about it and comment... I am not a blind supporter of hers and to be honest I only brought her as an example and I don't intend to look for halos or the annoying Randy (in his style) but yes I would like to To know what devices Hunt used and how to reach the same results she presented probably 30 years ago (I am aware of her existence only in the last year), and how other scientists used the same devices and did not reach any results or reached completely different results that are in complete contradiction to her findings! Either that or it's all just talk!
    ו
    One before the last.. You connected me in some way to the left that hates me mainly because of its distorted and distorted perception of reality! I would like to remind you that with the left there is only its perception and it is not spent. The rest are wrong at best and criminals at worst, and I am talking about the Israeli left first of all..so there is a deep misunderstanding between us mainly in a different understanding of terms and definitions probably because you have lived your whole life In the scientific community and I live outside it and I have no intention of changing that!

    And last that should have been first! Last night I discovered "one" of the reasons for the existence of dreams (only one so there will be no misunderstandings)..they help us keep sleeping!! It's just that you don't think about it! And why did I come to this conclusion? Because in a dream, something from reality entered and integrated in some way into the dream (not always in a logical way as we all know), but I woke up anyway and then came the realization that actually the dream often includes happenings from reality as an excuse to keep sleeping as long as it doesn't endanger us!
    And so the first conclusion that occurred to me is that those who have more ability to invent reasons will sleep better than those who don't! (I wake up quickly) Second, people who trust themselves sleep better because reality worries them less and therefore the excuses in their dreams will be accepted with understanding and they will continue their sleep!
    I have no idea if they have already come to this insight despite its simplicity and if it can be tested .. What is better is to prepare a set of excuses for those who can, which the dream will use to sleep continuously .. personally I would not be against not dreaming for a year .. basically if this conclusion is correct then If I want to reduce the amount of dreams I have to move to a quiet place.. I live in the shit of a street where apartment prices are constantly rising and have almost doubled in two years! And it's a street full of disturbances at night!
    Good Morning

77. Led. breach:
    I came back and visited the article after not visiting it for a long time.
    I didn't want to believe my eyes, but since my approach to life is scientific, I accept the results of the experiment and also believe that the discussion has continued until now and that you, of all the commenters, have decided to side with the new era and with "thousands of truths".
    First of all, a question:
    Is your claim that "there are thousands of truths" true?
    Isn't the claim that there is only one truth also among these thousands of truths?
    What do you think is truth?
    I remember you were encouraged when I said that my opinion was the same as yours on the subject of the existence of objective reality (in the discussion about the supernovae) did you change your mind and stop believing in objective reality?
    As already explained to you - science has no objection to this or that idea about the truth and all it requires is that the idea be proven. This is the whole difference between science and the new age and postmodernism for which any idea that can be expressed is equally legitimate.
    European culture may be finally starting to free itself from this distorted perception but its inability, for long periods, to distinguish between the lies of the Palestinians and our truth was precisely due to a postmodernist approach.
    I remember once arguing with a European about reincarnation and he came back and lectured me for believing in the existence of one truth. He said that everyone understands that in a debate there is a thesis, an antithesis, and a synthesis and that in my approach you don't get anywhere. I told him that his attitude was not based on logic but on stubbornness. Suppose I present the thesis and he the antithesis and we conclude on a certain synthesis. Nothing prevents him from coming back now and re-introducing the antithesis to the synthesis argument and forcing me even closer to his original position until eventually the synthesis is indistinguishable from the antithesis.
    This whole approach is delusional to me.
    Claims about the aura have been tested many times and found to be wrong.
    So are most of the claims associated with the "new age" (which is nothing more than a glorified name for the darkness of the Middle Ages).
    As Roy pointed out in one of the discussions in the past, there is a million dollars that can be received from James Randi if they can demonstrate to him even one supernatural phenomenon. This award was offered as early as 1964 and no one has yet managed to receive it.
    I have no doubt that if you prove the existence of auras that are not just heat waves or electromagnetic waves or anything else from Valerie Hunt's claims you will accept it and then you will have no problem financing the statue you said you wanted to build to display the achievements of science (although according to your words here I tend to believe that you don't value these achievements at all, so maybe you should invest the reward in something else.)
    Here is the address of the website where you can register to receive the prize:
    http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/38/31/

78. To ask, we will change the request for volunteers when doctors will use a halo instead of, for example, an X-ray. Until then, for me it is a new age invention or the new edition of the Middle Ages.
    As Roy wrote in one of the first comments on this page (which goes on and on in the list on the right - the most backed up articles), if something is proven then it is already part of science. Currently, this is a fantasy that originates from wishful thinking and an attempt to rationalize the meaning of an electromagnetic emission (if there is one and it is likely because the body has an electrical system - the nervous system) and as the Chabatites do when they try to coordinate something with the story of creation in the book of Genesis (which of them has two contradictory ) - this is how the followers of the New Age translate every natural phenomenon into their own terms, and also try to give it a mystical interpretation and meaning that does not exist.

79. to Cezanne
    I must have made a mistake in the previous address, I didn't spell her name correctly and I didn't notice that Yahoo suggested the method: Did You Min... I tried to search again now because I didn't save the address and that's how the mistake turned out, so here is one of the addresses to which Yahoo refers and it is an interview with the lady including her picture and more importantly Hence..frequency photographs and the so-called halo or field signature here: http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/nov1/vh.htm
    And one more biographical
    http://www.bioenergyfields.org/index.asp?secid=3&subsecid=0

80. To Avi Blizovsky:

    A. As long as we don't know what the final results of the strike will be, it cannot be claimed that anyone is suffering from the strike itself: the faculty members can devote more time to research (their salary was cut, but only for the teaching part; so the actual damage is not particularly significant), and the students certainly Enjoy surfing the Internet at home (let's say..). When the strike is over, there will certainly be a need to review the situation that preceded it and what the strike was useful and what it was not, and what needs to be addressed at the national level even when the universities are not on strike.

    B. Why do you think Judaism is not controlled?

    third. To say that science is not subjective is a strange claim for anyone who knows a little about Kant.

    d. Even regardless of Kant, scientists find in an experiment only what they expected in advance, that is, their belief dictates their interpretation. I have many samples in my closet that I have collected over the years. The newest example for me (and the most surprising) concerns the famous experiment (and some would say the most important of the twentieth century), in which it was proven that the rays of the stars are bent by the sun.
    There were three experiments at the same time (that is, measurements of the sun from three different places on Earth), when calculating the average of all three leads to the result that it was the average between the Newtonian value and Einstein's value (in other words, a cold examination of the experiment shows that it did not contribute to anything). But Eddington 'knew' that Einstein was right and therefore threw out the results of the low-value experiment (claiming that it was of inadequate quality), leaving only two experiments that on average produced Einstein's result.
    See in 'Einstein in Love', Denis Overbey, Kinneret, Zamora-Beitan, Dvir (2005), pages 342-345.

    Bye

81. One last small addition: if we continue to let the imagination run wild, it is possible to imagine a situation in which a scale of strength and color of auras will be established, and just as every person has pulse data, blood pressure, etc., there will also be data about their aura (probably they will be protected by appropriate legislation of the Knesset) .
    Coming soon on the Hadan website: "Volunteer translators are needed for the Hadan website. Academic background is necessary. Only those with an aura of grade 8.5 YELLOW or higher will be accepted."

82. Shaul Bar Ilan

    I would appreciate if you know a faculty member on the one hand and a student who was affected on the other hand, that I could interview them for an article that will deal with the university crisis. I'm not making light of this crisis, it's just that I'm limited in my resources and can't deal with any important issue (just read one of my sources, the Science Daily site and you'll see how many new pieces of news are published there every day compared to 3-4 pieces of news on the Science website).
    You also surely know that every week there are quite a few scientific conferences, and conferences in the field of environmental quality, which is also covered on the website, hallelujah, and I only had some news from all these conferences, not to mention going to them and covering them - and the university speakers would have been happy if I had done so, because apparently that I am one of the few science writers in Israel.
    On the issue of YES, I also did some work and called the YES spokeswoman to find out if this is true and if so, to get an explanation, therefore if I do something with my limited resources I prefer to do it well. I am not in favor of overlapping an opinion piece on the important issue of the lecturers' strike without putting in the work.

    post Scriptum. You are angry about the inequality - you spend time reading popular scientific literature while we do not spend time reading holy books - again you fall into the trap that these are two equal worlds. Since science is a serious and controlled system, it has priority over a system that makes similar claims but is not controlled, and the subjective consideration of one or another writer has meaning. It is impossible to compare these two worlds, and the priority of science is clear.

83. A small addition: what I wrote only concerns the discussions going on here at all, does not include a hint or reference to the issue of the radiant halos.
    As far as I'm concerned, this issue will have meaning the day it can be claimed not only that a halo exists (if it exists), but that it has an applied technological implication. For example: on the day a diagnostic kit is developed for a doctor in an area with many casualties: one of the most difficult problems is the sorting subject to the limitations of time and resources. With the help of such a kit, any doctor will be able to quickly know which of the injured is in a more serious condition (whose aura is weaker), and perhaps also know where he was injured. A more advanced development will, perhaps, be able to discover the remaining life span of terminally ill patients, and perhaps also be able to quickly discover which are life-prolonging drugs (then the aura gets stronger or, unfortunately, maintains its dimensions), and these drugs are only dummy drugs.

    Bye

84. I saw that I was honored that my name was mentioned even in discussions in which I am not a direct participant, so I allow myself to comment on a certain point.
    The claim, that since I am religious (and there are other commenters here), that any claim I make should be suspect, is an irresponsible claim:
    A. In the same way it can be argued that all the claims of those who are not religious should be cast with suspicion. They too, obviously, must justify their lifestyle.
    B. Perhaps the order of things is the other way around: instead of claiming that I am obligated to certain truths because I am religious, it is more likely to claim that because I believe in all the truths that I brought forth I am also a religious person, and if a person lives a certain way of life because of certain truths, that is only a reason to check these truths and not a reason to reject them .
    third. Perhaps if we meet face to face we will discover that the number of hours accumulated by at least some of the religious people commenting here in reading materials by authors who do not live a religious lifestyle, is a little greater than the number of hours accumulated by those who oppose them in reading the (serious) religious materials that are not according to their lifestyle. If this assumption is correct, then, rather, the reaction of the religious should be treated with relative respect.

    To sum up: I have already mentioned that politician who, after his big speech, found a sheet of paper on the edge of which was written in small letters: "The things here are not convincing, so one should raise one's voice." Psychological arguments and other such arguments are likened to raising one's voice: they may grab attention, but they never contribute to any discussion (after all, it deals with psychology).

    Bye.

    By the way, as far as I know, the university strike continues...

85. Mr Peretz,
    The transmitters coming out of the body are actually electromagnetic emissions, otherwise we wouldn't be able to catch them on camera. The auras and the bioelectric shots are exactly the same thing.

    What's new,
    That's a good, nice point you made. But as far as I know, a vacuum existing around something does not require it to die (as an extreme example, particularly unlucky humans have already managed to survive in a vacuum for a short time). I can't find a full free description of Heinz's experiment, but I assume he used plant tissue such as seeds, leaves, and whole plants, which can withstand a vacuum to some degree. Another possibility is that he used species of animals capable of withstanding a weak vacuum (such as tardigrades).
    It is worth noting that if we want to test the claims more deeply, we can certainly photograph people in different humidity conditions, and show that the 'colors' that appear in the picture change depending on the humidity (and the amount of sweat and salts on the skin of the subjects). As I said, I haven't read Heinz's experiments, but a very simple experiment would be to put the palm in a chamber with very low humidity (similar to a vacuum), and photograph it.

    Well, who picks up the gauntlet and writes an article about halo photography - common claims and refutations?

86. Mr. Cezana
    If the Kirlian image did represent an aura or an energy field of a living being, then it should not have disappeared into a vacuum."
    Haynes, 2003.
    It is not clear to me how Wakenm and live production get along.
    If a creature was put into locum then it is obviously dead and obviously there is no aura (because there is no ionization).
    could you explain

87. Thank you for your efforts and investment!
    In the address I gave there is a link to Hunt's articles.
    The website you brought talks about photographing halos and this is something that has been known for a long time, but what interested me was the reception of transmitters coming out of the body by a device that I imagined in a receiver with a rod aimed at the desired part and it registers on a graph or preferably creates a dynamic image that changes as the rod is moved, etc.!
    This kind of thing makes it possible to change some of the properties of the aura and also to check the effect of treatments with devices or by healers in contrast to the static image... and indeed part of the article talks about strengthening certain properties and weakening others that prevent us from functioning properly and more.
    It is true that it is a mistake not to show the equipment that Hunt and others used together with her and after her, so really this thing will remain hidden until they arrive or bring the relevant information.
    That's it for now until tonight.
    Aribdarci

88. Mr Peretz,

    I spent some time trying to read Doctor Hunt's article. As expected, I did not understand everything, because I have no knowledge in the field and it is difficult to understand Hunt's method and working method. This is why peer review is done by people who have been researching in the same fields for many years.

    Anyway, I searched around the web to try to understand the phenomenon that Hunt is trying to market (and it's definitely the right terminology, since she has an active market around the 'science' she's trying to sell). I believe the following page describes her claims: http://skepdic.com/kirlian.html

    I will translate the two main claims:
    Bio-electrography is a method for investigating biological objects, based on the interpretation of the image obtained during exposure to a high-frequency and high-voltage electromagnetic field. The resulting image is recorded on photographic paper or with the help of modern recording equipment. The aura that is created when the tension dissipates into air is supposed to represent the 'life force' or 'aura' of the biological object.

    A particularly interesting response, which refutes the interpretation of the halo:

    "Living objects... are also moist. When the electricity enters a living bone, it causes the gas to undergo ionization around the bone, assuming there is moisture on the bone through which the electricity can pass. If you take a photo in a vacuum, where there is no gas that can undergo ionization, then a bioelectric (Kirlian) image does not appear. If the Kirlian image did indeed represent an aura or an energy field of a living being, then it should not have disappeared into a vacuum."
    Haynes, 2003.

    Another interesting experiment:
    In controlled experiments, those aura observers, without any previous connection to each other, never agree in that sense. In some "psychic fairs" in the United States, supposed photos of the human aura can be obtained. In this case the photographers use an intricate procedure that requires first snapping a photo of the subject whose hand is on a sensor plate, something that is done by inducing an electrical current to the hand of the customer. They then take a measurement of the intensity of the current, which is then computer translated to a liquid crystal electronic display screen, enabled to produce colors, located inside the camera. The colors, arbitrarily selected, are then projected to the contour of the body of the subject, in accordance with their acupuncture distribution, and the copy is then printed. An investigation made by Joe Nickell, the expert in fraud detection, showed that the same individual will obtain two very different auras, made just minutes apart with the same camera.

89. Why is it new that the frequency I brought from the book refers to its quantity per second and it doesn't matter what Wikipedia says about it.. it's like the difference between 100 km/h and 200 km/h, does it matter what Wikipedia writes about a kilometer?
    To Cezana, I accept your comment about your personality. I assume that this mistake stems from your position on the site.. I was really debating whether to write this comment about you and Blizovsky, but after seeing it repeated, I decided that this time I am commenting on the subject! And if it brought you to reveal to us an unknown part of your personality, then we came out hired!
    Regarding the thousands of scientists who studied the frequencies and found nothing, "It is unlikely in my opinion that one researcher found a discovery that thousands of scientists had already tested, and rejected after many, many experiments." ..thousands of scientists have been working on this thing? It is possible to read only a part of them and how they failed to locate or pick up the frequencies of halos and in general how they approached the subject!
    By the way, I don't know any of the games you mentioned and to be honest, I'm not "waiting" to hear about revelations about a subject that is recognized as natural and which will become part of the natural following such revelations... I'm just not built for waiting, not good at it!
    I am waiting for you to go to the website that I brought in my previous response to yours (of course in your free time, although I would appreciate it if you did it today) and express your opinion regarding the writing and although it is probably a commercial website, it has links to the work of Dr. Valerie Hunt.
    Another thing, I am not enthusiastic about any book and Liebrecht's book is comprehensive and serious.. By the way, he too was interested in the supernatural in his youth and when he went to study in Germany he had the opportunity to check some things on the subject and only later (today he should be 70 years old) after collecting enough material did he write the book This one...with names and dates and places, that's what impressed me!

90. Mr. Peretz
    The frequency unit you mean is just the hertz
    Please refer to the entry "Hertz" in the Hebrew Wikipedia.

91. Mr Peretz,
    Yes, I'm definitely willing to mentally accept that outcome. As I have already written on the website before, as soon as a strong proof of the scientific existence of some 'supernatural' field (such as telepathy, telekinesis or halos) is received, I and a number of other scientists will stand in line to be admitted to the laboratories that research it.

    Don't forget that scientists research out of curiosity. They simply understand that without the activation of heavy skepticism, no real results can be achieved.

    You say that - 'it is unlikely that the researcher will take devices she is not familiar with'. I see it happen every day at the academy, Mr. Peretz. Researchers take devices they don't fully understand, and use them to get results. It is difficult in modern times to gain complete control over all the complicated scientific instruments available, and few researchers know the ins and outs of all the instruments they use.

    I tell you what is unlikely in my opinion:
    It is unlikely in my opinion that one researcher would reach conclusions that contradict many previous experiments conducted in these fields before her. It is unlikely to me that one researcher found a discovery that thousands of scientists have already tested, and rejected after many, many experiments.

    She may be right. If so, she should submit her research for peer review. The review will be very strict, because the researcher's claims are so unreasonable. But if the review is successful, then the article will be published in the most prestigious journals of science, and many researchers will jump to investigate this new and fascinating field.

    What else?
    Since that doctor's research does not appear in a peer-reviewed scientific journal but in a popular book, it is likely that the research failed miserably in scrutiny. That seems much more likely to me.

    I thank you for my in-depth psychological analysis, based on my posts on the site, but I think you missed the point. I really want to believe in the supernatural. I've been playing D&D since XNUMXth grade, I really like World of Warcraft (where I play a droid who controls the forces of nature) and I'm currently starting The Witcher, as a mutant and a sorcerer.
    What more? Like any person, I want to believe that when I die, it will not be the real end, but only a door that opens to a new world. I want to believe that if I concentrate hard enough, I can read other people's minds. I want to believe in aliens who come to visit the earth and draw circles in the grain simply because... they feel like it. What more? I also want to believe in magic, fairies, elves, demons, angels and gods. I really, really want to.

    But, bottom line, there is no evidence for this. I'm sorry, but there is simply no evidence that meets the strict conditions we require of them. All these are very serious claims that contradict what we know from everyday life. In order to prove such claims, you need proofs that are really so strong that they cannot be contradicted. All the UFO cases, all the documented cases of reincarnation, all the 'magic' that people claim to do - they all have simpler explanations based on the laws of nature that we already know so well. Until unequivocal proof of their existence is received, I see no reason to abandon those well-known, recognized and verified laws and start believing claims that do not have good proofs.

92. why new
    Frequency is relative to time like speed!
    You broadcast as if you checked the entire network and did not find anything related to this..because I already mentioned in my previous response about my weakness in English and familiarity with relevant websites..I decided after your response, which I only saw after I sent my response, to go search by the researcher's name and not on the sloppy Google Mogul But beho! And it's a miracle I found her in a second at this address http://www.fphealth.co.uk/structural-integration/benefits-of-SI.htm
    I admit that I was surprised to find a site named after her! And since I don't speak English well... I suggest that Cezana go to the website (very clear and easy) and report to us what he thinks about what is written there... healing methods through frequencies are mentioned there! Apparently the business has moved on since the 70s when Valerie Hunt first started her experiments!

93. to Cezanne
    The question is, will you be mentally prepared to receive a result that you will see after all the necessary tests and meet all the strict criteria for the result that you will see that the body transmits frequencies in the range of thousands of hertz per second? Every biological body not only the human !!
    I have no idea how the researcher conducted her experiments, but it is unlikely that she would take devices that she is not familiar with and use them carelessly and not use professionals (in this case from NASA) who are used to using them! Like using any new and complex device .. in my eyes this is improbable and it actually needs to be proven and not the other way around!
    What is even more important is the continuation of the research that there was no strength to continue writing that shows a clear connection to the reality of those energies that can "predict" character and various diseases as well as assess the possibility of an approaching disease and other things. Not having those frequencies would have disproved them later!
    It's like I will rule out the existence of a certain virus even though not only the tests indicate its existence but also many other clear realistic parameters that without its existence could not be confirmed. the relevant sources) and a clear negative or confirmation! As far as I'm concerned, things are closer to the truth until, as mentioned, it is proven otherwise in comprehensive and non-overlapping studies that will rule out most of the findings and not just a small part of them!

    What I "read" in you and in Blizovsky and the like is a deep mental opposition to any finding that is not considered scientific or suspected of being supernatural or may strengthen the supernatural believers! I would like to mention that the atom was also once considered a natural superstructure and its cousin the electron and the rest of the family of particles that surround us and within us, not to mention the quantum theory that deceives all the senses and the "healthy" logic! The structure of my logic is different.. In my view, the things are true as long as the opposite is not proven as long as they are presented in a way that does not contradict itself.. Like for example that crook (in my view) who claimed to have succeeded in cloning a human baby without showing any new findings and the entire medical establishment even though it was clear Because he misleads the public, he could not prove it and their representative was confused in the media, contrary to the assurance that he was broadcast by "Mishchitan"

    That is, my openness is not as innocent as one might think..but we must give him a receptive space intellectually and mentally until that person fails himself or proves that he was right.

94. to burst
    Let's start from the end, frequency is not hertz per second, it's just hertz (no per second)
    I assume that this is a collection of nonsense because there are no scientific publications on this subject in known research institutions.

95. You say there is no doubt that the frequency was picked up by the device. how do you know?

    Maybe the professor doesn't know how to operate the device well?
    Maybe she used a device with known problems (and maybe they are not known to the professor to the same extent that they are known to other experts in the field)?
    Maybe the experiments were conducted in an environment with other electromagnetic disturbances?
    Maybe the device was not assembled properly?
    Maybe the professor falsified data?
    Maybe she interprets background noise as frequencies?

    Before you say that any of this is impossible because the professor is a 'professional', etc., allow me to speak your mind and assure you that I have already encountered all these problems in various studies published even in the scientific press. These things happen every day.

    I am not claiming that someone is fabricating experiments and results here (although many things have already happened). I'm simply saying that in every experiment there are -=lots=- of possibilities for mistakes, and therefore you must not take an experiment that has not been thoroughly checked by peer review, and treat it as truth from heaven. This is exactly why there is peer review - a team of scientists who go through studies that are published in their field and check whether they were done well.

    interesting fact -
    I read new articles in my research area every week. About 20% of them I throw away, because I can see that the experimental methods, logic and conclusions are not compatible, or there was no proper criticism. And these are articles that managed to pass initial peer review (even if not particularly strict). They are disqualified in the secondary peer review, which is performed by all other scientists working in the field.
    Even serious scientific researchers, who know how hard they have to work to draw inconclusive conclusions, sometimes fail to do so. Go ahead and imagine some peer-reviewed research that exists in the 'New Age' field, and the vast majority of which is complete nonsense.

96. to Cezanne
    You are skipping an important part that is beyond doubt and that is the frequency that was picked up by the device and from which it all started!! Here there is no effect or such and such methods have no effect .. they cannot produce frequencies with a power that would not be known to science!! So where in this part (if we put aside for a moment the explanation of the aura) is there a possibility of failure? Of course, only if there are no such frequencies and the professor committed to the same scientific truth, perhaps more than us, made everything up in her head!
    I am willing to accept that she did not exist at all and the author of the book invented her (you can probably check who she is and what she did) or that the above research was never done but fabricated by the author or by someone! But if not these reasons and indeed there are frequencies, then I need to explain what their origin is. And if they originate as found in the bodies of the subjects, why is it less good than frequencies of 250 hertz per second? I assume that you accept their existence!

97. Mr Peretz,

    Do you realize that you are quoting the opinion of only one person, and the way he presents and interprets the experiments of all those people? Are you aware that there is no control over popular science books, and that there is no requirement that Dr. Leon Liebrecht even present correct experiments and names?

    If you want to argue for these experiments, I would appreciate it if you also check what the academy has to say about them, and why the experiments failed to impress the entire scientific community. There are always many sides to any discussion, and reading only one side is not a good recipe for drawing conclusions (especially when that side is in such a minority position).

    Just off the cuff, from everything you quoted about Doctor Hunt, it sounds as if her experiments did not use real controls, or used the double blind method (where the researcher does not come into contact with the subjects, and those who come into contact with them do not know what to expect and thus do not influence them ). This method has already invalidated many experiments, which turned out that when they switched to using it, the results changed from end to end.

98. Of course, there is no proof here of the existence of any supreme being, there is only proof that the authorities or another body "decided" what is scientific and what is not, regardless of the results and findings obtained in various studies!

99. As for auras, the existence of which Lizovsky does not believe, there are proofs and again from unexpected places quote "Dr. Valerie Hunt's research also proves that around our body there is an envelope of electromagnetic energy, which is actually found in every living creature and can be measured using suitable electronic equipment. As we know, there are people who have the ability to see auras with their eyes only, and among the gifted ones Dr. Hunt was helped in her research work"
    Easy skip and continue "Dr. Valerie Hunt, who studied psychology and physiology, was a professor at the well-known UCLA University, where she conducted her research in the field of muscle physiology in the 70s, examining athletes and dancers in particular. To get information about the electrical activity of the muscle it was necessary to connect wires with electrodes to the muscles of the subjects. Since there were several electrodes on their wires, these prevented the movement of the athletes and dancers and made the research difficult. To overcome this, Hunt turned to NASA people, who in those days had already developed telemetric devices to measure and receive information about the medical condition of the astronauts who were in space at the time. The device Hunt received from NASA did greatly facilitate the subjects' activities, who could now dedicate themselves to their work without cables and wires interfering with their freedom of movement."
    "But then a surprise awaited Hunt that she did not expect. During the measurement process, she began to pick up electrical activity at high frequencies up to thousands of hertz per second, which had a low amplitude and were not known to science until then, and she also did not know how to explain them. The frequencies that were known until then, such as the frequencies of the heart (ECG), of the brain (AEG) or of the muscles (EMG), were all below 250 Hz per second." !!
    "The consultations she held with her Western-educated colleagues did not bear fruit. Therefore, Hunt decided to travel to China and Japan, hoping that there they could help her understand the phenomenon. While searching for a solution to the frequencies that were discovered, the opinion among the testers gradually took shape that it might be the aura of the body." !! "However, due to being a rational scientist, Hunt initially found it difficult to accept such an explanation. In the end, having no choice and because it was the most suitable explanation for the phenomenon, she decided to check this direction."
    "Hunt recruited eight famous aura readers, and their job was to describe the subjects' aura in terms of size, intensity, colors, energy flow directions, and more. This information was compared to the readings obtained in the measuring devices of the electrical activity in the different parts of the body, to which electrodes were attached. It soon became clear that there was a correlation between the readings of the aura seers and the information received on the device. For example, if the aura reader said that in a certain area of ​​the subject's body he sees a strong red color, the device also showed a wave frequency that matched the wave range belonging to the physical domain of the color red. I mention the term "wave range" of the color red as an example, because any differences were discovered in the shades of the color, as seen by the various aura viewers in a certain subject. That is, everyone saw the same basic color, except that the difference was sometimes in the shades, which were sometimes a little different, but in the end they were all included in the red area"
    A little more because my neck is crooked and there is a lot more of course
    "During the research, Hunt learned that every person has his own aura "signature", which characterizes him, in terms of signs such as the size and intensity of the aura, "and another 10 pages on the subject when I quoted only two pages!
    From the book I mentioned "The Weave" by Dr. Leon Liebrecht

100. to Cezanne
     Regarding the one truth ..I understood exactly the opposite and the funny thing is that the examples you gave to justify the one truth (which does not exist in my opinion unless you believe in the existence of one god who represents that one and only truth) actually show the multiplicity of truths in reality ..at the end of your response you gave as an example Choosing the medicine and choosing the right fuel for the car..well!! Everything like this has its own specific requirements that means its truth and therefore the world exists from the totality of all truths, which of course is what I meant!
     As for medicine ..mostly relies on statistics and therefore one is cured and another will get sick or die from the same medicine ..it also seems to me that you treat science in a blind and phantasmagoric way, almost drugged or those who inhale science in the morning straight into the vein! Gentlemen, it's just human beings who created the science which at the beginning most of those involved in it were also somewhat knowledgeable like Pythagoras and even the devout believer Newton .. today even a medical diagnosis which I valued more than the drugs I tried to stay away from as much as possible is no longer impressive as I described it! Ten tests and they didn't find what I have and I'm not an unusual case but who's counting!!
     I don't wait until something is discovered, but react as I did in the past, and each time the reaction should be in a different way, even if it doesn't succeed, also because of the criticism I've accumulated over the years regarding the representation of alternative medicine (I'm not in anyone's pocket!) Despite this, its success for me is almost complete. I support the establishment of medical centers that will include diagnosis using the other methods without any fear.. I do not wish for anyone to discover that conventional medicine gives few answers the moment they are needed, not to mention the indifferent attitude to human life! And it's a fact that a lot of people prefer the alternative treatments that usually support doing physical fitness and maintaining a balanced diet in contrast to conventional medicine where the doctor only gives out pills or sends for tests more than that he is not ready to make a commitment yes you will be cured or not that's your problem .. that's why in my eyes conventional medicine is medicine A mystic who is mistakenly perceived and while exploiting the conditions of the sick people as tested scientific medicine and not as much as it is..mostly regretful with few basic things and a lot of intimidation of the public against everything that is not them!!
     Regarding the studies that were done...some of them were done by ordinary researchers and even by professors (such as Prof. Fritz Albert Pope from the University of Marburg in Germany "who received the title of professor at a fairly young age and he was the star of the physics department of the University of Marburg, until he began to declare Scientific ideas that were apparently too revolutionary for the university authorities, who canceled his job and even demanded that he leave" (in 1980) end of quote) because of their findings that contradicted the "healthy" logic of several university heads and could, god forbid, cause a drastic decrease in the use of drugs, mainly for types of cancer We already found a treatment for them by transmitting frequencies at a certain intensity about 50 years ago!! Which means that tens of thousands of patients could have been cured in a better way and without all the pain of the radiations...but this did not suit the American Ministry of Health (indifference and putting a band on the patients) which was on the side of the drug manufacturers who understood the damage that would be caused to their profits and thus we are stuck with all the radiations and other "treatments" "Similar to this day!
     I derive all this information from the book I mentioned earlier by Dr. Leon Liebrecht (writing from memory) "The Fabric" in which all the exact details are found!

101. Led. Peretz, regarding the halos, this is of course complete nonsense that doesn't even need to be investigated from a scientific point of view, but because of all the doozies of the new age, surely someone tried to check. Have you seen even one scientific article on this in a peer-reviewed journal? Not that such newspapers cannot slip wrong studies such as the original study that dealt with the biblical code, but the magazine and the scientists knew very quickly to come to their senses.
     I would love to know where those hundreds of articles that proved without a doubt a. the existence of Hila and If it exists, what is it used for?

102. For something else, Vald. breach.
     Those who oppose a certain movement first of all mark its ideologues, and try to convince them to drop the matter, and thus they profit that an entire public will not be exposed to the truth they are trying to hide.
     With all due respect to Shaul Bar Ilan, he is religious and has an interest in lowering the tone of criticism against religion. you d. Peretz managed to convince that there is a difference between religion and a new age (which for me there is none), he has the right to think so but why convince me that I will stop promoting something just because someone wants to loosen my hand. This is not a fight for a way of life, this is about the very existence of a normal country. And a country can only be normal and strong with strong science and with the weakening of the pro-Orthodox government (and the government always thinks that it is necessary to make room for the ultra-Orthodox, whether it is innocently to preserve Yiddishkeit or just because it is convenient for another vote in the coalition - see Education Minister Yuli Tamir's folding on the issue of the core plan).
     There were other things that robbed me of my strength and time in the last 15 years, not the activity, which I also avoided for a large part of that time.

     post Scriptum. Why 15, I was released from regular service exactly this week 25 years ago.

103. Mr Peretz,

     When one person responds under multiple names, in order to give false support for their own opinion, it absolutely grates on me. I see this as plagiarism and cheating the audience of readers and participants in the discussion. As such, I believe this is relevant to the discussion.

     Regarding what you said to my father, I support my father's position to separate science from the 'new age', which in many cases is no better than religion and superstition.
     Let me correct you on a very important point. You claim that the new age is partly scientifically tested and partly found to be true. If peer-reviewed articles are published in prestigious scientific journals, then this is science for all intents and purposes.
     The problem is that most of the research done about alternative medicine does not meet the strict rules of scientific procedures. Many times critical flaws can be found in them, and therefore their results cannot be accepted.

     Most of the problematic experiments that failed to be accepted into scientific newspapers are usually published afterwards in popular 'New Age' books for the public, where they also try to beautify them as much as possible. But the simple fact is that they are not accepted by the scientific community because of a lack of criticism in conducting the experiment or because of the fact that when other scientists try to conduct them, they fail to repeat the result.

     So with all due respect to parapsychology and 'New Age' books, they do not contain 'thousands of truths'. They contain thousands of mistakes. Maybe you are not looking for 'one truth', but the bacteria that attack your body during illness are afraid of a truth called 'antibiotics'. You can try to think happy thoughts instead, or go to a priest for amulets and prayers, but the bitter fact is that none of these have helped humanity in the last 10,000 years in the war against disease. Antibiotics and vaccines did the real work. Why? Because they have been well tested and their effectiveness has been scientifically proven.

     If you believe in 'thousands of truths', then please, the next time you choose what to eat, don't consider the number of calories or the ingredients written on the packaging of the food. The next time you're sick, just take one of the medicine bottles off the shelf, and don't look at its wrapper to know if it's the right medicine. The next time you fill up, don't check whether you're fueling your car with 95, 98 or diesel fuel. What does it matter, in the end? Everyone is right!

     or…
     That there is only one truth that is important to us in physical reality, and that the scientific method is the way to discover it.

104. To Mr. Blizovsky:

     Please read the response of:

     Shaul Bar Ilan, D. Peretz

     You have quite a few things to learn from.

     Second thing: What percentage of your last 15 years have you devoted to religion that at the same time you could have devoted to pure science??

     Without knowing your lifestyle, I assume that the percentage of involvement in religion was so great that you could write interesting books on the subject of space. Too bad for you

105. Reference to some comments:
     Lablizovsky (25.12/22 37:XNUMX PM) Anyway, you represent a very extreme position in my opinion and inflexible on an almost fanatical level that does not allow for substantive discussion! Lucky you have a site dealing with science, otherwise you would be considered eccentric like many delusional leftists!
     For me, you are connecting religion with the so-called new age
     which is much more open and has even been scientifically tested in part and found to be partly true and partly false like many concepts in every field (has anyone scientifically tested all the dishes? And why and how much is needed to get the food that is considered tasty and nutritious and many other parameters?) Many "grandmother" drugs have been found to fulfill functions Medical and influential and more!
     Halos, for example, were scientifically tested and it was found that there are different frequencies at which the cells transmit (in this matter, I again refer to the book "HaMarg" by Dr. Leon Liebrecht, which brings diverse studies in different fields of alternative medicine and instructive facts! Anyone who wants, I am ready to buy at the outlet (NIS 50)
     In my opinion, you are driving people away from science and not bringing them closer, the sharp style that does not recognize any other way of thinking is in itself far from the essence of the science that developed (when it developed because at different times science went into stagnation and not only because of religion) thanks to a variety of opinions even if their subjects came from different backgrounds... you are talking about " One truth" and this definition is strange to me to say the least! For example, I'm not looking for the same "one truth" I prefer thousands of truths that twist between them and create the cosmos and consciousness and everything else!!
     You don't have to feel as if all the science is on your burdened shoulders. There are others like Michael who answer with a lot of consensus, even though I don't agree with everything that Michael brought, such as Sam Harris's video (for some reason I can't watch it today... a few hours in the morning!) And I'm only referring to the first eight minutes that I saw yesterday - Sam got to the part where he explains the fact that 44% of Americans who support Israel do so because God commanded it to the Jews in the Bible!! What pricked my ear is the fact that in a circular demagogic way he actually denies the existence of Israel!! and why? Because he didn't immediately add that Israel's right to exist is not in doubt from the democratic and interstate aspect like any other country and there are much more obscene things than it that arose on the bowels of another nation such as the USA itself where he was born and lives and from which he sends us his insights and hundreds of other countries that arose By plundering another nation like most Arab countries who stole the identity of the countries they erased (Iraq. Egypt. Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iran, and more) in an act of murder and looting!!
     Also, his non-academic style started to annoy me after a few minutes, he adopted the style of the preachers and he is not as talented as them!
     To Roy, I want to say that as soon as you refer to some commenters and their IP and so to speak expose them and more under different nicknames, you lose with me and maybe with others a lot of the credit you earned in your detailed answers in the article on evolution!! It's just not relevant!
     What is urgent for you? Do you have something to say?..write and we will read and let others have their say, you are after all one of the authors of the site and not an anonymous talkbackist! Let everyone read and draw their own conclusions!
     That's what I had to say and that everyone should do as they wish.. because that's what will happen anyway!
     And a small one for Michael... while you were working on formulating another response to Sabdarmish (he must be busy preparing the experiment) I spent a few hours in the model (non-consecutive.. every day a little) and added some ideas for how, how much and why... I hope that I will have time tomorrow and will formulate before Two in the morning to write about it!
     But the main conclusion for what is holding me back is a place to work...I will have to be assigned a room...a basement is also possible (at the university of course)!! and access to libraries as well as the possibility to talk with scientists in their free time or through the computer, including filling out a questionnaire about the scientists who are important in their opinion and the discoveries that are important in their eyes, etc... you have to start with something!

106. To Roy, it's clear that part of their excess power in the Knesset comes from double votes (it's a nice income for yeshiva students to go and vote instead of those who are abroad or have simply passed away from the world...) What is a problem for them to impersonate so many people?

107. For Ofer, unfortunately the supply in Hot is much less. Channel 8, National Geographic and to some extent the History Channel (this name depends on the producer of the specific film).

108. I wonder why 'Moshe' and 'Yehuda' write from the same IP, but under different names.

109. Sounds pretty interesting

     Why not have a religious channel? It's their right, they pay money, and it's our right as human beings to have a package channel that includes a religious channel from which you can learn something that you can't learn, for example, from MTV or all kinds of movie channels

     No?

     So I'm all for the nice idea

110. All the best to the new chat channel
     It's time to watch interesting things on TV

111. I don't see the connection between the new conversation channel, and downloading the Discovery channel.

     The speakers of the Yes cable channel said that the Discovery channel has almost no viewers

112. I called Lis to protest, hope it helps
     When they tried to download BBC World I called and screamed like crazy maybe it helped because in the end they didn't download it
     This time I was still hoping that I didn't make a mistake that I didn't scream 🙂

113. Does Hot have Discovery Science?
     This is the most watched channel in our house.
     Really discouraging! They managed to download the technology channel for generations
     If they download, it is better that they download the regular Discovery and leave Discovery Science.
     I think it's time to disconnect miss and take the TV out of the house and return to the radio.

114. Grumpiness is not a good trait…
     I asked why a petition was not organized for the universities, and I did not try to prevent a petition in favor of Discovery. I personally think that in the business field market forces should act alone and not petitions, but we have already talked about that.

115. I also look forward to the end of the university strike. So what, does that mean I'm not allowed to comment on another injustice done to science in the country, even if its importance at the moment is less? Or anything will serve as an excuse for you to shut up anyone who tries to rebel against the takeover by the people who want to see science supervised by them.

116. Now I ask a question to the point:

     An entire academic year is at stake (at least it seems so).
     In a more comprehensive view: the entire future of higher education in the State of Israel is at stake these days; Every natural sciences graduate knows quite a few friends who 'stay abroad', and probably he himself also had quite a few options to 'take care of his home' abroad.

     I am not at all familiar with the details of the conflict between the lecturers and the Treasury (certainly I am in favor of doubling the lecturers' salary; on the other hand, I do not at all understand their demand to reject the conclusions of the Shohat Committee regarding differential pay, promotion to outstanding students, etc. I personally am also in favor of raising tuition to be financed from soft loans that will be repaid at the end the studies of every student, and thus we will gain two things: the universities will also be richer, and market forces will shape the scope of higher education, and not left-wing ideologies, but let's leave it at that for now), but it is clear that freezing the existing situation certainly does not contribute to anything, and certainly does not add to the name of The scientific research here.

     In this situation, humans have no worries except to worry about another television channel that will continue to be broadcast to the plates on the roofs of a certain percentage of the population.
     In Yiddish they used to say: "Crazy people got off the roof...".

     In other words, in the words of organizing a petition for the Discovery Channel, isn't it better to organize a petition to raise the fund of technological education???

117. It's not the quantity, but the quality P:

118. Leyar HaMeir
     and repeats the same thing.
     Have you asked yourself how much is "enough" when it comes to scientific content and how much is "too much" when it comes to stupid and misleading content?

119. Tell me, why are you crying so much? If you haven't noticed, even though the channel in question is going down soon, Yes still has enough content in the field of science and nature -

     The usual Discovery Channel,

     National Geographic Channel,

     Animal Planet channel,

     And the history channel!

     So enough with this pettiness...

120. This is important news.

     My biological age is 22 and I am one of the "refugees of the education system" if you can call it that, from the very last generation before the "great stupidity" that we are witnessing today after a continuous decadence of at least 20 years.

     Regarding the television commercial - until a few years ago when I still watched a bit of television it was mainly on nature and science channels such as Channel 8, National Geographic and the like.

     But since then I no longer watch television at all, not only because the level of content and its scope has drastically decreased, but for other reasons that go far beyond what is covered in the news.

     In any case, I would like to emphasize my optimistic hope that after all there is also a young generation here who cares about a sane Middle East with an awareness of science and the environment.

     By the way, this is one of my favorite sites especially on the Hebrew network and I have been reading it for several years.

121. Indeed a fascinating discussion between religion and science that was not expected to lead to any surprising conclusions (apart from the fact that I read the whole thing as time will tell).
     But the beginning of the discussion and in particular the article is problematic in my eyes, even though I agree with it. There is indeed a need for a scientific channel as well, and perhaps there is a demand for a repentant channel, but I do not believe that there is a connection between one's departure from the screen and the rise of the other. The Yes company (which I am not a follower of and I don't have a television by choice) made a cold financial decision and I am not sure that this can be prevented in their favor except by voting with their feet (and here, too, I doubt that they will feel the lack of such a small number of customers) and simply went through the same process of bewilderment that most of its viewers went through and lost The few values ​​she still has left.
     I do not believe at all that this or that sector has an advantage in science, that is, secular religious Arabs, Ethiopians, Russians, etc. have the same ability and the same lack of opportunities.
     And I do have to agree that in the eyes of the general public, science is nothing more than another "religion" or channel to which a person can channel his life, and today this channel is not particularly popular.
     I can only surmise that there is a missing hand in the matter, because otherwise I am supposed to explain why the "people of the book" in all its shades and belief in reason and wisdom in all its forms, loses itself in knowing in the intellectual sense and how each generation falls from the previous one.
     And a real solution to the problem will not appear only from companies like Yes and similar in the commercial world that will rediscover their lost scale of values. The solution will come (and we are not lost) from a policy aimed at science and better education, of course I have no idea or way to make this happen and I am convinced that you are too (otherwise I would expect to wake up to a different world tomorrow at noon).
     But the trivial things are of course yelling at Yes (ruining the operator's shift at the most), posting angry comments on the various forums (for example on the science website that greatly influences the opinion of the Assamese senders to the Born Star), contacting public figures (useless and spineless) and praying (I don't religious but at this rate only a miracle will help).
     Well, in retrospect I realized that only the religious have hope (at least in their hearts). But I'm optimistic, after all it can't be worse than this (apart from the abyss opening under our feet), and at the end of the day we can still prove and disprove evolution tomorrow as well.

     I apologize in retrospect for the scent of cynicism arising from my words, but the current reality presents us with the same cynical appearance of pseudo-science and half-truths and rating sciences instead of real science and knowledge.

122. I ask not to respond to the well-known troll who just spoke here. He enjoys provocations, and repeats his words even though it has already been explained to him many times that they are incorrect.

     It is a shame to turn a discussion about education in Israel into a discussion about evolution.

123. The question is - does evolution have the power to create multi-gene systems. So far, no support has been found for this. Living clocks are not the product of a random process at all.

124. Gevelt! God save us from the deniers of evolution!

125. Friend, I really do not understand what you are crying about! So ok, one channel went down, so what? Yes still has many other enrichment channels with scientific content and the fields of science and nature, and they certainly complement the channel that went down, you still have the usual Discovery Channel, you still have National Geographic, Animal Planet, and the History Channel, there is still enough content In the field of science and knowledge, why look only at the half-empty glass? Stop being so petty….. Even without this channel I think that the Yes company still has a lot more to offer scientists like us compared to the competing company.

126. First of all thanks for the link, I started reading anyway, from the parts I read I did not come to the conclusion that he claims ignorance is better than scientific knowledge. He talks about other ways to transfer knowledge and teach thinking. He does not mean that we will all be ignorant and hate science. After all, he himself was a scientist.
     Which is also true, the human is not a collection of cells, the cells themselves are extremely complex machines, which we have not even come to fully understand (see articles by the Weizmann Institute in the science of the "cell". It is possible that today he would have written differently following the human genome project.
     Although there are other perceptions, they are wrong, and unfortunately I am not ready to accept the post-modernist position that all opinions have equal weight. She is the one who made the liberals allow the fundamentalists to operate and the enlightened world paid the penalty for the decline of the horn of science and the pluralization of truth in the twin disaster and other acts of terrorism in Israel and around the world. For me, any television show that encourages astrology, belief in séances or anything supernatural, including derivatives of religion that are expressed in the actions of Zamir Cohen or his friends. There is one truth, maybe science has not reached it but this is its greatness - that it always strives forward. The alleged religion has arrived at the alleged "truth", but it is apparently unable to defend it without lies of the type of purple halos of various kinds. It just shows how true it is.

127. Just as in the previous centuries religious facts were taught in schools, so today scientific facts are taught - as if they were carved in stone and there was no wood.

     Stop imposing your fear of the unknown on people who want some variety.
     Spokesperson Yes was right when she told the author of the article: "I don't choose for the people. Are you angry that the people don't like what you like?"

     Not every TV program should glorify and praise only science - there are also other worldviews (and it doesn't matter if they are true or not, if there is such a thing as "true").

     http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/ViewEntry.asp?EntryId=1066556

128. Correction - I am secular, not religious

129. I don't understand what all the fuss is about.
     The science package in YES has two channels discovery and discovery science and several other channels.
     There is an annoying duplication of programs on both channels and the truth is that I see no reason not to download one of them because the channel is unnecessary.
     I often see Brainiac on both channels at the same time (for example).
     You are just arguing here. All the programs only stayed because they were on the other channels anyway.
     As for the ANIME channel, they will take it down, even so it only makes the generation that sees it stupid.

     By the way, I am not secular and not a representative of Yes or anything like that.

130. Just another small addition to ask:
     There is a proverb that says: "God, give me the strength to change what can be changed, accept what cannot be changed and the wisdom to distinguish between the two"
     Even if I thought that I should serve evolution and that homosexuals (which it created) were harmful to it, I would still be able to deal with the fact that it cannot be changed.
     I know you will argue the opposite but this will simply be another result of your religious belief that you will find at odds with scientific knowledge. It is also worth understanding that if we treated homosexuals according to religious requirements, even then they would not have become heterosexual unless someone defines the dead as heterosexual.
     Be that as it may, even in this matter the religious instructions shame every moral person.

131. I have no problem ending the discussion here; Just please don't attribute it to my fault.

     Just a slight clarification: when I brought up Desmond Morris who claims that according to evolution homosexuality should be opposed, of course he didn't mean and I didn't mean that it was from moral considerations, but from instinctive considerations (there is an absurdity here, I admit): the human species wants (or should want) to survive And for that he must adhere to the instinct that exists in most of his details to produce offspring.

     Bye.

132. borrowed,

     I believe that we exceeded the limits of the original discussion in the article. I would like to conclude by saying that we will probably never be able to get 'proof' of evolution, because we simply cannot go back in time and watch things happen. However, we are able to repeat the evolution in the laboratory, and we can see the traces it has left in all the millions of species of AEs that are on the planet today.

     For me, this is proof enough. And in fact, it should be for you as well, if you didn't already have complete faith in the opposite example.

     I see no point in continuing the discussion on this point.

     Good Day,

     Roy.

133. to ask:
     In the discussion about 1:0 in favor of evolution you wrote:
     "A side note: the example you gave regarding the treatment of homosexuals seems a little strange to me, because a true evolutionist knows that in order for the species to be preserved, it is necessary to establish a history; An action that, as far as I know, is somewhat incompatible with homosexuality. In the book 'The Naked Monkey' Desmond Morris (an extremely flamboyant atheist), gives this argument as a reason why according to evolution (!!!) homosexuality should be opposed."

     Therefore it is not true that you have always claimed that evolution is not a moral theory and it is not true that you did not attribute such a thought to Desmond Morris as well.
     I think that sticking to the truth is very important in the kind of discussions we are having.

     In the meantime, all the quotes you brought from the words of Desmond Morris seem to me far-fetched. Maybe it's his problem and maybe it's just a result of the selection you make on his words.
     In any case - waving names is not a reason. If there are meaningful things that someone said - it is better that you bring these things and not statements for which all the basis is his name.

     There is not a single evidence for the existence of God and the claims made as evidence are mostly dependent on each other. I have already said what I think about the sequence of transmission of the Torah from Yeshua and not from Mount Sinai to the present day and in general we are not here in a competition between the religions so there is no reason for me to point you to another religion.

134. There are hundreds of thousands of independent testimonies to the existence of G-d (and this is the main point!!) that are passed on independently from each family in the Jewish people from generation to generation since the time of Mount Sinai. Do you know of another religion or culture or belief that chains itself in this way?

135. Despite the shortness of time, I do not hold back, and add another small line:

     The fact that Hitler relied on concepts like those of Desmond Morris may not indicate that Desmond Morris is stupid, but rather that evolution and morality have no starting point... (which is actually what I claimed then and now). For the full picture, I have to admit that it makes sense that somewhere (perhaps in his publications in English) Desmond Morris refers to the connection between evolution and morality and maybe things disappeared from me.

     The nature of an open 'internet' discussion requires that if there is a writer that I have carefully reviewed at least some of his articles and found them to be coherent, I am at least allowed to assume that the rest of his publications are also of good taste.

     Bye

136. to ask:
     Do you have conclusive proof that stars move in their orbits by virtue of some law and not because God drives them in these orbits while making sure to keep the semblance of this law?
     By the way - when you talked about the evidence that you cannot conspire - did you talk about the evidence for the existence of God?

137. to ask:

     The summary of the link I sent is that successful experiments in evolution were also done in the laboratory.
     It is very small wisdom to ignore it.

     As for Desmond Morris, if you want to embrace evolution as a moral doctrine you are welcome to do so. As I already mentioned the last time you brought his name up, so did Hitler.

     In general, quoting people with the intention of basing themselves on their name and not on the scientific persuasiveness of their words is an act whose place we will not recognize in a discussion of facts.

138. I am honored to deal with three commenters at the same time, but due to the shortness of time I will postpone the detailed answer to the opportunity that I hope will come soon.

     in short:
     A. Michael: I did not refer to one link because I saw that it was a long and professional article. Since reading evolution books is only a very side hobby for me, I hope you will forgive me if I was too lazy to read the article (you are welcome to put a summary here..).

     B. I cannot quote religious writers because religion disrupts their thinking; I can't quote Desmond Morris either because he's stupid... maybe you'll publish a closed list of writers you approve of, and that's it... (by the way, from an enthusiastic reading of almost everything he wrote (I refer you again to the 'naked monkey'), he He seems to me to be an extremely smart man, although somewhat flashy. If we compare him to Steven Gold, he seems to me - from a personal impression - just as brilliant and maybe more so)

     B. Roy: Of course, as long as there is no known essential characteristic that distinguishes me from other human beings, I will continue to take medication, and the same goes for the rest of the laws of nature. The question we are discussing: whether evolution happened by itself or by external intervention is certainly important enough to justify a demand to bring conclusive evidence and not by deduction that fails to cross the essential boundary line.
     This demand is not unreasonable at all. For years, simulations of the physics of the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang have been done with the help of supercomputers. It is equally possible to feed a computer with the same data that you think characterizes the 'primordial soup' and the primeval atmosphere, run a simulation of millions of years or billions, and see what happens. The problem is that you already have an answer, and that is that there are countless life-supporting planets in the universe, and it certainly makes sense for life to form on at least one of them. Even if it is proven that the necessary number of probabilities is greater than the number of planets in the universe, you will not be left without an answer because for years now there are those who claim that there is actually not one universe but several parallel universes... in the words of our sages: Evidence that you cannot conspire is not evidence.

     third. Lavi: Regarding my limitations, you are certainly allowed to achieve as much as you wish, but it seems to me that among the greats of Israel there were quite a few people who were pedantic in their ability to analyze philosophically and they did not feel any philosophical problem in Judaism.

     Bye.

139. for everyone:
     Here's something interesting:
     http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2875722755809200344

140. to ask:
     First I must comment that you did not answer most of the things I said and ask if it was intentional.
     Secondly, I will refer to your "answers".
     You cite Desmond Morris as an example of someone who said animals don't have feelings. This is the same Desmond Morris that you cited at the time as an example of a claim in the field of morality that was based on evolution. This already allows me to establish a certain theory: maybe Desmond Morris is just stupid? In any case, the fact that bias cannot be attributed to him means that no error can be attributed to him. In the two examples you gave, I have no doubt that he was wrong and you did not refer to the evidence that I gave at all.

     When someone predicts that fossils will be found and it does happen, it is a prediction of a future event (which, by the way, is much more explicit and significant than all the "prophecies" quoted from the Holy Scriptures). You decide not and say that it is a reinforcement of the existing theory and I say that there is an internal contradiction in your words. Every successful experiment is a reinforcement of the existing theory. Nor is it about finding another fossil of the same type, but finding fossils of different types, therefore your use of the single word "fossils" is demagogic. It's like saying that there were X experiments that confirmed a certain theory and now they did another experiment and X+1 experiments were successful, so it's meaningless. Only those who are already really convinced to the depths of their soul in the correctness of the theory can make such a claim. Is this your situation?
     These predictions are an experiment in many respects, but since I am an honest person, I will still point out a certain difference that is not very important, but is much more important than the arguments you raised: it is indeed a prediction, but this prediction has no possibility of failure. As long as a "missing link" is not found, it cannot be said that there is none, and when it is found, it certainly cannot be said. What to do - this is the characteristic of predictions that their realization cannot be actively initiated at a given moment. To that end, I brought the link to which you refrained from referring.
     By the way, believe me you don't need to illustrate to me with examples what an experiment is. Not even examples with an airport.

     Several kings see exactly what I said. Your "clarifications" are an invention based on nothing.

141. To ask, following on fromRoey Tsezana's response, it is interesting to know whether you also demand from religion to meet the same stringent requirements that you demand from science?

142. borrowed,

     We return to the point of verifying the theory in the laboratory. In this case, I hope you will be convinced by the examples given in the following articles, which show the evolution of strains in the laboratory.
     http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

     You claim that it is not possible to extrapolate from these few examples to the generality of life on Earth. In fact, you object to generalizing the particular over the general.

     In that case, Saul, I hope you don't take medicine when you're sick. These drugs have been tested in clinical trials on thousands of people. But since it is not possible to generalize from the individual to the general, these drugs should not protect you.
     Do you believe there is a place on earth where there is no gravity? Because if laws cannot be grouped in theory, then Newton's laws do not exist either. The fact that they work well in each of the millions of experiments that have tested their existence does not mean that they are indeed valid everywhere on the planet. This is a generalization. And yet, we don't see skyscrapers rising from the ground and floating into space by themselves.

     Last but not least - does your chair do a samba dance when you leave the room? According to your arguments, there is no way to know that he doesn't. Just because in all the thousands of times you've already been in the room with him he hasn't used to dance the samba, it doesn't mean he can't dance the samba, according to your logic.

     So forgive me, but I'd rather believe that your chair doesn't dance the samba, that Newton's laws apply, and that I can take medicine that protects me from deadly diseases. It is simple logic, which leads to the generalization of separate cases and their transformation into a general theory.
     The exact same logic directs us to believe in the theory of evolution, because it is consistent with hundreds of thousands of observations made in scientific history. The same logic also directs us to believe that the theory of evolution manages to explain well how the entire variety of species on the planet developed.

     to Mr. Point,
     I don't agree with the things you say. The people enjoy every day the new and interesting inventions that science provides them. The fact that there are no shocking 'revolutions' of theories does not mean that they give up on science.

143. To Michael,

     I forgot to add that I went to the links you directed me to. Since I absolutely do not believe in conversion through the means of persuasion of the kind that are attacked there, I do not know what the articles there are supposed to interest me.

144. Michael,

     A. The claim that animals have no feelings is raised by Desmond Morris in several of his letters (when the heron warns 'her' buffalo that a predator is approaching, she does so not out of concern for him but out of concern that she will lose her habitat, etc.). He is enough of an atheist so that you don't suspect me of any bias on the subject.

     B. I may not have used the proper phrase, but it is certain that in order for a theory to become a science, it must predict phenomena in the sense of predicting future processes (that's why I used the concept: 'the flats') or predict the discovery of existing phenomena that we were not aware of and would have no explanation with the existing tools (the bending of the light rays Because of the gravity of the sun, for example, it was always there, and we just didn't expect it to be found in the test). This finding of missing fossils is not a prediction of future processes, but only a strengthening of the theory in the form of findings that have always been in the field, and without the heavy burden that already existed in the form of the old fossils. If when there are X fossils I can claim it is due to external intervention, I can also claim it when there is X times 10. Therefore, evolution is not yet a science.

     A short example:
     Let's say that tomorrow we go to the airport, and ask ourselves why airplanes fly. The obvious answer, in light of a comprehensive examination that was done, would be, of course, that it is because those who drive them have Ray-Ban glasses, and Breitling watches; That is, thanks to these accessories the pilots manage to take off the plane. Surely this is a reasonable theory because the truck drivers don't have (!) Ray-Ban glasses or Breitling watches, and they really don't take off.
     Now we would like to check if the theory is predictive. That's why we will go to America, and if there too it is found that all the pilots have Ray-Ban glasses and Breitling watches, because then we will know that our theory is not just a theory, but real science...

     third. A number of kings see the opposite: the Torah has always existed and there was just no awareness of it, for historical reasons, in that part of the people that held the reins of power (elite).

145. For a point of debate:
     Most people do not even know the science of a hundred years ago, let alone the science of our time.
     A reasonable person should, in my opinion, be interested and even very interested in everything that he knows can be understood and that he has not yet understood.
     Science is not a football game or an arena of debates where the winner is whoever knows the latest buzz word, but what we do to understand the world.
     Do you think there is no scientific material that can improve (even greatly) your understanding of the world?
     I doubt.
     By the way, the scientists who work today are no different than those who worked in the past.
     In mathematics, for example, in recent years problems that the great minds of the past struggled with have been solved.
     As the body of scientific knowledge grows, innovation becomes more difficult, but surprisingly, most humans still have a lot to learn before they reach the day when only what is new to humanity will be new to them.

146. Shaul Bar Ilan:
     I assume that you are not familiar with experiments done on monkeys that proved that they even have feelings of morality and deprivation and that their behavior in these situations is very similar to that of humans (including "punishing themselves" and not being willing to accept a reward as a way of expressing an insult).
     I guess you don't know that there are parrots who can (but really know) how to talk (and even answer intelligently to questions including those involving simple arithmetic).
     In principle, I have no proof that you have feelings and I'm only guessing it based on your behavior. That's exactly what I do about animals.
     The fact that there are those who claim something is not reasoning at all. There were many who claimed the truth of the blood plots, the inferiority of the Jews and perhaps even that they have no feelings. Did that make this claim true? Or maybe legitimate?
     By the way, many claim that the Torah passed down to us without interruption from Mount Sinai until today, even though it is a clear contradiction to write in the Book of Kings Chapter XNUMX that reveals to us that when the Torah scroll was discovered in the Temple during the renovations - no one knew it (and it is likely that none existed before) .
     Animals have feelings. This is clear to anyone who has feelings themselves.

     As for the definition of evolution as science. You are wrong, I think.
     Science is what humans do to accumulate reliable knowledge.
     The criteria of an experiment and the apartments are intended for places where they are relevant. They are not meant to prevent us from logically drawing conclusions.
     In general, the question of whether a theory is scientific or not is not really relevant (for my part, use any definition you want and define evolution as unscientific). The important question is whether the theory explains and whether it is convincing.
     It is clear that when a theory claims to predict something accurate then it makes no sense to be convinced of it if the prediction is not correct. This is the role of the experiment (the frequency, by the way, is something else entirely. Here you simply confused terms. The frequency is a requirement of an experiment and not of a theory) but if a theory deals with the past or if it talks about principled mechanisms whose operation results are based both on a lot of missing data and on randomness This should be taken into account and not simply belittled as "unscientific". What is your attitude to atmospheric science and weather forecasting? What will save cosmology? Should your decision to call them science or potato affect anyone?
     And yet, that's exactly how experiments were done, even the rare experiments in evolution, and even if you dismiss the adaptation of bacteria to antibiotics and the cultivation of animals as not being an experiment (and you'd be wrong about that), then the experiments that appear here: http://www.talkorigins.org/pdf/faq-speciation.pdf You will have to treat everything as an experiment.
     By the way, the prediction that one day you will most likely find another "missing link" between animal A and animal B has come true more than once.
     Is evolution the be-all and end-all?
     This cannot be proven just as it cannot be proven that we existed a second ago (after all, there is a possibility that God created us in this second with all the memories embedded in our heads as he may have done, on a global level when he created the earth together with all the fossils in the bowels of the earth).
     This is where Occam's razor comes into play. There is no need to introduce any factor into the equation that does not add anything to its explanatory power (because its very introduction detracts from that explanatory power by having to explain it and its existence as well).
     When we say that we explain something - we are actually saying that we have shown that it follows logically from simple assumptions from it. If the "explanation" is based on a being whose appearance in the world is much more surprising than the phenomenon we want to explain, we have explained nothing.

147. To my father Blizovsky
     Let's leave aside the inclinations of the heart and the matter that each of us has personally. And we'll try to see what the average person is interested in. How to attract and ignite the curiosity of those who do not believe in the field of science. In my humble opinion, today it is more difficult to do this than in the times when fundamental breakthroughs in science were discovered and published. What you described in your response faithfully reflects, in my opinion, the state of science today. For the common man it is similar to what happens in sports. That is, a lot of talk about the number of expatriates, the number of baskets and such and such gossip data. which certainly arouse great interest among those who believe in it. But in recent years when a Nobel Prize is awarded and it doesn't matter in which scientific field. It doesn't ignite the imagination because it's just another goal scored in the last minute... of the game. SO WHAT.
     Science is not in shambles at all, it is full of activity as in the stock market as in sports and the like. But it does not appeal to the heart of the common man as if someone had truly solved the understanding of the way we think and understand things. Or someone solved the essence of the connection between relativity and quanta.
     And these are not theoretical solutions. but in those that have practical consequences. As for example gravity can be converted into one of the other forces.

148. Tomorrow at 9.00:1 a.m. I will call to disconnect Yes and I will also explain why I am doing this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!XNUMX

149. to the point of argument

     I'm sure that up to the level of the most basic science (which is also debated, but let's assume for the sake of it that you're right and it's stuck) there are nevertheless dozens of interesting scientific news a day about smaller mechanisms - such as genes that have interesting functions, the discovery of missing vertebrae (a deer-like creature that was Probably the original ancestor of the whales - information that due to work pressure and the lack of time of myself and the volunteers has not been translated yet), interesting discoveries in other planets, the discovery of other planets outside the solar system, in short, I wish I had the ability to translate them all and conduct interviews with Israeli scientists too a day.
     To say that science is boring, because one branch has not progressed, is nonsense. You also don't know which direction is promising and which direction is not promising, if you constantly think only about the practice in basic science you will get nowhere, at most you will exhaust all the possible technologies from the science you know.
     The fact that there hasn't been a new Einstein for years is because today's method is completely different and in universities research is done in a more organized manner and it is bearing fruit - no one can even read all the articles published in his narrow field. Today's Einstein needs much more knowledge than the original Einstein, and even then it was not a little.
     In addition, there are also basic discoveries at the level of Einstein, which also have a practical implication. It is a fact that every year there are Nobel Prize winners. The committee is also allowed to decide not to award a prize in a particular year. To a certain extent what happened to Darwin happens to Einstein, discoveries made many years after his death, strengthened his theories.
     You can say many things about science, but not that it is boring. If I had more resources, my own, from other volunteers or in any other form, there would also be much more interesting news every day. Surely the same is true for a science channel. If only they would give him the right resources.

     Shaul Bar Ilan, you prove me exactly point by point. - that science is interesting and that's why you enter the site every day.

150. Shaul Bar Ilan:

     The following links will probably interest you:

     Don't believe them about the renewal of the moon

     All the scientific errors in Zamir Cohen's booklet - Torah from Heaven
     

151. To my father Blizovsky
     I dont think so. Both science and religion depend on beliefs about the fundamental questions. It is very important to try to understand the whispers of the public's heart. People are looking for novelty and originality in the fundamental questions. And that is what science stopped providing. It's been quite a long time since there have been Einsteins or Newtons.
     The fundamental questions are the most intriguing because they are related to everyone's beliefs.
     The dismal state of science today is not related to errors that need to be standardized. But simply in the wilderness and slop something has been stuck there for a long time without being able to move. And this does not imply in any way that any religion is just.
     The people are waiting for a new movie for original evidence from a completely new point of view.

152. I wrote the previous comment, and by mistake I wrote the name of the website owner as the commenter's name. Sorry.

153. To my father Blizovsky

     Believe me, I didn't understand your words: do you compare the theory of evolution to Branoulli's law, for example?
     Come with me to the airport tomorrow and we will prove together that Branoli's law is probably a scientific law: an airplane has a wing with a profile with a certain curvature; According to Branoulli's law, this curvature will cause that at a certain speed the pressures on the surface of the wing will be less than the pressures under it; And according to Branoli's law, when the speed increases even more and the pressure under the wing exceeds the weight of the plane, the plane will take off, and look at this miracle: the plane really takes off. That is, we have a law with predictability. Can you take me somewhere and show me an evolution in action from resting to flying like an airplane?

     By the way, the emotions of animals have an important ethical meaning: how much do you allow yourself to abuse them, for example, in experiments for the sake of science. You will certainly experiment with plants. In monkeys I assume you won't do experiments. Do you have a way to explain why? Your claim that it is, and that it is simple for anyone who raises a pet, is not a claim at all: like me, you are a human who is programmed to decipher facial expressions, whatever they are as emotions; This is no proof that animals really have feelings.

     Another small note: If I had expected to find innovations on Rabbi Zamir Cohen's website, I would have browsed there as well. What to do? But I haven't entered his site yet, even once, while I enter your site at least once a day. I hope this news does not upset you...

154. To the point, you look as if it's either or, either science is right and then it contradicts religion or it's wrong and religion is right. The truth is not like that, if science is wrong, another scientist will find what the truth is. Even if it takes time.

155. Shaul, I did not understand the difference between the two parts of evolution and your concept. Complexity is complexity, and you can't set a clear boundary and say so far it's natural complexity and hence it's complexity that originates from an external factor. The conclusion - there is no such limit.
     As for your scientific questions - communication between whales is not the same as communication between plants. Plants do not have the capacity for emotions and communication because they do not have nerves nor a substitute factor such as arteries that bring the liquids and food from the roots to the leaves corresponding to the blood vessels of the animals or chlorophyll that provides (and again my fellow scientists will say that I am not XNUMX percent accurate) something similar to hemoglobin in humans.
     However, there is also communication between unicellular organisms, and certainly between the cells of the plant and its environment. This is chemical communication (how do plants attract, for example, insects to pollinate them?) and not conscious communication, which also requires analysis of the information.

     Why are you fighting for us to doubt all scientific knowledge, while for Zamir Cohen you make assumptions? Why wouldn't it be the other way around?
     And as for the validity of your words, animals have feelings, and no one denies that, have you ever raised a dog or a cat? As with everything in nature, it is gradual, but no one talked about feelings, they talked about pain - even cockroaches are in pain and they show irritation as a result of hitting them (which doesn't kill them of course). Try to kill a cockroach and fail the first time. What is the difference between instincts and knowledge? Once again whoever finds the limit will receive a Nobel Prize.

156. With all the crying and sorrow over the elimination of an important scientific channel. It is worth remembering that for many years now a wide gap has been forming between technological and scientific progress. Most of the difficult and fundamental questions remain unsolved for decades. The increasingly sophisticated attempts to solve it are beginning to repeat themselves. Basic science faces a broken trough. As a result, there is nothing to innovate in the channels of science in the basic areas of thinking except to chew and grind again and again to nothing. There seems to be good reason for people to listen to channels that at least try to answer basic questions. Today it seems that most of the scientists are walking around their own tails and are satisfied with that. Imagine if a private company were to pay for the research that continues to be done in string theory which is still considered to be at the forefront of basic science. In light of the poor performance results left by so many scientists for so many years. It is clear that everyone would have been fired a long time ago. Except that for some reason the field has become a kind of religion with followers and gurus who attract the subject. And continue to receive large budgets. The field of strings is not the only one that has received the status of a religion independent
     In my humble opinion, the public is not stupid. On the contrary, the public feels that today there are many religions, science among them. There is no reason not to try and test the different religious approaches.

157. Roy,

     Let's summarize what we agree on:
     The theory of evolution consists of two 'units':
     The first 'unit' consists of a concept that throughout history there was a development of species according to a certain mechanism. There is no dispute between us about this, and the recently discovered evidence also strengthens it.
     The second 'unit' in the theory of evolution consists of the belief that the described mechanism was sufficient to reach the entire development reached by the animal population on earth, and all this without any external intervention, which we call 'God'.
     For this unit in the theory of evolution, to this day not a single proof has been found (as I mentioned in my previous response), and until this is proven in the laboratory by experiment, you also have no justification to expect me to be convinced or to upgrade evolution as a whole from a theory to a science.

     By the way, as far as I know the philosophy of science claims that the way to claim something in science with absolute certainty has never been found, and the only thing that can be done with certainty is to refute failed claims. Why did you deal with the issue of communication between plants? Maybe tomorrow a mechanism will be found that verifies things? After all, there was no evidence of communication between whales until 40 years ago, nor of communication between elephants, etc.
     I understand that it is permissible to say that according to the mechanisms known to us today(!) plants are not supposed to communicate, but how safe is it to rule this out for sure? This is just a comment because I personally also have some 'scientific' references in Rabbi Zamir Kaban's book that seem strange to me (to say the least), but even with regard to what is strange, one cannot go so far as to negate it with a certainty that leaves no room for doubt.

     A small final note: long before we discuss about plants, it is worth noting that to this day there is a debate about animals: some claim that they have no emotions at all and their motives are pure instinctive according to mechanisms that have been embedded in them throughout history, and if we have a feeling that they express emotions whatever they are It's just a subjective process that takes place in our minds according to our worldviews, and there are many who claim that animals also have feelings of love and concern, especially for offspring. I have already seen several books on the subject and I always have the feeling that it is not the science that speaks in them, but the world views of the authors.
     Mr. Blizovsky, maybe you can find us updated material on the subject?

158. It is indeed a news site and I make sure there are at least 3 scientific news, but science needs not only an isolated environment like the science site. Science should reach every home and every child as the most important subject and not as something more that if you get tired of it you can get rid of it as Bis claims.

159. Since when did it become a forum site.
     Isn't this supposed to be a science news site?

160. Lanti,
     A. I agree with you that other channels also talk nonsense. This is the subject of a separate article as soon as one of the nonsense reaches my ears and makes me very angry. There are programs like this also on the public channels or those supervised by a public committee and this is even more upsetting, but one injustice does not justify committing another injustice.
     B. There are beautiful things in science that even religious people will agree with me about, but let's say that you, as a convert, want to mobilize science for your benefit, it is not difficult enough if you do it selectively, that is, you take real scientific discoveries that are convenient for that rabbi and ignore scientific discoveries that are not convenient for you. This is also difficult, but Rabbi Zamir went one step further and he accepts as science, what is not science with complete certainty - the purple auras (or for that matter any other color) were not and were not created and no scientist can even think that they were created. So is the far-fetched story of the secret lives of plants. I will look for a link to an article that refutes this nonsense that some bored American wanted to make money and wrote a book about in the seventies. Plants don't even have anything resembling a nervous system. There are also some differences in the respiratory system that result from the fact that the plant knows how to break down the carbon dioxide and release the oxygen from it, in addition to the normal process of breathing oxygen that both plants and animals have. The kingdoms probably separated so early in evolution, but late enough to have a lot of common elements as well (e.g. DNA).
     To summarize, there are those who take correct scientific findings and distort their meaning in interpretation, but even worse are those who take fabricated findings and treat them as science.

161. borrowed,

     I actually understood your words. Science does claim the frequency of experiments, but as you point out yourself we will never be able to reproduce the full process of evolution.
     Because of this, the frequency in the case of evolution is obtained from the support of thousands of collateral (circumstantial, one might say) evidences, all of which support the theory of evolution. This makes it a proven scientific theory, sharp and smooth.

     Anyway, I have to admit I'm embarrassed here. You admit that the 'only' success of the theory is in finding a connection between the hundreds of thousands of phenomena that have been distinguished, and that they had no explanation until evolution. Every new phenomenon we find is also explained by evolution in a good way.
     I'll say it again.
     1. Hundreds of thousands of diagnoses from all fields of the life sciences and the humanities: geology, biology, anthropology, genetics, molecular biology, psychology and more.
     2. One theory that connects them all in a way that matches the facts we know.
     3. Every new phenomenon that is discovered - is explained in a good way using the theory.

     So… yes, if this is her 'only' success, to me it's a science worth teaching.

162. Roy,
     I think you did not understand my words:

     Science is science, and not just a theory, on the day it is excluded, that is, on the day it manages not only to explain things that have already happened, but it manages to predict phenomena or results in advance.

     On the day that the theory of evolution will succeed in becoming the flat, that is, on the day that the evolution process will be completely recreated from a clear starting point and under laboratory conditions (in which the conditions of randomness will also be preserved!), you will be able to claim that it passed the test.

     To the best of my knowledge (and maybe I'm wrong) the only success of this Torah is only (1) in finding a connection between phenomena that have already happened, (2) in a fairly limited reconstruction of the creation of the most primitive organisms in the 'primitive soup', (3) and partial success in predicting developments limited(!) within certain species (but not the transition from one species to another or from an inferior species to a more superior species).
     If so, even supporters of evolution find it difficult to claim that it is science in the full sense of the term.

     As I have already mentioned once, I personally do not find a theological problem in the theory of evolution, and even so we must not forget the limitation I mentioned.

     Bye

163. What is the big fuss about? All in all, they took down a non-profitable channel from the Yes broadcast schedule.
     Yes is a purely business company, and as such it will only broadcast what makes it money.
     There is no malice and desire to push science aside - it is a conspiracy!
     I sympathize with the (few) fans of the channel in their anger.
     It's annoying, it's infuriating - but not the end of the world.
     Those who love science and desire knowledge, can find it in plenty of places especially in today's world. Never has there been so much knowledge accessible to the individual as in our time, since the beginning of mankind.
     Those who love science will find it in abundance and those who don't, would not watch this channel anyway.
     I'm sure I pissed off quite a few people with these words, but reading the above comments I felt that I had to balance the rant a bit.

164. 1
     On the channel of a penitent who distorts scientific knowledge
     pretending to be a scientist

     It was also Yes's turn to bat

     So that, god forbid, young children don't see it

     which provides one-sided communication - persuading secularists by various means, including distorting the meaning of scientific findings to become thoughtless copies of their followers

     Series that, God forbid, support the abominable evolution, so that preachers can provide the alleged scientific background for their preaching

     It is enough for the converts to mobilize the God of Money in their favor, and to convince the people of Yes to go on a channel that pays them money instead of a channel that they have to pay for its content

     Mila, that they should learn to be rabbis, card readers or astrologers.

     Does anyone understand that today's kids are ignorant of science, so it's easier to lure them in and provide them with an astrological forecast for the coming week

     This website, and the popular science magazines, are going to be the last refuge of sanity in the country

     Rabbi Zamir Cohen believes in the nonsense of the mysterious life of plants - as if plants also hurt and have a soul, a phenomenon that was disproved a long time ago but is considered a scientific truth in his eyes for some reason. And we didn't say anything about purple halos. Who taught him science, is it one of the new age "scientists".

165. borrowed,

     Science is a method. No more, no less. This method is used by us to understand what is true and what is not.
     When you say that we must not accept science in its entirety, you are actually saying that we cannot accept theories or results that do not fit our faith, even though the results have been well tested in reality.

     In other words, you advocate 'comfortable' and 'pleasant' science. A science that will not force us to think. A science where the results are known in advance, and correspond exactly to our beliefs.

     The problem is that in reality, convenient science is not always true science. For example, the Soviet Union, which denied the theory of evolution, and forced its biologists to ignore it. This mindset that was imposed on science in the USSR meant that the science of biology did not progress nearly as much during that period. Another example is the 'Quaker Rebellion' in China (which I won't expand on here, but I'm sure it's written about on Wikipedia somewhere).

     Evolution is a scientific theory supported by thousands of proofs. It is currently at the forefront of science, and every biologist must know it. If you or others are not ready to accept it, too bad. The global scientific community accepts it and every month additional studies are published based on the conclusions and implications of the theory, confirming it again and again.

     You claim that we have lost a lot by insisting that science be swallowed whole. I claim exactly the opposite: we would lose a lot more if we opened up ultra-Orthodox education to only selected parts of science. In fact, I cringe when I think of the consequences, which would have thrown the State of Israel into selective ignorance.

166. Avi,
     I really do not know Rabbi Zamir Cohen, and I do not know his faith or the content of his words. As an ultra-Orthodox person, I come across many speakers, some of them converts, who talk endless nonsense - as scientific truth. I also know quite a few "scientists" who talk nonsense non-stop under a so-called "scientific" umbrella, and among them are also those who, unfortunately, receive what is on this site.
     But, and this is what bothers me, your words seem to be motivated by hatred that goes beyond the facts... I apologize if I'm just accusing, but that's the feeling I got from reading the article. Aren't the rest of the contents on the Yes channels full of nonsense, and are you so convinced that everything that will be said on this channel, which I assume you haven't seen its contents yet, is all nonsense. Maybe there really will be a stage for bringing hearts together? Your words are jarring to me.

     And again to finish, if I have mistaken you - I apologize in advance

167. Roy,

     There are so many studies on the mental and developmental damage that television causes, in addition to the personal experience that each of us alone can be aware of, that it is difficult for me to understand how disconnection from television and internet games has anything to do with Orthodoxy.

     Your claim, that ultra-Orthodox education must be more open to scientific education, is certainly acceptable to me. One can only reflect on how much we have lost because some of the distributors of science (the owners of this website, for example) insist that it should be 'swallowed' in its entirety without distinguishing between the experimental-technological parts and the theoretical parts (the theory of evolution, for example), and thus basically present the excuse to those in ultra-Orthodox society who are just waiting for examples These are to justify their thesis (which has no basis in Jewish history) that one cannot be a believing scientist.

     Bye

168. light,
     You just have to move eagerly - no petitions and no cries of brokenness and crying.
     Money drives them money will drive them.
     Or in the language of the sages: the money that allowed the money that will be forbidden"

169. I opened a petition to keep the channel. Sign and distribute further:
     http://www.atzuma.co.il/petition/kohalza/1/

170. borrowed,

     There is no doubt that the religious society succeeds in giving its children better learning values ​​in subjects such as language, literature and religion. But what about math, physics, chemistry and biology? In the system of an ultra-orthodox school, these subjects are relegated to an almost unimportant corner.

     To interest children in science, it is not enough (nor is it relevant) to teach them literature and religion in a good way. They need to be given the scientific basis, which comes from mathematics and other scientific subjects.

     It seems to me that you miraculously bring up the values ​​of the religious society which are not necessarily the focus of the controversy - and which can be interpreted to the same extent as closure and withdrawal from the world around it. It is you who is holding on to the 'separation' here and not to the commonality.

171. Well.. Who is organizing a secession petition miss.??|!!

172. I can't believe it.. this is the only channel I see on YES
     I'm cutting them off now
     It's just a disgrace

     We need to establish political and educational autonomy somewhere around the world and save humanity from the decay of religion, actually using their own methods.

     It is not possible for the ultra-Orthodox religious society in Israel to create full autonomy for itself and invade without us, the seculars, having the ability to respond;
     This is a declaration of cultural war
     And now they are invading one of the biggest bastions of secularism - television, and the vast majority of them do not have a television at home at all due to rabbinic orders!

     Just indescribable

     Today, I am officially moving to a situation where all the content I see will be through the network
     At least they won't take over that soon

173. Regarding Smile Internet Gold, there is an error, the name has been changed to 12 🙂

174. Regarding Smile Internet Gold, there is an error, the name has been changed to 12 :)

175. The download of the good channels shows a lack of competitiveness in the market between YES and HOT
     Reach a balance of power in the number of subscribers between them.
     When the direction is for permanent residence as it was before YES entered the market.
     Downloading and reducing costs when content erosion is at the top of the list.
     YES and HOT do not take into account that the majority of young people no longer connect at all, not to channels like 22,11,10, the constant trash talkers, not because of the money as a waste of time and also because there is a limit to the amount of trash a person can watch.
     So most of their subscribers will remain the adults and the old
     And they will lose a lot more.
     Regarding the religious programs, those who repent will no longer watch TV, so it's a loss, loss, loss.
     And they probably don't see that 🙂

176. what is yes

177. I have been disconnected from cable and satellite for more than two years. Although I liked watching a few channels like National Geographic, I came to the conclusion that it is not worth paying for an expensive package of many empty channels to get two or three quality channels.

     Today I consume all the quality content via the Internet, for example via "Hidan".

178. To my father Blizovsky,

     I, of course, cannot testify about the internal politics in the government offices years ago, but I still remember the desperate calls of these betaun systems to the readers to increase their circle of subscribers, the decrease in the frequency of publications, and the final announcement of death due to a lack of subscribers.

     to roy,
     If there is a place in Israel with respect for learning culture, with a disconnection from television and the endless online games (my children don't even know what WoW is), and with the ability to deal with abstract mental challenges, it is in the religious and ultra-orthodox public. What a shame that instead of building the future on the many commonalities, one can always cling to the separator, which is so marginal.

     For the sake of the record, I again declare my opposition to government funding of any kind to all yeshivas (separating them from dependence on the state will only do them good!!), to all humanities departments in universities (who needs them?? As a compromise, I'm willing to leave law and philosophy), to all theaters , to all the football teams, to all the councils for movies and plays, and I don't know what else.
     A healthy country invests public money only in those who personally undertake to return it.

179. I'm not sure the loss is that big.
     Without knowing the aforementioned channel, I am guessing that the programs are edited in 3-second bursts accompanied by rhythmic music and interrupted every 5 minutes with promos for other bouncy programs.
     However, other channels, for example National Geographic, seem to do so.
     It's just entertainment, ruled the well-known sociologist Neil Postman, in his book "Entertainment to Death", and refers to the entire television medium including the "serious" content.
     Personally, I find that giving up television, which I did several years ago, contributed to my free time and peace of mind, try it too and enjoy.

180. Graduates of the "Science of the Repentant" usually serve us in government offices.

181. borrowed,
     It is not clear to me why you differentiate between secular and religious education. The trouble is common to both.

     As for the news itself,
     The phenomenon we are witnessing is happening in many places in the developed western world. The public is not interested in science or believes in science. Precisely in developing countries such as China, Japan and Thailand we see the opposite trend. Precisely there, when the government and the residents realize the magnitude of the improvement that science can bring them, they invest huge budgets in education and universities. As a result, a large part of the most innovative scientific research is currently being done in Eastern countries, or by Asian researchers.

     It is sad to say that it seems that the future of science is in the countries of the East, and not in the countries of the West, and Israel is no different. As Shaul says, it is an oversimplification to pin the blame on Rabbi Zamir Cohen (or any other religious fanatic who does not know right from left in science). There have always been fools among the ranks of the rabbis, as they are also among the secular leaders.

     The real problem of the nation is that the government is not ready to increase the higher education budget, and at the same time is unable to carry out an effective reform in the education system because its hands are tied by the teachers' union.

     A little story of my own -
     During my first degree I used to teach biology and natural sciences in several schools in the Haifa area. During this period, I encountered few teachers who were really 'guides' to the children, and who could arouse their interest in the lesson. The biggest shock I got was during a class where I was telling elementary school kids about the fact that there are germs in the air. One of them raised his hand and hesitantly asked me, "Can it really be?"
     Before I could answer, the teacher (who was present in the class from the side) snapped rudely and shouted, "How dare you question what the teacher is telling you?!"
     With such teachers - tired, worn out and some of whom were never meant for the teaching profession - is it really possible to educate children for scientific thinking and curiosity?

     Something to think about -
     Half a year ago I came across, almost by accident, a place called Hamda. Hamada is a science education center that is not subject to the teachers' organization, and its teachers are carefully selected. I saw the teachers there and heard them talking. They know what science is. They love what they do. They invest in after-school activities that stimulate students to enter the learning experience, and develop their thinking skills and curiosity. And they get paid a lot for it - and worth every penny.

     So a good education is not an illusion. It is absolutely possible - if only enough is invested in the teachers themselves.

     In conclusion, the problem of science in Israel will not be solved by banning Rabbi Zamir Cohen from opening his mouth (although it may ease my headache and that of many science readers who read his puzzling statements). It will be resolved when the government realizes that the only wealth that can come from the State of Israel lies in the people and the education they receive, and when the teachers' organization agrees to a true and complete reform.

182. to ask,
     I forgot the name of one ultra-Orthodox who was mistakenly appointed director general of the Ministry of Science and decided to close these two batons because of their support for evolution. You are welcome to ask Zvi Atzmon, who was at Science until its sudden closure.

     post Scriptum. As for the YES ad, Google's engine looks for keywords purchased by advertisers and if it finds them, it places the ads in Google's ad spaces on the same page, so there's nothing to be surprised about.

183. By the way,
     On this page I'm viewing, there are four advertisements (provided by our friend Google) that intervene between the article and the comments, and the last advertisement is of yes(!!!) in HD with the title: "Let's be the first to enjoy the most advanced viewing experience in the world".
     How nice of them to advertise themselves on this page as well...

184. So now we will have to look for the alternative information on the Internet, the entire profit of the knowledge site 🙂

185. Let's see what we have here:

     A country whose secular schools fail to impart basic knowledge in reading and writing; 39th international place in the account (and maybe lower), and an unknown place in English, what do you expect from her?

     And here, at last, the dismal result of an education alienated from values ​​is revealed, the state not only succeeds in raising uprooted youth, but youth who are not even interested in science - and this is the real story here - that a channel of pure science does not manage to acquire enough subscribers - who will we take as the scapegoat? Rabbi Zamir Cohen... well, really. Instead of blaming the closing of the science channel on the failure of secular education, we will cripple the Jews and save Russia... After all, no one would have thought of giving Rabbi Cohen the channel, if the science channel had subscribers, and what sin did Rabbi Cohen do that you blame him for???

     By the way, when I was a child (over 25 years ago) my father (the ultra-Orthodox..) subscribed for us for years to two magazines published at the time by Mossad Weizmann Publications: "Mada" (for adults) and "Ladat" (for youth). Those who understand a little know that to this day there have been no successors to these two battalions, neither at the level of writers nor at the level of presentation and professionalism. And why was the appointment terminated? Because the newspapers stopped being published due to the lack of subscribers. Was Rabbi Zamir Cohen's power at his disposal even then to interfere with the publication of the newspapers? Or should it have been proven even then - who was ready for it - that not only heretics will grow in the education system in this country, but also ignorant people.

     In conclusion: the scientists of the State of Israel in the next century will certainly not come from secular education; We will pray hard that at least they will come from the religious and ultra-orthodox public...

186. What else are you watching on TV?!

     Let's paint blue - and to the sea. (ok - for recycling)

187. Just sad.
     There are not many of the youth, like me, who were lucky enough to almost miraculously have the opportunity to read a book by Singh or Dawkins, perhaps Zvi Yanai. It's a shame that science has been spared from us.
     I am sometimes so ashamed of others my age, discouraging.
     It might be worth trying to act on a large scale against the rise of the new channel.
     I'll try to stir something up, anyway.

188. Disaster.. I have nothing left to see everything is garbage
     We need to organize a petition!!
     for your care

189. I just called yes - a disgrace!!!!

190. Indeed girls' football stuff.
     But there is no one to talk to. The trend is clear and the flattening of the profound intellectual layer that was here 30 years ago is turning into shallow bullshit for the masses and this is a bad prospect that will continue to grow stronger.

     Where is the silent silent majority - people should pick up the phones and complain to YES and HOT about the loss of light in such shallow days.
     Many people who call and request and visit are an audience and they make the difference and maybe they will bring back both channels....

     I already called YES - and you?

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