What do Orthodox Jews think about Biblical criticisms such as the Documentary Hypothesis?
Orthodox Jews reject the documentary hypothesis for two reasons. 1) It contradicts their view that the Torah is the transmitted message from God to Moses, and 2) it is mostly conjecture.Advancements in the field of Old Testament scholarship and archaeology have provided many crushing blows to the dying documentary hypothesis. As late as the year 1970, this hypothesis attained almost universal consensus by scholars, but since then this consensus has been completely demolished and it has collapsed. Many facts have crushing effects on the documentary hypothesis.The documentary hypothesis mostly originated in the late 19th century, and it possesses many suppositions that are now known to be false. One basis for the origins of this hypothesis was that writing didn’t exist before 1000 BC, and therefore Moses couldn’t have penned it as early as 1400 BC. We now know that the idea that writing did not exist before 1000 BC is insanely false. The advocates of the documentary hypothesis then shifted to the idea that although writing did exist in the time of Moses, massive literary works like the Torah didn’t. This also collapsed with findings of just these kinds of works and places to compose them predating the Mosaic Age.The documentary hypothesis had indebted a lot to the idea that the Torah is littered with anachronisms. For example, names such as Abraham and Terah didn’t exist in the second millenium BC, the domestication of camels didn’t exist in the Patriarchal Age, and groups of people like the Hittites and many others didn’t even exist. All of this is now false.The documentary hypothesis based a lot off of the different names used for God throughout the Torah (Elohim/Yahweh), supposed contradictions throughout the Torah, differences in linguistics throughout the Torah, etc, etc, etc. Virtually all of this has been resolved.Many today have pointed out that there isn’t a single existing solid foundation for the validity of the documentary hypothesis. Most of the crushing blows to this idea come from scholars like Cassuto and Archer. It’s nothing more then conjecture. So, answer me this. Why would an Orthodox Jew accept a hypothesis that directly contradicts their view of God, Moses and the Torah, when it hasn’t a figment of support and no evidence backing it up?
Why did Karl Popper criticize Freud's theories?
Karl Popper was a proponent of the scientific-methodological concept of falsification. Karl Popper's ideas on falsification can be summarised as follows: A theory is only a scientific theory, if it can be tested.Scientific knowledge claims to be "certain" knowledge. There is a major problem in claiming certainty - a theory, concept, or structure, can only be certain to apply to the condition under which it has been tested. In other words, one can never claim a theory to be definitive until all situations under which it could apply have been tested - which in almost all cases is impossible. The concept of falsifiability is introduced to separate scientific theories from all other theories. A scientific theory, according to Popper and many scientists and philosophers since Popper, must be falsifiable. One must be able to conduct an experiment or observe a situation in which the theory does not apply. This does not mean that a theory is only scientific when it has been proven wrong. The possibility of conducting an experiment that would render results contradicting the theory is exactly the thing that proves the theory to be true - in every condition it has thus far been tested.The famous example of the "Swan Hypothesis" can be used to explain this. A theory claiming all swans to be white can be considered a scientific theory, because observing a black swan - contradicting the theory - would falsify it. The theory can be tested.Although Freud has brought valuable information to the science of psychology, many of Freud's theories were based on assumptions rather than absolute facts or measurements. Freud's theories, as formulated by him, were very difficult to prove wrong - not because of them being true, but because of uncertainty and assumptions in their origination and formulation. Freud's theories, to link them to the Swan hypothesis, would compare closer to "Most swans are white" than to "All swans are white", making them methodologically impossible to disprove and thus rendering them unscientific.
Please help with my History essay?
I have to write an essay on ancient Egyptians and I need help on finding statements that are possible to argue against. So it's a hypothesis essay, meaning I have to take a topic and write my hypothesis on it. The question I have to answer is "How was the role of the Pharaoh reflective of the influence of religion? How did this promote continuity and stability in Egyptian society?" And my thesis statement to that is "The role of the Pharaoh was reflective of the influence of religion because he was viewed to be the god of Horus and the son of Re, and this promoted continuity and stability in Egyptian society." So I need to find arguments against that statement. For example, one of my arguements are: "The Pharaoh was a god, so he was never questioned." It needs to be something you can ARGUE against, not a known fact. Please help?
Is islam above critisizm, and does islam have a monopoly on the truth? are muslims brain dead?
Thats what the muslims think. They are not brain dead. Their brains work, It thinks evil. What is missing is the heart. Love, compassion, peace and forgiveness are concepts alien to them.
What is the current scientific status of the triune brain theory proposed by MacLean?
The triune brain hypothesis has been out of favor for a couple of decades or more, mainly because it simply does not incorporate the known facts about brain evolution in a plausible way.Very briefly, the "triune brain hypothesis" says that the human forebrain consists of three subsystems: (1) a "reptilian" core, the "R-complex", consisting mainly of the basal ganglia; (2) the "paleomammalian brain", also known as "limbic system", a set of structures bordering the neocortex; (3) the "neomammalian complex", better known as the neocortex.Here are some of the problems:1. The "reptilian core" is present in all vertebrates, but it doesn't do what Maclean thought it does. It isn't dedicated to "reptilian" behaviors, it plays a crucial role in action selection at all levels.2. The "limbic system" is not a unified system. It is a set of diverse structures with diverse connections and diverse functions. In particular it is not uniquely responsible for emotion.3. The terms "paleomammalian" and "neomammalian" are not justifiable. The cerebral cortex and the so-called "limbic system" have essentially the same structure in all mammals. There is no basis for saying that one is older than the other.As currently understood, the main events in human brain evolution are (1) the emergence of mammals, who have a six-layered neocortex that is similar in all mammals but has no counterpart in any non-mammalian vertebrates; (2) a massive enlargement of the neocortex in primates, particularly the prefrontal part. Basically everything that the triune brain hypothesis adds to those facts is wrong.In my view, the single most harmful aspect of the triune brain concept is that it casts emotion as more primitive than reason, and suggests that human advancement has depending on promoting reason and demoting emotion. I don't agree with that idea at all: I agree with Antonio Damasio, who has spend much of his career arguing that all decision-making requires emotion, and that the idea of making decisions without emotion is misguided.