Comments for T(ruth)-Files

Comment on Misunderstandings around the concept of ’shittuf’ by musafiremes

musafiremes — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:09:41 +0000

My understanding is never based on my own opinion. All matters of Torah should be based on the Gemara and the holy writings of Jewish sages. My understanding is from the Noda B’Yehuda. I’m afraid that there are misinterpretations in the rulings of the Tosafist etc. these have been explicitly stated in the Noda B’Yehuda.

Comment on Misunderstandings around the concept of ’shittuf’ by DW Duke

DW Duke — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:58:09 +0000

Misunderstanding or differing points of view? Many sages have reached a different view than the one you have expressed, such as The Tosafist Rabbeinu Tam (Rashi’s grandson), Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet and Rabbi Moses Isserles. Do they really misunderstand or do you simply disagree?

Comment on Truth by Misunderstandings around the concept of ’shittuf’ « T(ruth)-Files

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 19:58:22 +0000

[...] the above line of reasoning, the Christian does not comply with even the 1st commandment stated in the Seven Laws that prohibits idolatry. Assuming that a follower of a religion attributes all his/her actions to the idol or the [...]

Comment on Beauty as a criterion for good physics? by String theory as simply, truth? « T(ruth)-Files

String theory as simply, truth? « T(ruth)-Files — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:31:03 +0000

[...] to various branches of mathematics, especially esoteric mathematics, and its simplicity and beauty, they question the truth value of string theory, and return to calling to task its inability to [...]

Comment on Books by String theory as simply, truth? « T(ruth)-Files

String theory as simply, truth? « T(ruth)-Files — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:29:44 +0000

[...] the approach taken by Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in his book The Trouble With Physics. A crucial question raised in the evaluation is whether string theory has the potential to be [...]

Comment on Books by Character over personality « T(ruth)-Files

Character over personality « T(ruth)-Files — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 06:13:53 +0000

[...] of the lower self – which is also present in animals albeit in an even more lowered level (re: Derech Hashem), the formulation of a theory that justifies the lineage of humans from animals, comes as no [...]

Comment on Books by musafiremes

musafiremes — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:35:18 +0000

If you’re into Victorian era fiction, Charlotte Bronte is a must. She was a master, particularly also in weaving complex female characters. There’s also George Eliot, with her formidable “Middlemarch”. Have learnt much from these works on the Victorian social structure too. :-) As for wittiness, am finding it hard to find one on par with Lu Xun’s fictional short stories… :-)

Comment on Books by behindhiddendoors

behindhiddendoors — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:42:51 +0000

haven’t read any of the books above – i love fiction, which you so hate. =) but the above books sound seem so interesting, and i enjoy the way you so cherish your cultural identity. i might try to get my hands on one of them. cheers!

Comment on Yangtze mementoes: Part 3 by musafiremes

musafiremes — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:14:50 +0000

Back to earth, and straight into a pearl-and-crystal jewelery-selling center reliving the classic scene of the con-man cum actor preying on overseas Chinese tourists (vividly portrayed in the Cantonese comedy “开心宾馆”) no less!

Comment on Pure chesed by musafiremes

musafiremes — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 00:16:23 +0000

I find this commentary by R’Zev Leff on Parshas Vayeira addresses very nicely the concept of objectivity yet non-patronizing empathy in the context of helping and advising others:
The Value of a Friend’s Advice

An excerpt of the commentary:
“For freeing himself from his own subjective perspective, Mamre was rewarded by G-d’s appearing in his portion. Objectivity is the precondition for recognition of the truth, i.e. the recognition of G-d Himself.”

Mamre emphatically projected himself into Avraham’s situation, as requested by Avraham himself (thus a non-patronizing act), but after positioning himself within Avraham’s framework, he was still able to maintain an objective perspective of things.

This ability is absolutely non-trivial!

Comment on Viewing the universe from within by musafiremes

musafiremes — Thu, 21 Jun 2007 03:30:41 +0000

By recent choice, the latter project will be out of my portfolio…but still, it is interesting to see how the method of dynamical triangulations is being employed in such myriad ways.

Comment on Books by Re-Search « T(ruth)-Files

Re-Search « T(ruth)-Files — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 01:49:36 +0000

[...] “Tomorrow’s Professor: Preparing for Careers in Science and Engineering” (mentioned here) that, most of the time, a lot of research is [...]

Comment on Review on “Internal Logic of Causal Sets” by musafiremes

musafiremes — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 02:50:48 +0000

Just remembered that Chris Isham and Andreas Doring of the Imperial College have recently written a series of 4 papers “A Topos Foundation for Theories of Physics” available at arxiv.org which shed some light on the question above.

Comment on Craftspeople vs seers by musafiremes

musafiremes — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 05:45:02 +0000

Thanks much for the suggested text. I found it in my school library, and will go through the discussion. For the time being, I do recognize the fact that a scientist needs to master his craft sufficiently, as a craftsperson does, in order to be good and contributive to the advancement of knowledge, and that, similar to the thesis Lee Smolin advocates in his book, at any point of time in the progress of science, both types of scientists are needed, but at different times, one may be needed more than the other. However, at this point, I cannot bring myself to believe that being a master craftsperson should be an end in itself for a scientist, although pragmatically, a scientist who is a master craftsperson may, as an end result, enable science to progress during certain periods of its development.

Comment on Craftspeople vs seers by David Corfield

David Corfield — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:14:51 +0000

If you can find it in a library Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge contains some wonderful discussion about the distinction you're making. Using your terms, Popper takes Kuhn to be saying that science works largely because of its craftspeople, whereas the latter are for him merely third-rate scientists. Kuhn replies by saying that if all were seers, as Popper seems to wish, science couldn't function.