I had an e-mail the other day about a post I did, over a year ago, concerning the old Talmudic story about 2 men coming down the same chimney, and which one needed to wash his face. I will reprise it here for those who missed it. But first, an overview of the comment and another theory; which may, or may not, be in opposition to the Talmudic tale. We shall see.First, the comment received was in question form; asking whether or not there was a fire in the fireplace; which of course, is irrelevant to the question at hand concerning who came down the chimney and washed his face, or not. Since the fire would have precluded any descent down the chimney, it is of no consequence.
Briefly the Chimney story involves 2 men who come down the same chimney for unstated purposes. The question is which one will wash his face first. The one with the dirty face, or the one with the clean face? After many permutations, it is decided that the question is a foolish one to begin with, and thus unworthy of the time spent in attempting to solve it. Adding the aforementioned fire to the story only serves to obfuscate the matter.
And this brings us to Ockham's razor, which assumes what Ptolemy had already considered when he first said, "We consider it a good principle to explain the phenomena by the simplest hypothesis possible." What he meant was made even clearer by Franciscan friar Father William of Ockham (1285-1349), who further opined that, in essence, by shaving down the argument to its simplest point, ensured the quickest, and most logical answer. Hopefully, it would also be the right one.
On the other hand, Lord Edward Charlton,(1370-1421) the 5th and last Lord of Powys, proposed that since the world was too complex, and contained too many variables, it would be impossible to arrive at the truth using Ockham's theory. I tend to agree. Even the exact meanings of the simpler forms of an explanation can be nuanced, and therefore refutes Ockham's own theory. Both of these points of view were used in vain attempts to prove the existence of God, or not. Both theories are prone to failure simply because a belief in God is rooted in faith, rather than ascertainable "facts." Draw your own conclusions; as the English say, "Horses for Courses."
Here is the story, from Talmud, of the 2 men coming down the same chimney;
A young man in his mid-twenties knocks on the door of the noted scholar Rabbi Schwartz. “My name is Sean Goldstein,” he says. “I’ve come to you because I wish to study Talmud.”
“Do you know Aramaic?” the rabbi asks.
“No,” replies the young man.
“Hebrew?” asks the Rabbi.
“No,” replies the young man again.
“Have you studied Torah?” asks the Rabbi, growing a bit irritated.
“No, Rabbi. But don’t worry. I graduated Berkeley summa cum laude in philosophy, and just finished my doctoral dissertation at Harvard on Socratic logic. So now, I would just like to round out my education with a little study of the Talmud.”
“I seriously doubt,” the rabbi says, “that you are ready to study Talmud. It is the deepest book of our people. If you wish, however, I am willing to examine you in logic, and if you pass that test I will teach you Talmud.”
The young man agrees.
Rabbi Schwartz holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face; the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”
The young man stares at the rabbi. “Is that the test in logic?”
The rabbi nods.
”The one with the dirty face washes his face,“ he answers wearily.
“Wrong. The one with the clean face washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So, the one with the clean face washes his face.”
“Very clever,” Goldstein says. “Give me another test.”
The rabbi again holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”
“We have already established that. The one with the clean face washes his face.”
“Wrong. Each one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. So, the one with the clean face washes his face. When the one with the dirty face sees the one with the clean face wash his face, he also washes his face. So, each one washes his face.”
“I didn’t think of that,” says Goldstein. It’s shocking to me that I could make an error in logic. Test me again.”
The rabbi holds up two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face, the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”
“Each one washes his face.”
“Wrong. Neither one washes his face. Examine the simple logic. The one with the dirty face looks at the one with the clean face and thinks his face is clean. The one with the clean face looks at the one with the dirty face and thinks his face is dirty. But when the one with the clean face sees the one with the dirty face doesn’t wash his face, he also doesn’t wash his face. So, neither one washes his face.”
Goldstein is desperate. “I am qualified to study Talmud. Please give me one more test.”
He groans, though, when the rabbi lifts two fingers. “Two men come down a chimney. One comes out with a clean face; the other comes out with a dirty face. Which one washes his face?”
“Neither one washes his face.”
“Wrong. Do you now see, Sean, why Socratic logic is an insufficient basis for studying Talmud? Tell me, how is it possible for two men to come down the same chimney, and for one to come out with a clean face and the other with a dirty face? Don’t you see? The whole question is "narishkeit", foolishness, and if you spend your whole life trying to answer foolish questions, all your answers will be foolish, too.”
No comments:
Post a Comment