 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
1999.06.09 p. 8 – Sir, – Your readers may not have realized that much of the criticism of the so-called úÌåÉøÈä-Codes ("All that was, is and will be, is in the úÌåÉøÈä"
) comes from within Orthodox circles.
The opponents, who include mathematicians, educators, and yᵊshiv•âhꞋ heads, come from the entire spectrum of the Orthodox community.
Of the 50+ Ph.D.s who signed the Mathematicians Statement on the Bible Code, about a quarter are observant Jews like myself. I have consulted three of most respected úÌåÉøÈä luminaries of the generation and each has strongly encouraged me to continue my public lectures criticizing the Codes.
[According to Prof. of Mathematics Barry Simon, t]he theory is scientifically flawed. The statistics journal that published the original paper by Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg will publish this summer a comprehensive analysis of why that experiment is unsound.
Despite what Moshe Katz says, there is no real tradition for bible codes. Witztum’s own rabbinic advisor has pointed out that the single ELS that Rabbi Bachya used (and which is endlessly quoted by the proponents) occurred as part of an analysis that later commentators, including the Vilna Gaon, have rejected.
Not only is there no real tradition, but the codes are shallow compared to the true depths of úÌåÉøÈä. It demeans our tradition to present these parlor tricks as having any significance.
"The Bible Codes are bad science and bad religion."
While I have enough background in logic and mathematics that I immediately detected the false mathematical thinking upon which the proponents of the fictitious ‘Bible Codes’ base their claims, that’s really the easy part. As a result, I have long criticized the codes as illogical (i.e., "bad science"). Explaining, and demonstrating (proving) the flaw mathematically was another matter. The task of mathematically proving the flaw was too time consuming for me to undertake and I have, for some time, been awaiting a credible mathematician and scientist to address this subject, as I knew, sooner or later, one undoubtedly would come forward. I heartily endorse Prof. Simon’s letter. He is right.
 |
|
 |