Essay:A Defense of Haim Shore

Essay

Buried in an article I found I saw someone say the following regarding Professor Haim Shore, who discovered that Hebrew words correlate with scientific values:

Haim Shore, Professor of Quality and Reliability Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. A real researcher in an unrelated field. Also a hardcore crackpot who contributes to theology through (absolutely astonishingly ridiculous forms of) Gematria.[Citation 285, which links to an article I will be soon debunking]

Introduction to the article

He links an article frum (pun) Frum Heretic, a webshite candadate, called "Criteria for a Divine Text, Part Deux" , which, due to Brandolini's Law, requires extensive debunking.

I will also be ignoring the instances of Haim Shore's bias being shown, as that is irrelevant, and if his bias (which does seem to exist) is used to discredit him, it is an Appeal to bias.

Finally, Dunning–Kruger effect warning!

Refutation and analysis

Color values' correlation

First he says that certain Hebrew color values and wavelengths don't correlate on a straight enough line. Firstly, they correlate enough to be significant, and second, he only shows the graph of an "extended" list of colors. The basic set of colors (excluding red) correlate on a much straighter line. Because he ignores the better correlation, this is cherry picking. This makes it look like all the correlations are weak. It also makes it look like Haim Shore was lying, but he actually shows the same graph that Frum Heretic shows. This article is supposed to refute the entire set of findings, and doesn't even manage to refute one finding. He also strawmans Haim Shore by showing his invalid reason (well, actually it's not even a reason, it's just an observation following "note that") for saying that ירקון is green, not showing the legitimate reason, which is shown in Haim Shore's book. This is dishonest, and is close to quote mining, but it does not include direct quotation, so it is only a strawman. Read starting at the sentence three sentences prior. The word ירקון was used in the Bible to mean 'pale', so when Frum Heretic says that ירקון can only mean 'pale', he is using a false dichotomy, because words can have multiple meanings, and thus are not mutually exclusive.

He says (partially correctly) that violet has no definite wavelength. However, though I do not actually understand this very well because this is not a field in which I possess competence, violet's "short wavelength" is 420 nm. Wave frequency=(3/wavelength, nm) * 10^5. Therefore, violet's wave frequency is 546.5. This is another strawman. It is surprising that he lied at least two times in this article. If one cannot even go through the effort required to understand their opponent's argument, them misrepresenting the opponent is essentially lying.

Handwaving

He says that shamash was the name of a sun god from much before the Torah, and though the Torah says that Hebrew was the original language, he handwaves it away by calling it a "party line" (in the comments section). No, seriously. Calling something a "party line" is not an argument.

This is unrelated, but when sent an article that attempts to show how the mabul (flood) could have happened, he handwaves it away by rephrasing the argument and calling it "lamo." I am serious. Rephrasing an argument and calling it "lamo" is not an argument, or at least a very, very bad one. How even is "lamo" defined? If it means false/fallacious, it is an argument by assertion. There is a failure to elucidate, and it might as well have been said that the argument is "argplarniastic", which also has no definition. As you can see, this instance of handwaving contains fractal wrongness, and dismissing the pro-flood "it was all miracles" argument (of which I am a proponent) while still accepting other miracles, such as a revelation (though MAYBE he doesn't) , is completely arbitrary, and involves special pleading. A better argument against the flood is to simply say it is unfalsifiable. Personally, because the Bible says it happened, I believe in it, however I do not hold this very strongly.

Association fallacy

He also says that these findings are similar to Bible Codes, because "it will almost certainly be used by the same group of kiruv workers that use codes to "prove" the divinity of Torah." This is a blatant association fallacy.

Other than that, the only other connection between these findings and Bible Codes is that they both involve Hebrew (sometimes Bible codes don't even involve Hebrew!).

Bereshis/Genesis

He says that the Bereshis (Genesis) creation ages cannot correspond to the scientific consensus. I wrote two articles (see part 1 here) on the topic before, which are useful in showing compatibility with the Bereshis creation and the scientific consensus. Also, Haim Shore showed a demonstrable correlation between the Bereshis time scale and the scientific time scale, so what the article is mentioning is irrelevant. This is another strawman. And although Shore removing two days may have been arbitrary, the remaining do correlate.

Genetic Fallacy Exception

Being that Frum Heretic is a major source of misinformation and a liar, the article can even be dismissed by simply pointing that out.