Just stick to chemistry
Rabbis, Nobel winners should not offer views on areas beyond their expertise
In order to grant my words in this article more validity, I advise my readers to undertake a modest and inexpensive experiment. First, approach a rabbi who resides near you. After asking how he is, present him with a question: The actual question or field of interest is not important here. You will immediately discover that the honorable rabbi will come up with an answer on any topic, be it philosophy, psychology, or how to fix your Toyota. You can be assured that the rabbi will know everything without opening a book or consulting with a friend.
The rabbis know everything for a simple reason: For many of them, the Torah encompasses all human knowledge. Hence, it is easy to find rabbis who discuss issues that they have no knowledge of. Once upon a time, when I still had some patience left, I often listened to rabbis debating matters of philosophy or history – a hair-raising experience indeed.
However, as it turns out, our rabbis are in good company. The best possible company in fact. A real Nobel Prize laureate.
Professor Yonath made a grave mistake and caused unprecedented damage to the field of chemistry. Now, we shall see schools associated with the Right banning the study of ribosomes. Just like Yeshayahu Leibowitz was forgotten, and the public only remembers his “Judo-Nazi” remark, the ribosome shall turn into a pillar in Hamas’ convention.
One way or another, the rabbis did not expect this sort of salivation. It turns out that just like them, Professor Yonath’s fields of expertise are all-encompassing. After all, we are not talking about the question of releasing prisoners with ribosomes on their hands, but rather, a clear political-ethical question.
This begs the following question: Does a Nobel Prize laureate, a local rabbi, or a news announcer possess deeper insights than a plumber or baker? As noted, Professor Yonath was awarded the prize because of her work in the field of chemistry, rather than the field of ethics. Therefore, why did she feel compelled to teach us something on the issue of releasing terrorists?
Words that carry extra weight
Well, the honorable professor was asked about the subject and expressed her personal opinion. Had someone asked me about ribosome-related issued, I too would have provided a great answer. I would have shared a wonderful explanation about a distant galaxy populated by green-ribosome-zombies.
However, the extra weight was given to her words by the public. Think for a moment: Does this super-chemist have the power to release prisoners? We, laymen, sometimes make the unnecessary link between one area to another. If a speaker excels in one field, we must certainly listen to their words on other fields too. Yet would a truck driver, or alternately a proctologist, elicit the same angry reactions directed at the distinguish Nobel winner? Certainly not.
The public is infuriated because such shapers of public opinion have responsibility. The responsibility to exercise judgment and conduct themselves in a stately manner, as they represent something higher. In the eyes of laymen such as myself, their words carry weight, even if they understand nothing in areas that go beyond science.
Hence, I would advise all the “experts” not to insist on speaking out on matters beyond their areas of expertise. The interference of authors and chemists in political issues is just as tasteless as the efforts of rabbis to explain the secrets of creation. And here’s a free tip to the media as well: Stop entrapping rabbis and scientists with tricky questions. At the very least, word them in a way that will address the issues of science and Jewish law.
