Evidence of the negative

 

Reading a thread of comments in the post on Frum Satire's blog (the post on which I commented before and even wrote a post in response to; I must warn that I was a bit more harsh in those times of heated youth than I am now), in which TRS recently responded to a critique of his approach, I saw the following comment:

Both Orthodox Jews and Christian Fundamentalists firmly believe that God gave the Torah to his Chosen People, Israel, during the miraculous revelation at Mount Sinai. For Orthodox Jews this is the pivotal event in the history of the Jewish people. But modern archeology has dug up a great deal of compelling evidence to suggest that much of this history never happened—and certainly not as recounted in the Bible.

Sometimes one really does marvel at the progress of modernity. Not only did the modern archeology dig up evidence of something not happening, but it dug out evidence that something never happened as recounted in the Bible. One can only marvel at the advances in this field of science, pushing at the boundaries of not only human knowledge, but also human logic.

I mean, what's next? Modern astronomy finding evidence of stars and planets that do not exist (certainly not as recounted in the Bible)? Chemistry finding reactions that do not happen? (Although one must not go far for such discoveries; just look through an examination paper of your average organic chemistry student.) Perhaps, Psychology describing models of the human mind that are not true? (Wait, that's already happening.)

All this reminded me of an exchange I once had with my history professor in college. I was writing a paper (available upon request) of Viking influence on the emergence and development of early Russian society (not all at once please). On that particular day I was discussing the evidence of the Vikings using — or not using, as seemed to be the case — certain trade routes. What evidence? Well, archeologists found quite a large number of treasure hordes buried along the route of Dnepr river, dating to a certain period. On the other hand, very few such hordes (dating to the same period) were found along the Volga route, which, I postulated, meant that Vikings of the time were terminating their trade with the Muslims living across the Caspian sea and starting concentrating their efforts on trading with the Byzantine Empire, which lay across the Black Sea.

My professor was most skeptical of such logic. "Why did people bury their money in hordes?" he asked. "Normally when the traders or raiders got their treasures, they were eager to return to jolly old Scandinavia and spend it on themselves and persons of the opposite gender. In this case, however, they burried it. What the Dickens for? It would seem to me that people normally bury their money when they are afraid of it being lost — such as, for instance, as a result of an attack by nomadic tribes prevalent in a certain region. Therefore, the fact that the Vikings rarely buried treasure along the Volga route does not indicate that they did not use Volga for traveling. Perhaps Dnepr at the time was merely more dangerous. Perhaps the fact that one had to unload and reload one's ship to travel through the river's rapids presented a particular opportunity for Pechenegs to attack, while no such problem appeared on Volga?"

My professor's logic made a great impression upon me at the time. I should not have troubled him, however, for such an explanation, since I had already learned, while taking statistics, that one can never prove a negative. Think about it. Can you prove that there is no white rabbit in your room? The most you can do is state that there is insufficient evidence to suppose that there is one. That if white rabbit were to be present in your room, it would reveal itself through a number of signs, none of which you can observe. Finally, you can say, that the burden of proof is on me to show that the blasted rabbit is in fact inhabiting your premises.

That is all good. And if I fail to produce such proof, you can carry on as if the rabbit had never entered your mind. But, that is not the same as saying that you know with absolute certainty that the rabbit is not there. And if I produce some white hair of likely leporidous origin, you cannot state: "Yes, the hair is all very good, but why can't I smell the rabbit? Wouldn't you expect to smell the rabbit if it were here? Therefore, no such rabbit can possibly exist!" Such logic would be truly erroneous.


As it happens, we have evidence for the Exodus in the form of our tradition dating to the mass revelation. More about it here.

Regarding the question of why no archeological evidence of Jews camping out in the desert exists, firstly, our tradition tells us that miraculously, Jewish clothes did not need mending and their vessels never shattered. Secondly, I am reminded of another exchange regarding the nature of archeology. One fellow was making a preposterous claim that the Battle of the Ice never happened, since nobody has ever found the remnants of Teuton knights' armor or weapons at the bottom of Lake Peipus (and the battle itself is corroborated only by two sources, each written by a monk who had heard about the battle from a few witnesses). To which another person responded: "What are you talking about? Anybody who has ever served in the Soviet army in Siberia can tell you that if a car or a tank goes under the surface of a river or a lake (if the driver is drunk, for example), within a week nobody can find it!"

I leave you to draw conclusions from that exchange on your own.