Weird Science?

When is the "scientific" community not really the scientific community? Quite often. Certainly, recognition of who is/isn't qualified to make scientific assertions has fallen into the hands of the media. And it's doing nothing to bolster the notion of journalistic integrity.

Consider Exhibit A: http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSN0444950920080304

The referenced article (titled "High on Mount Sinai?") outlines a new theory to explain, sans Divine intervention, the happenings on Mount Sinai when Moses received the Ten Commandments from God. What you can infer at this point, even without reading the brief article, is that the new theory hypothesizes that all of the people of the nation of Israel were, at that time, under the influence of a "hallucinogenic brew," causing them to imagine the events recorded in Exodus 19.

Hmmmm...

Following this idea to its logical conclusion, I guess you'd have to chalk up the rest of the congruous events recorded in the book of Exodus to similar inebriation...were the Israelites merely a bunch of drugged-up hippies gathered around Mt. Woodstock?

But back to my point--who is this "scientist" proposing this as a reasonable explanation of historically-recorded events?

The article notes that he is a "psychology professor." How interesting! I myself have some credentials in the psychology field (see #4), but certainly don't consider myself qualified to suggest alternate readings of historical documents.

Okay, so I'm definitely snide in my opinion of the psychology field. But psychologist aren't the only "scientists" who have felt qualified to wax eloquent on topics outside of their expertise. Thespians continue to consider themselves eminently qualified to offer their expert opinions regarding foreign military operations. And more to the point, many cosmologists, astronomers, physicists, etc. strive daily to develop theories regarding the origin of the universe, using currently-observable behaviors of anything from electrically-stimulated gases to buried fragments of bones to offer proof of those theories.

However, in the end, those theories must, in the strict sense of the word "theory," remain just that. They should never be considered "proven," at least until a time-travel machine is really invented, which would allow historical events to be observed.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not writing off the value of scientific hypotheses and proper application of the sciencific method. Science is of great value, but only when it doesn't try to become history. And for that matter, acting does offer some value to society, but certainly not at the head of arguably the most advanced military force in the present-day world (I don't know about you, but I wouldn't be so willing to put my life on the line under the command of someone who gets paid to be someone else).

In the end, I echo wholehearted agreement with the synopsis of the orthodox rabbi: "The Bible is trying to convey a very profound event. We have to fear not for the fate of the biblical Moses, but for the fate of science."