Samuel Heilman, Liar
It’s been pretty fun seeing the leading sociologist of American Judaism use personal attacks and tangential arguments to try to respond to my review of his latest book.
But yesterday, things took a turn for the absolutely hilarious.
One of the things I criticized about his book was his quantitative analysis that showed a total of 75,000 ultra-Orthodox in three major Brooklyn neighborhoods; by deduction, this means he was suggesting a mere 13% of the Orthodox population is ultra-Orthodox in the ultra-Orthodox enclaves Flatbush and Boro Park.
After much back-and-forth, Heilman responded yesterday:
Anyone who looks beyond the table on page 75 (i.e. anyone who actually reads the chapter) sees that even in Brooklyn I suggest a range between 75,000 and about 129,000. The table is only one estimate.
The only problem is, he doesn’t actually suggest that. He’s totally making it up.
As I write there:
If there had been any question that you were willing to be outrightly dishonest in trying to discredit my arguments, your most recent comment clears the matter up entirely.
You write:
Anyone who looks beyond the table on page 75 (i.e. anyone who actually reads the chapter) sees that even in Brooklyn I suggest a range between 75,000 and about 129,000.Well, I just read the chapter again. The number 129,000 appears nowhere within it. It’s interesting that you cite the table, since that’s not what I looked at when I wrote the review. I read the text where you declare:
Given these numbers it is fair to estimate that about 207,000 Orthodox live in these Brooklyn areas and that about 36 percent or 75,000 of those probably qualify as Haredi…That is the only point in the chapter in which you provide an estimate of the number of haredim in Brooklyn. You’re simply not telling the truth when you’re defending your book.
And, once again, that leaves you estimating the number of haredim in Flatbush and Boro Park at a total of around 20,000, or a mere 13% of the Orthodox present in those areas — a number you’ve to this point refused to acknowledge is extremely far from a reasonable estimate according to almost anyone else.
Heilman’s rejoinder this morning is all punchline:
Add the numbers of Orthodox on p. 73 and take 32% for the haredi proportion and you will see how the numbers vary.
You might have to look at the book to understand just how ridiculous that argument is, but basically he’s suggesting that readers should should take the national average proportion and apply it to numbers of Orthodox he drew from other surveys, and then somehow apply those numbers to two specific populations and then treat the results of their calculations as an estimate that Heilman, himself, is giving for these numbers, when he provides a blatant, specific and unambiguous estimate in the same place. And that’s his justification for claiming that “I suggest a range between 75,000 and about 129,000.”
Oh, and then he also goes on to “attack” my credibility because of my history at Yeshiva University. It’s hard to say what else an academic could do to make himself look worse, but I’m sure Heilman won’t fail to disappoint. Fun.
March 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Let’s move on from the quantitative analysis, we already see that Heilman did not do any survey and was just playing with the numbers of others in a casual way.
Let’s get back to his awful qualitative analysis.
Or as tzvee correctly put it in his first comment- the book mixes sociology with ideology.
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I have no dog in this fight. I haven’t read the book; I’ve only skimmed the review.
I’d be inclined to side with Steven, as a general principle, because he’s an inspiration to me, while Professor Heilman is a noted scholar I do not know and have no intrinsic connection to.
But I’m hard-pressed to see where any more light can be shed on this topic. After more than 50 posts and ripostes, the subject is fully aired and people can make up their own minds.
I once helped cut off a flame war around these parts by quoting, as a cautionary note, an old SNL punchline.
I think I’ll try it here. This is starting a lot to sound like:
“Jane, you ignorant slut.”
If that doesn’t work, try this one on for size. It sounded better when it rolled off my beloved grandmother’s tounge in Yiddish, but I’ll give it a try in English:
“Never argue with a crazy person; people might not be able to tell the difference.”
The beauty of this one is that it allows both combatants to disengage and walk away, while still feeling personally vindicated because he’s thinking the other guy is the crazy one.
Classic win-win.
How bout an early Shabbat Shalom on this one, guys?
March 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Steven,
I am saying this as someone who agrees with you, and can see the clear facts that he is wrong. You are coming across as too concerned with your own honor. I understand the need to defend yourself, but you should try to do it with a bit more class.
March 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Sam - I couldn’t care less about my “honor,” but perhaps that’s the problem you’re getting at when you talk about my lack of class. I care when people lie, and think it should be noted.
If I were going to make this about me, I would’ve cited his personal attacks, as many have suggested I should have done. But I don’t want this to be about me, or defending myself. Insults and nutty ravings I get from lots of readers, and never pay them much note.
This is an issue of integrity, and asserting that those who are respected members of a discourse should have it; fabricators can’t be trusted. And because they can’t be trusted, their fabrications should be made known.
March 4th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
“20,000, or a mere 13% of the Orthodox present in those areas”
on my block (in “flatbush”) alone there are at least 20,000 haredim!
happy purim
March 5th, 2007 at 12:25 am
Yup, I’d have to agree with Sam and David. I’m a casual reader on this site, but you’re starting to look a little obsessed. I thought your site was interesting, but weirdly obsessed posts on the minutiae of statistical analysis just don’t grab me.
In the larger scheme of things, in the Jewish World and in Israel, this topic is a big “So What?”
March 5th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Abbi - I agree that the numbers themselves aren’t extremely important, except to the degree that they show the man often described as the leading sociologist of American Judaism to be incompetent or dishonest. At the very least, the leading sociologist of American Judaism — really, any sociologist — should be competent and honest. Heilman’s shown himself here to be neither. That has major ramifications for the current and future discussion of Judaism.
Any time you have a discussion about whether someone’s right, wrong, or lying about something, it’ll look obsessive, because you’ve got to explain in complete detail why that’s so.
Heilman’s integrity matters, as would the integrity of any person in his position. If he’s just gonna make things up to support his work, he can’t be trusted. It’s a big deal when the leading sociologist of American Judaism can’t be trusted.
I didn’t set out to discredit Heilman when I read his book or wrote the review, and it’s not my fault that he ended up showing himself to be incompetent and dishonest. It doesn’t help me at all that this has transpired. It’s just what happened, and I’m here to tell the story, since that’s what I do.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Making a mistake does not make someone ‘incompetent and dishonest. Covering up for oneself is a time honored tradition (who wants to admit that they made a mistake?) So lets not blow this way out of proportion.
March 6th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Yikes. You accusing the Right Reverend Steve of blowing anything out of proportion! Shame on you.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:38 am
tzvee,
I have a question about one of your prior statements. In a previous post you wrote:
“Contrary to what Steve thinks, Heilman is an expert in his field. He doesn’t lie. He deserves your respect.”
How can you say this considering how many experts in various fields have been discredited, and shown to be dishonest in their work.
In all the cases where experts were shown to be dishonest, no one would have ever discovered this dishonesty if critics simply respected the experts and didnt call them out on their lies.
Is your blind defense of sam due to some personal relationship, or is this something similar to the police “blue wall of silence” where people in academia defend each other from outsiders at all costs?
March 8th, 2007 at 12:07 am
You must treat each case on its own merits. In this case I believe Steve is wrong. He insists on inflating the population numbers. Yet he has no expertise in the field and he has no compelling data upon which to base his claims. Sam is right because he has expertise and his interpretation of the existing data is credible. I’m not saying Sam is perfect. Nor am I saying Steve is worthless. And that’s all there is here. Your remarks impugning my integrity in this instance are not in order. If you don’t agree with me, fine. Say so and say why.
March 8th, 2007 at 10:15 am
tzvee,
you didnt answer my question. What does sam being an expert have anything to do with whether he lies or not? You seem to imply that they are somehow connected, when history and massive amount of evidence tells us otherwise.
You seem to be defending him soley on the basis of him being an expert.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
there is no reason to prolong this. you think something is either a lie or the truth. that is one view of the world. there are others. go and learn.
March 8th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
tzvee,
why are you not answering a simple question. What does sam being an expert have anything to do with whether he lies or not?