Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[The Minsky Moment]

The point of the scientific method is that I don't have to figure out what bias the Ninja Rabbi effect might introduce.

The point of the scientific method is to control for alternate explanations of the results.  The EEG is just measuring electrical stimulus.  It can't tell you whether the severity of nerve response is being caused because any of the factors that Grandin raises or what the result would be if different equipment and techniques were used.

Basically, your argument is that the Ninja Rabbi skills could make the difference, not all Rabbi are Ninja's. The study is not about comparing best practice vs best practice, but rather explicitly defined practice vs explicitly defined practice.

Wrong.  It is without question that the practices in the test differ significantly and materially from the practices actually used.  The test used the wrong equipment in the wrong way.  It has nothing to do with using superhuman skill.  It has to do with generating realistic and accurate test conditions for what you are purporting to measure.  This is basic 7th grade science.

[The Minsky Moment]

Using that anaology, the response that they need a ninja rabbi to do the test is like claiming that the rifle didn't shoot straight because they didn't use an expert sniper who knew how to account for the quirks of that rifle to mitigate the results.

No that doesn't come close to capturing it.

It would be like having an untrained person who never handled a weapon shoot a pistol and then using those test results to conclude that an average trained G.I. couldn't hit the same target with a military rifle.

[Razgovory]

As I stated above. You define the technique explicitly and then you follow that definition.

But, to get a bit pedantic. Johnson did not study kosher and halal slaughter, he tested the claim by kosher and halal apologists that pain is minimal. He accounted for the Grandin's long sharp knife by confirming that the pain was due to cut nerves in the neck and that the pain was persistent, serious and could only be prevented by stunning the animal first.

If you don't know how to do the technique then you really can't experiment with it.  It's like offering a blind man a rifle and testing it's accuracy based on how well he shoots.

No, It's like offering a non-shooter a rifle and a manual and testing it's accuracy when it is mounted in a fixed position.

You really are baffling me here.  If you want to test a technique used by a trained professional with specialized tools vs work down by an unskilled laborer using a different tool you'll want to get someone who is trained and equipped for the first technique. According to you, using someone who knows what they are doing and are properly equipped would be somehow bias in a study of professionals using proper tools. What is even more perplexing is that you insist that cases where the bolt is used improperly shouldn't be considered, while the dismissal of the German study is based entirely on the allegation that the bolt was used inproperly!

[Razgovory]

That's not answering the question and avoiding replying to my arguments.

It's not really my business to know.  I'm neither a ninja or a Rabbi.  Of course, it's a loaded question.

Then I suggest you explain why you think the question is unfair?

It's like me asking "How many animals have to die for the sake of science".

[Viking]

The point of the scientific method is that I don't have to figure out what bias the Ninja Rabbi effect might introduce.

The point of the scientific method is to control for alternate explanations of the results.  The EEG is just measuring electrical stimulus.  It can't tell you whether the severity of nerve response is being caused because any of the factors that Grandin raises or what the result would be if different equipment and techniques were used.

Basically, your argument is that the Ninja Rabbi skills could make the difference, not all Rabbi are Ninja's. The study is not about comparing best practice vs best practice, but rather explicitly defined practice vs explicitly defined practice.

Wrong.  It is without question that the practices in the test differ significantly and materially from the practices actually used.  The test used the wrong equipment in the wrong way.  It has nothing to do with using superhuman skill.  It has to do with generating realistic and accurate test conditions for what you are purporting to measure.  This is basic 7th grade science.

Human factors such as skill, mood, feeling, emotion etc. are not repeatable and definable for testing. Your excuse is the same one homeopathists, acupuncturists, aromatherapists, chiropractors etc. use to explain why the repeated scientific tests of their methods have repeatedly shown that they don't work.

Johnsons peer reviewed work deals with the issue of method when it shows (according to the new scientist, since none of us have actually read the actual paper, "#¤%¤"#¤"# pay online journals) that the pain is not caused by the cutting of skin, sinew or muscle, but rather the cutting of the nerves itself meaning the technique is not a significant factor. It appears that all other factors causing no pain, the cutting of the nerve causes great pain.

[Viking]

That's not answering the question and avoiding replying to my arguments.

It's not really my business to know.  I'm neither a ninja or a Rabbi.  Of course, it's a loaded question.

Then I suggest you explain why you think the question is unfair?

It's like me asking "How many animals have to die for the sake of science".

Only in the sense that the question is asked here on this forum.

[Viking]

- the technique of halal or kosher slaughter was not tested, the claim that cutting the neck and letting the animal bleed to death was painless was tested. Johnson concluded that it is painful.
- human factors are removed from experiments to make the tests repeatable and so that other scientists can repeat the experiments to either confirm or disconfirm the results.
- the german results were disconfirmed by multiple and repeated tests done of the 30 years since the german study was done.
- that the stunner was faulty was speculated by the author of the german study who had repudiated his results.

[Razgovory]

Kind of with viking on this.

Using that anaology, the response that they need a ninja rabbi to do the test is like claiming that the rifle didn't shoot straight because they didn't use an expert sniper who knew how to account for the quirks of that rifle to mitigate the results.

When in fact there is no reason to suppose that everyone out there doing halal butchering is some kind of expert.

I find the idea that an expertly cut neck is painless pretty hard to believe - and to the extent that I might be convinced, it would be dependent on some extremely strictly controlled, nearly perfectly ideal circumstances. *if* the knife is insanely sharp, and *if* the cut is perfectly made, and *if* the knife down not gouge, and *if* the animal remains still...then maybe the pain is limited.

But is that how most halal and kosher meat is processed? Are we that certain that the typical Jewish or Muslim butcher is a lot closer to that Cow Whisperer model, or is it closer to the Agriwhatever model from Indiana, where they are processing a lot of animals pretty fast, without much in the way of modern mechanization to help them, and the guy doing the cutting is probably not taking that much time per animal?

It is professional skill.  Like a carpenter or plumber.  http://www.thereportergroup.org/article.aspx?aID=443  According to this it takes a year of training.  Judging the efficacy of such person would require the use of that person's skills.  Not going up to a guy like me and saying "Raz, here's a chart of a cow.  Here's where we want you to cut.  Go find a knife and get to it".

[Razgovory]

That's not answering the question and avoiding replying to my arguments.

It's not really my business to know.  I'm neither a ninja or a Rabbi.  Of course, it's a loaded question.

Then I suggest you explain why you think the question is unfair?

It's like me asking "How many animals have to die for the sake of science".

Only in the sense that the question is asked here on this forum.

While we are on it, how many animals must be tortured for science?

[Razgovory]

- the german results were disconfirmed by multiple and repeated tests done of the 30 years since the german study was done.
- that the stunner was faulty was speculated by the author of the german study who had repudiated his results.

You are adding certainty where there was none.  Where are these other tests anyway?

[Berkut]

Kind of with viking on this.

Using that anaology, the response that they need a ninja rabbi to do the test is like claiming that the rifle didn't shoot straight because they didn't use an expert sniper who knew how to account for the quirks of that rifle to mitigate the results.

When in fact there is no reason to suppose that everyone out there doing halal butchering is some kind of expert.

I find the idea that an expertly cut neck is painless pretty hard to believe - and to the extent that I might be convinced, it would be dependent on some extremely strictly controlled, nearly perfectly ideal circumstances. *if* the knife is insanely sharp, and *if* the cut is perfectly made, and *if* the knife down not gouge, and *if* the animal remains still...then maybe the pain is limited.

But is that how most halal and kosher meat is processed? Are we that certain that the typical Jewish or Muslim butcher is a lot closer to that Cow Whisperer model, or is it closer to the Agriwhatever model from Indiana, where they are processing a lot of animals pretty fast, without much in the way of modern mechanization to help them, and the guy doing the cutting is probably not taking that much time per animal?

It is professional skill.  Like a carpenter or plumber.  http://www.thereportergroup.org/article.aspx?aID=443  According to this it takes a year of training. 

Yeah, that sure sounds like it has plenty of rigorous and scientific control on who become a ninja halal butcher!

Sounds more like a double secret club where the most important attribute to success is who you know. That article certainly does nothing to re-assure me that the people doing the butchering are careful to inflict as little pain on the animal as possible.

[The Minsky Moment]

Human factors such as skill, mood, feeling, emotion etc. are not repeatable and definable for testing.

The type of knife, its sharpness, the methods used for restraint, and cutting are all repeatable and definable.  And all were not done correctly in this study.

Skill is also easily definiable and repeatable.  In this case by status as a certified shochet.  If one for example wants to test the efficacy of a certain kind of medical procedure or administration that must be carried out by a doctor or nurse, then one would not test that procedure by having an untrained layperson do it. 

The other factors are not at issue.

Johnsons peer reviewed work deals with the issue of method when it shows (according to the new scientist, since none of us have actually read the actual paper, "#¤%¤"#¤"# pay online journals) that the pain is not caused by the cutting of skin, sinew or muscle, but rather the cutting of the nerves itself meaning the technique is not a significant factor.

Johnson's work is right here: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/14427783/631769305/name/slaughter-pain.ac.pdf

What it actually says is that the cutting procedure employed resulted in heightened levels of certain kinds of EEG frequencies believed to be associated with pain experiences.  It also claims that the result is at least in part the result of the cutting, and not other associated stimuli like blood loss.  It does NOT isolate cutting technique as a causal factor.  All of the factors Grandin discusses relate to nerve response and thus are capable of causing the EEG results reported in the study.  The only way to isolate those possible factors is to control for them by designing the study to test actual kosher slaughter technique.  This was not done.

[DGuller]

As a result of this thread, I now cannot get the image of ninja rabbi out of my head.

[Viking]

from the fao

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X6909E/x6909e09.htm

Religious or ritual slaughter (Halal and Kosher)

Most developed and many developing countries of the world require by law an animal to be rendered unconscious before it is slaughtered. This is in order to ensure that the animal does not suffer pain during slaughter. However, exceptions are made for the Jewish (Kosher) and Muslim (Halal) slaughter of livestock. Here stunning generally is not allowed and the animal is bled directly using a sharp knife to cut the throat and sever the main blood vessels. This results in sudden and massive loss of blood with loss of consciousness and death. However, many authorities consider that religious slaughter can be very unsatisfactory and that the animal may not be rendered unconscious and suffer considerable discomfort and pain in the slaughter process.

A number of factors must be given serious consideration before this type of slaughter is acceptable: -

    1. Animals that are slaughtered according to Kosher or Halal requirements should be securely restrained, particularly the head and neck, before cutting the throat. Movement results in a poor cut, bad bleeding, slow loss of consciousness (if at all) and pain. This has serious implications for animal welfare. The knife that is used to cut the throat and the carotid and jugular blood vessels must be razor sharp and without blemishes and damage. This is to ensure a swift, smooth cut across the throat behind the jaw and to ensure immediate and maximum gush of blood. Poor bleeding causes slow loss of consciousness and reduces meat quality.

    2. Animals should not be shackled and hoisted before bleeding. This causes them severe discomfort and stress. Hoisting should be done only after the animal has lost consciousness Restraining equipment should be comfortable for the animal.

    3. Operator competence is of great importance in order to carry out satisfactory religious slaughter, and the authorities should license all slaughter personnel. A poor technique will result in great suffering and cruelty to the animal. Religious slaughter should be carried out paying attention to detail and ensuring the method, equipment and operators are correct. The slaughter process is slow.

The captive bolt gun is suitable for this stunning when using the mushroom shaped head of the bolt (Fig. 55). The mushroom gun is an improvement on the plain bolt, as this bolt does not penetrate the brain and cause death. This should be more acceptable to the religious authorities, and its use would encourage more humane slaughter amongst Muslims in developing countries, thereby improving animal welfare.

Fortunately, many Muslim authorities accept some forms of pre-slaughter stunning. Many Muslim authorities permit electric stunning of cattle, sheep and poultry, whose meat is destined for Muslim communities, because the animals subjected to this stunning method would recover if no bleeding was carried out. Electric stunning is also the method of choice in meat exporting countries where stunning of slaughter animals is required by law, for export to Muslim countries. Similarly, Muslim minorities in countries with stringent animal welfare regulations are allowed to use Halal slaughter methods, but in combination with electrical stunning.

Any kind of prestunning for livestock to be slaughtered according to the Jewish Kosher method has not yet been accepted.

[grumbler]

What it actually says is that the cutting procedure employed resulted in heightened levels of certain kinds of EEG frequencies believed to be associated with pain experiences.  It also claims that the result is at least in part the result of the cutting, and not other associated stimuli like blood loss.  It does NOT isolate cutting technique as a causal factor.  All of the factors Grandin discusses relate to nerve response and thus are capable of causing the EEG results reported in the study.  The only way to isolate those possible factors is to control for them by designing the study to test actual kosher slaughter technique.  This was not done.

It seems to me to be a fairly trivial thing to do; one doesn't have to repeat the entire experiment to verify or falsify specific findings.

I know there hasn't been time to do such studies, but I think someone who wants to repudiate a scientific study needs to do more than say "it might have made a difference of they had done things differently, in a manner more consistent with the way Jews (but not, perhaps, Muslims) do them."  I think the NZ study puts the ball in the court of those desiring the exception, and speculating about what might have been done wrong in the NZ study doesn't answer the question.