You’ve yet to bring a single source among rishonim or achronim who advocate dismissing or even questioning chazals statements about hashkofa, worldview, human nature (chazakos), or anything else besides certain scientific pronouncements. That is the view of the conservative movement and it was simply ripped from maskilim, no one else.
Even the physical scientific statements being questionable, were only held of by one rishon who was before hisgalus hakabalah (achronim use kabalah to explain many stiros) and since has not been followed by achronim, not even mentioned at all by the gaon, shach, taz, magen avrohom..all of whom, for instance, allow killing lice on shabbls…the only achron who quoted it was the sefardi Pachad Yitzchok, who was rebuked by his rebbe for invoking it.
Donating money to environmentalism is a good way to fool yourself into thinking you’re doing tzedaka when you’re squandering the opportunities you’re given.
I don’t believe in “trashing” the planet. I believe in living chayei teivel – i drive a car, don’t think much about recycling, eat beef, and live without caring about what climatologists say I should do. I slso don’t believe in violatinf bal tashchis, so i try to use up my resources and not waste, but not because of environmental concerns…i do it because of the mitzvah which is intended to discourage ingratitude.
Rabbeinu tam is hardly a radical opinion. It relates to the machlokes gaonim and rishonim regarding when tzeis hakochavim is; many would agree to rabbeinu tam.
How are you qualified to be mach’riah between rishonim? My point was that you misstated the sugya by avoiding one of the main rishonim which doesn’t fit into the picture you were trying to paint. Unlike my explanation which was universal. The rashba for instance, writes clearly that chazal are always right about science, and deals with the gemara in question.
Many say the pshat i mentioned (which you did not address, because it’s a strong ta’anah) that there’s a difference between chazal’s conclusions and the ideas they had to begin with, like hava amina’s. Hava amina’s are discarded routinely; if chazal admitted to the chachmei umos haolam, it was their conclusion (which happens to be scientifically correct!) But whatever was the maskanah and was in the finished chasimas hatalmud, is authoritative.
I also mentioned, which nomesorah derided but did not address(and neither did you) that even rabbeinu avrohom did not speak about chazal’s description of physical realities when pesukim are darshened, like the gestation period of a snake.