| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"David C. Ullrich" |
| Date: |
04 Aug 2003 08:02:11 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt |
On 3 Aug 2003 11:08:54 -0700, (James Harris) wrote:
An unending argument over math depends on hidden issues,
misunderstandings, and logical errors.
Yup.
What I'm doing in this post is
giving an exposition which should remove all of the above, as I'll
point out what I think might stumble, while replies against the math I
present here should show clearly any biases of posters. Yup, the math
argument is THAT good.
Nope.
My position is that mathematicians are trying to run from an explosive
result, which challenges many of their long held views about
mathematics and their role in discovery.
But you know that _nobody_ but you believes this. You really think
that simple repetition is going to convince people?
Well I suppose it's a reasonable thing to try. Repeating the same
story 100,000 times hasn't worked, but "repeat 1,000,000 times"
hasn't been tried yet, who knows it might work.
Good<giggle> luck.
[...]
Finally, remember that mathematicians have a lot at stake here, and if
they didn't they could answer my math with rational and objective
arguments, so please pay attention to things like personal attacks,
and assertions made without presentation of logic or math.
Hint: The existence of personal attacks and assertions made without
presentation of logic or math does not invalidate all those other
replies. You know, the ones where people explain what your
errors are, very clearly.
James Harris
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
|
|
| User: "wchogg" |
|
| Title: Re: Math argument, reasonable doubt |
04 Aug 2003 08:06:04 AM |
|
|
[newsgroup list trimmed]
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, David C. Ullrich wrote:
On 3 Aug 2003 11:08:54 -0700, (James Harris) wrote:
Finally, remember that mathematicians have a lot at stake here, and if
they didn't they could answer my math with rational and objective
arguments, so please pay attention to things like personal attacks,
and assertions made without presentation of logic or math.
Hint: The existence of personal attacks and assertions made without
presentation of logic or math does not invalidate all those other
replies. You know, the ones where people explain what your
errors are, very clearly.
Well, since he is an archetypical crank, he reserves the right to deny the
existence of all calm, reasoned, and enlightening responses he may receive
that point out his mistakes.
Crankdom is little more than the egocentric belief that their perceptions
shape reality. I bet you could do a phd thesis in psych about this
behaviour and what causes it.
--
William C. Hogg
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
