"Gerry Myerson" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:gerry-D682F9.firstname.lastname@example.org... > In article <email@example.com>, > "Gene Ward Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >> I didn't see any signs, as far as I had gotten, that he even knows >> anything about modern set theory. Does he? > > I don't know. > > I reject astrology, even though I don't know anything about modern > astrology (I don't even know if there is such a thing). I reject > "creation science" and "intelligent design," even though I haven't > read any recent writings of their advocates. I don't have to; I > know where they're going, and I know they're never going to get > anywhere useful, going in that direction. > > I personally don't put set theory in the same category as astrology > or creation science.
Doesn't this undermine your whole analogy? Why didn't you pick an orthodox theory like Evolution, Special Realtivity or Plate Techtonics as being the theory he is attacking? (Set theory is every bit as well accepted as any of these other topics). Because he looks less of a crank if you compare him to attacking astrology than him attacking (say) the Theory of Evolution, even though this is a much closer analogy?
>Maybe Norm does. I don't know. > > -- > Gerry Myerson (email@example.com) (i -> u for email)
I don't see you publishing any papers on astrology. Nor do you sign your posts as a "Professor of Astronomy". And finally, I don't see you saying "Astronomers and cosmologists are welcome to send me reasoned responses.", as if your level of knowledge of astrology was so advanced you didn't think non-specialists should be able to respond.
Doesn't it worry you that a professional mathematician can write a paper on set theory (that has "caused a bit of discussion in some logic circles") and you can't tell from the paper if he actually "knows anything about modern set theory" ?