I don't know whether your numbers add up, but it's a cute argument...
> They'll borrow vocabulary from > the liberals, and accuse her of being a closed minded, ignorant nut.
Well there's a self-verifying assertion (i.e. an assertion which, by being uttered, makes itself true) if there ever was one! You obviously are a close minded, ignorant nut.
Your critique of mathematics touches some very common bases, but it's muddled. Here, however, you blaze new ground... unfortunately I think it's the ground under you which you're burning.
> Both Cantorian mathematics and Godel's results, if taken > seriously, would appear to validate the liberal view that truth and > reality and logic are merely social constructs, and I suggest that that > is a big part of the reason why those "theories" are accepted as part > of mathematics. As I see it, there is a really big problem here which > needs to be addressed; those who question the liberal dogma are > severely discriminated against in our universities.
Do you have any examples in mind? You've cited Fefermann as being anti-Cantorian, but he had a pretty nice post at Stanford...
> I believe that the > preferred solution to the humanism (the religion behind liberalism) > problem is to recognize humanism as a religion and apply the laws that > keep religion separate from government. > Likewise, the Cantorian > religion (i.e. the belief in the existence of a world of the infinite > lying beyond what we can observe) doesn't belong in the publicly funded > universities. >
You're the Timothy McVeigh of sci.logic. I sincerely hope you keep the expression of your views limited to ranting mindlessly on sci.logic.