Kevin Karn wrote: > Gene Ward Smith wrote: > > Gerry Myerson wrote: > > > > > I'm dismayed by the level of vituperation in some of the posts in > > > this thread. > > > > Norm starts out his paper, which I didn't read because the beginning > > was so extremely unpromising, in what seems to me to be a very > > insulting way. If he has ideas he wants to be taken seriously I suggest > > he remove the sneers directed at set theorists, who apparently are > > beneath contempt, and wild remarks about physics and the like. Present > > a reasoned argument in a reasonable way and people are likely to react > > more positively, and less likely to conclude that you are an idiot and > > simply quit reading. > > > > > He's adopting a finitistic, or > > > constructivist, or computational view of mathematics. > > > > He's also spitting on people who don't. I think it is terribly arrogant > > to dismiss people like > > Shelah or Woodin with such utter contempt like this, > > Hugh Woodin is a con-artist/leech who needs to get a real job. > Ideally, what we need to do with people like Woodin, is haul them into > the dock for public hearings. > > "Where did that $1 million in federal grants you sucked down in the > last 15 years go, Mr. Woodin? What were the practical spin-offs? Why > should we fund you, as opposed to someone working on real-world > problems, like bird flu etc.? What practical benefit does your research > have? We're going to need an explanation, Mr. Woodin, otherwise we > can't sign the check. We simply can't fund research which has NO > practical applications." > > It's worse than the toilet seat scandals. When the government buys a > toilet seat for $1 million, at least you get the toilet seat. When you > give Hugh Woodin $1 million, you get nothing of practical value, not > even a toilet seat. That public money should be rerouted to people > doing work which actually benefits society. If you wanna do theology, > do it on your own dime.