6.1.2013 22:47, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote: > In <firstname.lastname@example.org>, on 01/06/2013 > at 07:44 PM, Kaba <email@example.com> said: > >> Just a guess: what's your browser and its version? > > It's pretty old; FF 3.5.3. My next OS upgrade will include a new FF; I > have mixed feelings about that. > > I did notice that the article talked about a conspiracy, which is > always a red flag, and that it used nonstandard nomenclature.
I agree that's a red flag in general, as everything which includes subjective feelings in an objective subject. Since the writer is a scientist (a physicist), though, it seems to me that the text has intentionally been written to appeal to a non-scientific audience, with the intent of maximizing its spread.
Usually I'm irritated by someone slipping in his own feelings about whatever he is writing about, since that, in my experience, is an indication of ignorance. Every new idea feels exciting at first, but after mastering it, it starts to feel neutral. In the other way, if something feels exciting, then you probably don't have much experience on it. In particular, I think that the excitement on the unknown is nature's way of driving humans to explore ever new things.
Some people choose to spend much of their time in an intentional state of ignorance, enjoying the mystery, all the while not recognizing it as ignorance.
That said, in my opinion the article makes a good case in favor of adopting tau instead of pi. The mathematics is anyway objective, even if described subjectively.