|
|
Re: FWIW: interesting quote from Ted Kaczynski
Posted:
Jan 10, 2013 5:12 PM
|
|
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:35:23 AM UTC-8, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
> david petry <david_lawrence_petry@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:00:05 PM UTC-8, Jesse F. Hughes wrote:
>
> >> david petry <david_lawrence_petry@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >
>
> >> > It's not obvious that we should tolerate pseudoscience in the public
>
> >> > universities.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >> Why, you're adorable, you are!
>
> >> [blather deleted]
>
> >
>
> > You know, Jesse, you seem to have not a clue what this discussion is
>
> > all about, and yet you keep making lots and lots of noise. In what
>
> > way are you not a crackpot?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Here's the first part of my so-called blather.
>
>
>
> The simple fact is that investigating what theorems are derivable
>
> from a set of axioms is not pseudoscience, dear sir. Oh, you may
>
> think the axioms are uninteresting, or dubious, or crap, but this
>
> does not make the mathematics pseudoscience.
>
>
>
> I stand by it. Studying the deductive consequences of a set of axioms
>
> is not pseudoscience, no matter what you think of the axioms.
Studying the combinatorics of the rules of chess is not pseudoscience, but it is also not mathematics. Not really. I guess you could call it an application of mathematics, but even that would be a bit of a stretch.
I don't think you have made any point that contradicts anything I have said.
> Other than that, fine rebuttal! You've shown your intellectual
>
> prowess by deleting everything I said. Good show!
I think that explains a lot. You participate in this discussion group to show off your intellectual prowess, and you assume we are all here for the same purpose. That's a wrong assumption.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Milestones in history
>
> Jan. 16, 2007
>
> On this date, two MIT computer science postdocs called an adjunct
>
> philosophy professor at Salem State college for help with BASH scripting.
|
|
