On Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:35:23 AM UTC-8, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > david petry <email@example.com> writes: > > > > > On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:00:05 PM UTC-8, Jesse F. Hughes wrote: > > >> david petry <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.