Re: JSH: Being balanced
From: Proginoskes (proginoskes_at_email.msn.com)
Date: 03/25/05
- Next message: Randy Poe: "Re: proof of inverse matrix"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Strategy with "Uncle Al""
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "JSH: Being balanced"
- Next in thread: William Hughes: "Re: JSH: Being balanced"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 25 Mar 2005 12:57:00 -0800
jstevh@msn.com wrote:
> Now I can go after my own ideas and consider that they may be flawed
> or just plain wrong, and not just wrong, but silly and wrong.
... which is what a mathematician is supposed to do.
> But posters who argue with me don't have that luxury as theirs is a
> political attack.
When the math doesn't work, that's a technical issue, not a political
one.
> If they argue objectively over mathematics only, ever publicly
> stating that maybe this idea could work, or maybe that approach
> could be made viable, they blunt the propaganda, so they don't do
> it.
The only "propaganda" I've seen in JSH threads is by JSH himself; other
people are doing the math and showing what works and what doesn't work.
> Their problem is like that of Fox News, which sees it as a big
> enough problem that they go out of their way to claim being "fair
> and balanced".
Yes, they have all sorts of _conservative_ pundits on the network.
> If you're the person who always argues one point of view, no matter
> what, then people might start to suspect that you have a position
> that's settled without regard to facts.
Which also applies to your posts, stubbornly sticking with the original
post despite the evidence.
> In my case, there are posters who have settled on a position that
> my mathematical ideas are worthless, and they argue that position
> without regard to the facts.
True. However, some, like me, think that the idea might work, if
applied correctly, or if it's clarified.
> So they rationalize, or just lie, when facts get in the way,
> especially mathematical facts.
Mathematical "lies" are easy to spot. "2 + 2 = 5" is a lie. "The
Halting Problem is decidable" is also a lie. There's no
"rationalizing", just rational thought.
> I, on the other hand, having learned painful lessons in the past from
> taking one point of view with regard to my own ideas, consider other
> points of view--like that I may just be wrong.
But don't publicly acknowledge it; you claim to have solved a problem,
then attack people who point out your mistakes. Maybe this is a new JSH
talking, though.
> That's how I can be so negative on math society, so concerned about
> corruption in that area, but send a paper to a math journal, to see.
>
> One journal surprised me for a while by actually publishing, and for
> a while I was glad to think I was wrong about math society!!!
>
> Then they retracted in that bizarre way, and I had a reality check.
They retracted it because someone found a mistake. I saw a paper last
summer at xxx.lanl.gov that "proved" the Twin Prime Conjecture but was
pulled after someone pointed out a mistake. That author didn't go out
on a rant against the "powers that be", though. I thought (for 12
hours) that I'd proven a result about uniquely 4-colorable planar
graphs, but I didn't shout it to the world; I found a mistake before I
posted/published.
You should re-read the story about The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
> STILL I test, as I wrote another paper and, this time, sent it to a
> major print journal.
>
> You HAVE to consider other points of view if you are serious about
> the truth.
Yes. But mathematical truth has to make sense, and be correct.
> Posters who are just doing propaganda will work as hard as they can
> to not do that, and sometimes they'll try to fake you out, by saying
> at one point that maybe something might could work, but oh, they can
> show blah blah blah that TOTALLY shows that what I have is useless
> or old.
Whether something works, or if it's useful, or if it's old, are three
separate issues. JSH seems to treat them all as one.
> Mostly they don't even try to be balanced.
Actually, it's a Usenet version of "checks and balances".
> Now there are some of these people replying to my posts routinely
> with just nonsense replies where they make certain to delete out
> any of the mathematics or issues presented, which I find just
> weird.
If they're presenting non sequitors, then yes, they are wrong for doing
that.
> It's not effective as I can do web searches and see links to JUST
> MY POSTS coming up highly, as in links where people can read my
> posts without seeing any other replies.
Not presenting enough of the previous post is a Usenet faux pas.
> But even the trying makes me wonder, as I'm a person with a lot of
> curiousity.
>
> In any event, I digress.
>
> One thing I'm in the process of doing now is attacking my own
> ideas, which is something I end up doing most of the time, as
> that's one of the final stages of the problem solving process.
And when you can't attack your own ideas, you can have other people
try. If what you have is true, it only strengthens it.
> What is the final stage?
>
> Promotion.
Go to conferences and seminars!
> The real world doesn't just let you prove something, and then
> present it.
Yes it does, in math journals and conferences. However, you really have
to prove it, not just do an "informal analysis."
> In the real world you have to fight for ideas, against great
> hostility if it's a big idea, and promote, promote, promote.
New ideas are established only when the previous generation dies out.
This happened in the case of quantum physics.
> So if any of you dream of making your own discoveries, understand
> that if you make big ones, you will have to promote them as well,
> so you better learn the ropes of promoting ideas.
>
> You have to market ideas like any other product--in today's world.
Klaatu said it best: "Peddle yourself!"
--- Christopher Heckman
- Next message: Randy Poe: "Re: proof of inverse matrix"
- Previous message: Uncle Al: "Re: Strategy with "Uncle Al""
- In reply to: jstevh_at_msn.com: "JSH: Being balanced"
- Next in thread: William Hughes: "Re: JSH: Being balanced"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
