Re: Why did science accept obvious oddities?
- From: "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 10 May 2005 07:31:30 -0700
Eckard Blumschein wrote:
> Infinity means something that cannot be enlarged
Axiom of your system, not ours.
> This time I do not intend to initiate endless discussions with those
who
> feel hurt by my doubts
Who do you think is hurt? Why, ultimately, do the crackpots
always have to resort to "you are angry, you are afraid, you
are upset" when they run out of pseudo-mathematical
arguments?
> Who of you is proficient enough as to be ready to admit having made a
> mistake or maybe two?
I doubt that anybody you've been arguing with is unwilling
to admit to mistakes. I've made many.
> Who is flexible enough as to be open for the
> possibility that there might be fallacies even within the most
> fundamental theory?
I'm open to lots of things, but illogical inconsistent
blatherings are not going to change my mind about any of
them. A mind should not be so open your brains fall out.
Your ideas fail because they don't stand up, not because
of failings on the part of your listeners.
Let's see, in the standard crank lexicon, I think your
next posting should be a rant about how math is a
religion and we only know what we have been taught
by rote. Perhaps a plea for the open minds of children,
unpolluted by the prejudices of their elders.
But beware: walk that territory and you tread on ground
trod by James Harris, who is the Master of the Sociological
Mathematical Lecture.
- Randy
.
- References:
- Why did science accept obvious oddities?
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Why did science accept obvious oddities?
- Prev by Date: Re: square integrable
- Next by Date: Re: math question
- Previous by thread: Re: Why did science accept obvious oddities?
- Next by thread: The Emperors new Math, or current advancements in the debunking of Mathemagicks. (was Re: Why did science accept obvious oddities?)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|