It's been awhile since someone has claimed that imaginary numbers don't "really" exist. There's an article in the May 2004 American Math Monthly about experiments in teaching mathematics. It shows the (vast) extent of mathematical misunderstanding and makes suggestions for teaching improvement. One main point is that students often don't understand that mathemtatical definitions are stipulative rather than lexical. They give a technical definition rather than determine how people use words.
Creationists are unwilling to accept a scientist's definition; rather, they project their own usage onto the scientific usage of words. ("Theory" is the most commonly mis-used term by Creationists.)
Creationists are unwilling to accept a scientist's definition; rather, they project their own usage onto the scientific usage of words. ("Theory" is the most commonly mis-used term by Creationists.)
It seems to me that the problem is endemic to people not well educated in technical topics (meaning science and mathematics.) Lacking a background in those topics, they aren't even aware that it is necessary to formulate more precise definitions in a technical field in order that we understand what is meant. The loose definitions of everyday English are far too imprecise, and lead to ambiguity.
It should not be a surprise that by projecting the lay meanings (or even their own, made-up meanings) onto the scientific usage, the anti-Evolutionary/anti-science Luddite Collective introduces into the discussion the very ambiguities that science and Mathematics eschews. It should be no surprise, because ambiguity is the favorite hiding place for the anti-Evo/anti-science warriors, as it affords them most powerful epistemological weapon in their intellectual armamentarium: the fallacy of equivocation, and the ability to render muddy that which would otherwise be clear.