Posted on 11/25/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by Exton1
Anybody else hear those voices?
I don't use the term alchemy lightly. Much of science is unending promises. They never pan out or they promise much more than they can deliver. It's one fad after another. Now it's stem cells. Next it's something else. Much of it is little more than a big scam to keep the money flowing.
And don't get me started on the humanities.
LOL. Yeah science is all a big scam. OK.
Meanwhile the brilliant starving math profs are sleeping in their Hyundais.
Poor poor AmishDude. He gets no respect. No respect at all.
The world is *so* unfair.
"They mainly show up on the science and history channels."
In Yokohama, we don't get those.
"I have never before had anyone raise the exact issues I was suggesting (albeit subtly) and think they were correcting me."
Whereas I have on numerous occasions seen people congratulate themselves for subtlety after wasting time on the obvious.
Whereas I have on numerous occasions seen people congratulate themselves for subtlety after wasting time on the obvious.
Geez, and we're in substantial agreement. At the very least you could have posted one of those "Master of the Obvious" graphics if you were going to flame me.
Cheers!
And the theorem I used was developed 30 years ago.
And it was developed in pure mathematics. Number theory, actually. It never would have been developed otherwise and the people studying phylogenetic trees would still be pursuing a dead end.
But, hey, it's all about me.
How scientific of you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pretendence
1 entry found for pretendence.
pretendence
\Pre*tend"ence\, n. The act of pretending; pretense. [Obs.] --Daniel.
"At the very least you could have posted one of those "Master of the Obvious" graphics if you were going to flame me."
Do you intend to pretend that your "raise the exact issues" quip wasn't a flame?
You mean, like the original proof of the four-color theorem?
The Appel and Haken proof was always viewed with suspicion. The subsequent revision was more easily checked.
I'm curious as to what math is necessary to say that particles move and collide randomly?
"Randomly" is ill-defined. Brownian motion is defined from four axioms. Two that I recall are "everywhere continuous" and "nowhere differentiable".
It must get lonely at the "top of the intellectual food chain".
Indeed, but one never gets hungry.
I really think it starts with logic, but that was what my philosophy professor stated, and he was biased. In any case, without those two, everything else would be merely polemics.
Shhesh. I think it all starts with sharpened rocks. Arrowsmiths are the centerposts of civilized discourse and understanding--academics are merely entertainers who ride on the backs of arrowsmiths.
"It must get lonely at the "top of the intellectual food chain".
I'm sure it is. For pure, abstract brain-power, mathematicians stand alone. I can't do it, but I do admire it.
The only part of any of the hard sciences I ever had any problem with was the mathematics. That includes organic chemisty and a graduate-level course in molecular genetics(both of which I took as electives, just for giggles).
Amish, you have the beginnings of a fan club here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.