My response to Son of Frankenstein re: mathematics

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

Mr. Hardy said, "Nothing I have ever done is of the slightest practical use."

Well, I suppose this fits nicely with Mr. CC's personality.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Post Script- I just proved God's existence because I just thought of him...

[_Some Schmo]

...pretentious moron...

That's it! I knew there had to be a precise description that completely encapsulates your existence. Thank you!

by the way, where are the citations for your assertions, you pretentious moron?

[_Tarski]

The embarrassment here, professor, is your defense of these noxious mediocrities. I've seen what Daniel Dennett has to say, for example, and he is a transparent moron (and a worthless pos).

When I was in college I had an interest in philosophy of mind that went back to even before high school. I was said to be rather precocious. I was aware of Dennett (and other anti-idealists) and considered him to be not only wrong but missing something so to speak. He was personal intellectual enemy--at least in my little world. If I had been as big of a disrespectful asshole as you I would have described him in words similar to yours. Suffice it to say that my judgments, as tightly and arrogantly held as they were, were premature to say the least. My intuitions needed an overhaul that could have never happened save for some humbling events in my life that gave me an intellectual fresh start and allowed me to reconsider many things.
Dennett cannot be understood or appreciated until one has read "The Intentional Stance" and serious background is needed for that.

Dennett's best critics (and Searle is not one of them) acknowledge the sophistication and clarity of Dennett's arguments and often counterintuitive ideas even while they set out to counter them. They show due respect.

I believe you are highly intelligent but even so, you are no Kurt Gödel, Eugene Wigner, or G. H. Hardy.

It is amazing that you do not have enough self awareness to realize that this invites the question of just exactly who you think you compare to that justifies your unprofessional and disrespectful arrogance. You're no Gödel or Wigner either and perhaps farther from being so than I. But don't let that trouble you; continue with the unjustified arrogance.

You also did not address my observations about the ontological status of mathematics and you passed right over the observation that it is largely irrelevant to the core of Coyne's point.

More than anything, you need some manners.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I believe you are highly intelligent but even so, you are no Kurt Gödel, Eugene Wigner, or G. H. Hardy.

It is amazing that you do not have enough self awareness to realize that this invites the question of just exactly who you think you compare to that justifies your unprofessional and disrespectful arrogance. You're no Gödel or Wigner either and perhaps farther from being so than I. But don't let that trouble you; continue with the unjustified arrogance.

I did not mean to imply that I was the intellectual/mathematical equal of Goedel, Wigner, Hardy, or you (I considered adding such a caveat but I already had a parenthetical comment), nor was I trying to disparage you or your accomplishments. I did not think you'd take umbrage at the comment because I believed (and still believe) that you'd rank them higher than yourself as mathematicians. I apologize for offending you, though; I should have worded it differently to avoid a direct comparison and/or added a note re: my comparatively low mathematical rank. I have always been deferential to you and I plan on continuing to be deferential to you. (Not because I have to but because I think you merit it.)

You also did not address my observations about the ontological status of mathematics...

Can you really say with confidence that "A full platonism is not even the most prominent view among those who professionally consider the question?" That may very well be the case among the mathematicians/philosophers (re: philosophers, unless they have a background in mathematics I'm generally skeptical of what they have to say) you've encountered but I sincerely doubt you've taken a survey.

...and you passed right over the observation that it is largely irrelevant to the core of Coyne's point.

I was most interested in attacking his comments re: "inventing" mathematics, although I am disdainful of his other views as well.

More than anything, you need some manners.

Perhaps

[_Calculus Crusader]

Post Script- I just proved God's existence because I just thought of him...

It doesn't work that way. Similarly, you aren't competent just because you imagine yourself to be.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Post Script- I just proved God's existence because I just thought of him...

It doesn't work that way. Similarly, you aren't competent just because you imagine yourself to be.

Hello,

You clearly missed the reference. Oh my you're a bright one...

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Some Schmo]

...you aren't competent just because you imagine yourself to be.

And yet, that's where your imagination takes you anyway.

It's quite astounding how often what you say tends to be completely ignored by you. (Of course, that's understandable; most of your crap is pointless, so I certainly understand assuming that habit. I try to ignore most of what you say too).

[_JohnStuartMill]

This thread is great -- I suggest it be pinned as a testament to CC's imperturbable self-righteousness.

Really, dude, you could have at least glanced at the Wikipedia page about philosophy of math before exposing yourself to be thoroughly ignorant of the field. Do you say this kind of BS at professional conferences? Because if you do, people ARE laughing at you behind your back.

[_EAllusion]

I'm sure lots CC. I'm pretty sure John Von Neumann counts. Antirealism isn't some backwater position in philosophy of math. Hempel and Carnap were antirealists. I think it's a widely defended view in the relevant field, so I think it is folly to assume someone is an ignorant jackass for expressing it.

[_Calculus Crusader]

This thread is great -- I suggest it be pinned as a testament to CC's imperturbable self-righteousness.

Really, dude, you could have at least glanced at the Wikipedia page about philosophy of math before exposing yourself to be thoroughly ignorant of the field. Do you say this kind of b***s*** at professional conferences? Because if you do, people ARE laughing at you behind your back.

I am thwarted once again by your SAT math score!

1. Let's recap:

Coyne made a bald assertion: "Mathematics is a human invention."

I asserted the contrary and gave some examples why I think his position is bogus.

There is nothing ignorant about what I wrote, nor did I claim that advocates for the contrary position do not exist.

2. I generally don't make recourse to wikipedia unless it is to initially investigate something. (I never take it as the final word.) If I were to look up philosophy of mathematics articles (which I have in the past), it would be in the SEP and/or jstor.

3. I do not attend mathematical conferences. (I am not a mathematician, although I have a mathematics background.) The conferences I would attend are statistical and medical conferences, and platonism, mathematical or otherwise, is not typically featured at those conferences.