My response to Son of Frankenstein re: mathematics

[_Calculus Crusader]

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.

Yes, John Von Neumann would certainly count, if that was his position. I'm not familiar with Hempel but I was reading up a little on Carnap the other day because I saw a self-described Carnapian I intended to pommel. Wasn't he a "logical positivist?" If so, I see that position as being thoroughly discredited. (Of course, he need not be in error on all points but it makes him suspect.)

[_Calculus Crusader]

...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).

If, as I say, Dawkins and the other members of the League of the Militant Godless are worthless pos then you are the annoying, repellent, coprophagous insect that eats them up.

[_Some Schmo]

If, as I say, Dawkins and the other members of the League of the Militant Godless are worthless pos then you are the annoying, repellent, coprophagous insect that eats them up.

LOL... Ahhh, there you go again, talking as if what you have to say has any significance or credibility whatsoever. Stupid people these days...

Pretty funny, if not pathetically sad. Just kill yourself. Why wait? Beat the rush and do it today! I'm sure everyone around you would be better off. It would definitely improve the gene pool (not to mention the commentary on humanity as a whole).

[_EAllusion]

Carnap was a logical positivist. But he also was a major philosopher last century. I named him because he was a big name that came to mind. I think A.J. Ayers would be another example along the same lines. Hempel starts out as a positivist, but ends up being one of its major critics. I was just tossing out major figures who I know held the stance. Like I said, I don't really have a opinion on the matter, but I've read enough to know what the opinions are out there are and to have some sense of what's taken seriously and not. Logical positivism is dead, obviously, but mathematical antirealism isn't.

[_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 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.

Your ignorance lies in your belief that Coyne's was not a respectable position, and could be waved away with your few glib sentences. This belief is false, therefore there was something ignorant about what you wrote. Sorry if that bothers you.

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.

I agree that Wikipedia isn't always the best source, nor is it always the one a person unfamiliar with a field should visit first. I was just pointing out that you declined to make even a cursory examination of the intellectual terrain before bellowing your opinion to the world.

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.

Lucky for you, then.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Carnap was a logical positivist. But he also was a major philosopher last century. I named him because he was a big name that came to mind. I think A.J. Ayers would be another example along the same lines. Hempel starts out as a positivist, but ends up being one of its major critics. I was just tossing out major figures who I know held the stance. Like I said, I don't really have a opinion on the matter, but I've read enough to know what the opinions are out there are and to have some sense of what's taken seriously and not. Logical positivism is dead, obviously, but mathematical antirealism isn't.

What about Quine? He was one of the most esteemed philosophers of the 20th century, a mathematical empiricist (i.e., took Coyne's side of this debate), and, as you've pointed out before, he's known as the guy who drove the stake into logical positivism's heart.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Your ignorance lies in your belief that Coyne's was not a respectable position...

Coyne's position is not respectable because he was speaking out of his arse. I do not believe for a new york minute that Coyne has investigated the ontological status of mathematics. He wrote that humans "invented" mathematics because it is part of his prepackaged worldview. In that, he is no different than a liberal with little to no scientific background or knowledge who accepts common ancestry but cannot articulate why he/she accepts it when pressed.

[_JohnStuartMill]

You're backpedaling, CC. First it was, "Look at this Coyne idiot, saying things about math that are obviously wrong!" Now it's, "Look at this Coyne idiot; he's, uh ...venturing too far afield of his expertise! Yeah, that's the ticket!" But of course, you're not in a position to make this latter claim, because you are yourself out of your depth on the matter. So, you know, lol.

(You're probably tempted to retort that I'm just as ignorant of the subject here as you, therefore my criticism of you is bad in exactly the same way as your criticism of Coyne. Don't bother: my confidence of your ignorance is not based on merely expertise I personally claim.)

[_Calculus Crusader]

You're backpedaling, CC. First it was, "Look at this Coyne idiot, saying things about math that are obviously wrong!" Now it's, "Look at this Coyne idiot; he's probably venturing too far afield of his expertise!"

I don't see it as backpedaling.

The delicious irony here, of course, is that you're not in a position to make this latter claim, because you are yourself out of your depth on the matter.

I don't know about that. In any event, you are not in a position to judge.

(You're probably tempted to retort that I'm just as ignorant of the subject here as you, therefore my criticism of you is bad in exactly the same way as your criticism of Coyne. Don't bother: my confidence of your ignorance is not based on any expertise I personally claim.)

To the contrary, I wouldn't claim you are just as ignorant; I would claim you are much more ignorant. (Although, I do not concede I am ignorant on this topic.)

[_Calculus Crusader]

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.

Lucky for you, then.

If you actually possessed the knowledge you pretend to, you'd know that mathematical platonism is well represented among mathematicians.

(You needn't take my word for it. See here.)