This link is to a vacuous critique of vacuous arguments where the author claims that anyone who disagrees with this hypocrisy is a crackpot. This is precisely the kind of reasoning that is used to reject science.
It’s juvenile. It’s name calling followed by plugging one’s ears shouting, “I know you are but what am I?”
The problem is that a mathematical house of cards falls every time the foundation of science shifts. The goal of mathematicians then becomes that of protecting the house of cards by defending against paradigm shifts -- even if that requires childish antics.
And so the argument goes that the foundation of science is solid! Science is settled! There is nothing more to discover! All that remains is to continue to create endlessly complex and ever changing mathematical relationships that tie it all together, so “shut up and calculate”.
Anyone who agrees -- with scientists like Feynman and Einstein -- that something fundamental is missing is a crackpot! Anyone who tries to discover what is missing is even more of a crackpot!
But something has been missing: irreversible chemical thermodynamics and kinetics. And my derivation is rigorous and formal — with no loose ends.
Your defense is a silly scoresheet that you feel somehow serves as a cloak of invincibility over settled science. You can do better than that Isaac.
Stop defending math as if it were science and start defending science. You do know that at the very least you have to hear formal arguments before rejecting them? You blow your cover as a true believer in your own authority when you don’t.
This link is to a vacuous critique of vacuous arguments where the author claims that anyone who disagrees with this hypocrisy is a crackpot. This is precisely the kind of reasoning that is used to reject science.
It’s juvenile. It’s name calling followed by plugging one’s ears shouting, “I know you are but what am I?”
The problem is that a mathematical house of cards falls every time the foundation of science shifts. The goal of mathematicians then becomes that of protecting the house of cards by defending against paradigm shifts -- even if that requires childish antics.
And so the argument goes that the foundation of science is solid! Science is settled! There is nothing more to discover! All that remains is to continue to create endlessly complex and ever changing mathematical relationships that tie it all together, so “shut up and calculate”.
Anyone who agrees -- with scientists like Feynman and Einstein -- that something fundamental is missing is a crackpot! Anyone who tries to discover what is missing is even more of a crackpot!
But something has been missing: irreversible chemical thermodynamics and kinetics. And my derivation is rigorous and formal — with no loose ends.
Your defense is a silly scoresheet that you feel somehow serves as a cloak of invincibility over settled science. You can do better than that Isaac.
Stop defending math as if it were science and start defending science. You do know that at the very least you have to hear formal arguments before rejecting them? You blow your cover as a true believer in your own authority when you don’t.
This link is to a vacuous critique of vacuous arguments where the author claims that anyone who disagrees with this hypocrisy is a crackpot. This is precisely the kind of reasoning that is used to reject science.
It’s juvenile. It’s name calling followed by plugging one’s ears shouting, “I know you are but what am I?”
The problem is that a mathematical house of cards falls every time the foundation of science shifts. The goal of mathematicians then becomes that of protecting the house of cards by defending against paradigm shifts -- even if that requires childish antics.
And so the argument goes that the foundation of science is solid! Science is settled! There is nothing more to discover! All that remains is to continue to create endlessly complex and ever changing mathematical relationships that tie it all together, so “shut up and calculate”.
Anyone who agrees -- with scientists like Feynman and Einstein -- that something fundamental is missing is a crackpot! Anyone who tries to discover what is missing is even more of a crackpot!
But something has been missing: irreversible chemical thermodynamics and kinetics. And my derivation is rigorous and formal — with no loose ends.
Your defense is a silly scoresheet that you feel somehow serves as a cloak of invincibility over settled science. You can do better than that Isaac.
Stop defending math as if it were science and start defending science. You do know that at the very least you have to hear formal arguments before rejecting them? You blow your cover as a true believer in your own authority when you don’t.
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
This link is to a vacuous critique of vacuous arguments where the author claims that anyone who disagrees with this hypocrisy is a crackpot. This is precisely the kind of reasoning that is used to reject science.
It’s juvenile. It’s name calling followed by plugging one’s ears shouting, “I know you are but what am I?”
The problem is that a mathematical house of cards falls every time the foundation of science shifts. The goal of mathematicians then becomes that of protecting the house of cards by defending against paradigm shifts -- even if that requires childish antics.
And so the argument goes that the foundation of science is solid! Science is settled! There is nothing more to discover! All that remains is to continue to create endlessly complex and ever changing mathematical relationships that tie it all together, so “shut up and calculate”.
Anyone who agrees -- with scientists like Feynman and Einstein -- that something fundamental is missing is a crackpot! Anyone who tries to discover what is missing is even more of a crackpot!
But something has been missing: irreversible chemical thermodynamics and kinetics. And my derivation is rigorous and formal — with no loose ends.
Your defense is a silly scoresheet that you feel somehow serves as a cloak of invincibility over settled science. You can do better than that Isaac.
Stop defending math as if it were science and start defending science. You do know that at the very least you have to hear formal arguments before rejecting them? You blow your cover as a true believer in your own authority when you don’t.