Re: Sarah Palin- creationist VP candidate?

On Sep 10, 9:57 am, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 9, 4:54 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<8f1fc5e8-6b1c-47e7-8cad-75a83a4c8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

An interesting leap of faith. As I have said before several times, the
experiments have mostly been failures. Fame and money awaits you, if
you can improve understanding and learning for any reasonable portion
of the population.

Such a person would probably be put the death in the most painful manner
possible.

That's exactly right. Consider how vehemently and irrationally any
suggestion of change is attacked. Information and the tools to use it
are too empowering to be entrusted to the general population.

-tg

I believe that Mr. Bushnell's comment refers to the powers that be,
who don't want a thinking electorate, rather than the 'mathematical
mafia'.

This is now the third thread this year in which you and I have
discussed this issue. In each case, you have repeatedly made the
assertion that we can replace classical paper-and-pencil mathematics
with technology. I have discussed several cases where this has been
tried in earnest, and failed miserably.

What you've done is to offer vague anecdotes, or references to some
study or other, while failing to apply the three basic rules of data
analysis---to wit:

1. Correlation does not imply causality.
2. Correlation does not imply causality.

And, of course:

3. Correlation does not imply causality.

When challenged on this, you irrationally snip everything and try to
change the subject. If we were discussing evolution, your behavior
would mark you as a creationist. You also follow their practice of
moving goal-posts and non sequitur responses.

I wrote a very clear exposition of my views above; there is nothing
there that needs any more verification than observation and experience
in any number of fields over the last several decades. Well, make that
*objective* observation.

-tg







Those cases, and my personal
experience, lead me to believe that your approach won't work.

However, as above, I am quite prepared to be proven wrong, and it
won't alter my research much at all. Indeed, the work that I do in
zeros of polynomials is of interest precisely because the software
breaks down due to numerical instability.

You have yet to provide any solid evidence at all that your approach
is viable, and have demonstrated the kind of intellectual laziness
that makes learning real mathematics impossible. On the two occasions
when you attempted to do so:

1. You posted a Maple work*** to show that the classical analytical
technique for the pendulum was unnecessary. Unfortunately, the example
that you chose was constructed by first solving the differential
equation, and then plotting the various features of the solution,
meaning that the software supplemented the analytical solution.

2. In the second, you posted a question on a modified version of the
problem, then berated me for not answering it. Unfortunately, yet
again, you didn't check it out, as I pointed out that the problem as
stated was physically meaningless.

I would argue that the responses to your suggestion of change are only
vehement (and not irrational) precisely because such attempts have
been made, and you offer no evidence at all that you have anything new
to offer.

.