Re: [Phys-L] Relativity labeled as a liberal theory

[Zeev Wurman <zeev@ieee.org>]

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 7:42 PM, John Clement <clement@hal-pc.org> wrote:

> The conservapedia does not inveigh agains the misapplication of
> "relativity"
> as being related to moral issues, but actively attempts to dispute the
> scientific findings.  My favorite line is the one about the sun being a
> "perfect sphere", reminiscent of how astronomical objects were considered
> before Galileo.  The perfect sphere is obvisoulsy theologically the correct
> shape.
And I thought that Kepler already rebutted that line of thought long ago,
arguing that ellipses are also "perfect" :-)


> The objection to set theory is how it quantifies infinites, which comes too
> close to the idea of an Infinite god.  The other objection they seem to
> have
> is that math is invented by us as a means to help figure things out.  They
> want math and science to be absolutes so students will think everything is
> absolute.  But the fact that you have a logical system does not make it
> absolute.  It depends on the assumptions, and there will always be things
> you can not prove.  This sort of absolutism is precisely what the
> "mathematically correct" people use as arguments, instead of looking at
> what
> the research shows.  They use fundamentalist logic.
The above would have been nice but for Clement's idiotic -- and ignorant --
slap at  those "mathematically correct people." Clearly, because they
believe that 2+2=4 they "use fundamentalist logic," as opposed to the
enlightened Texan who presumably uses transcendental logic to show that 2+2
does not always equal 4.

Ze'ev