On Mar 23, 4:04*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/23/2012 12:19 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 7:53 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 11:38 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 23, 7:25 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2012 11:05 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 23, 6:56 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I find that rather unlikely.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking people.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plainly suffer from this defect.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any evidence for this?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> suffer from this defect.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> >>>>>>>>>>>> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> >>>>>>>>>>>> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> >>>>>>>>>>>> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> human use of animals is very solid evidence.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals,
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You are unqualified for it.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> >>>>>>>>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> >>>>>>>>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> >>>>>>>>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> >>>>>>>>> feedback on the presentations that I give.
>
> >>>>>>>> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
> >>>>>>>> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
> >>>>>>>> the whole concept.
>
> >>>>>>> I am not "any unqualified goof".
>
> >>>>>> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.
>
> >>>>> In your unqualified opinion
>
> >>>> No less qualified than yours.
>
> >>> No more qualified than mine, either. You are at least as much of an
> >>> "unqualified goof" as I am when it comes to ethics.
>
> >>> I've taken an interest in moral philosophy and read a lot of books
> >>> about it.
>
> >> You have not studied the subject in a systematic, supervised and
> >> advanced level that would entitle you to blabber about it.
>
> > You think that the be-all and end-all is whether you have formally
> > studied the subject under supervision. I am completely self-taught in
> > mathematical logic and set theory but
>
> Bullshit. *Those are fields you necessarily would have had to study to
> obtain a Ph.D. in mathematics. *If some medieval French literature twit
> were to make that claim about mathematical logic and set theory, it
> would be plausible (although not very believable), but not a Ph.D. in math.

The University of New South Wales does not specialise in those fields,
and a lot of research mathematicians do not know very much about them.
I did do a course called "Set Theory and Topology" and another called
"Computability and Logic", but those did not take me very far.
"Computability and Logic" did not include first-order logic. I taught
myself first-order logic, intuitionistic logic, modal logic, proof
theory and model theory, and I read Gödel's 1931 paper, entirely by
myself. I also read Paul Cohen's "Set Theory and the Continuum
Hypothesis", Jech's "Set Theory", Machover's "Set Theory, Logic, and
Their Limitations", Potter's "Set Theory and its Philosophy", Drake's
"Set Theory: An Introduction to Large Cardinals", and much work by
Hugh Woodin and Peter Koellner, entirely by myself. That goes way
beyond what we covered in the set theory and topology course.