[epgui]

Please point to me exactly where I did any name calling.

There's this thing called the burden of proof, in philosophy. When you take a difficult position, you must displace this burden. The author has not done so, and it is not my responsibility to show how he is wrong: he has not shown how he is correct.

[barry-cotter]

> Please point to me exactly where I did any name calling.

Anti-intellectual. You keep on saying that the author is anti-intellectual for denigrating the practical value of Math.

[epgui]

Allow me to clarify: I do not mean to say that the author is an anti-intellectual person. I have read nothing else that he has written, and I do not know him.

What I am saying (or at least what I intend to say) is that he is defending an anti-intellectualist idea/position, which is just a fact by definition.

[barry-cotter]

> What I am saying (or at least what I intend to say) is that he is defending an anti-intellectualist idea/position, which is just a fact by definition.

Saying something is of limited practical value is not an anti-intellectual position. I do not think most people get any practical value out of the chemistry or physics they learn in school.

[epgui]

> I do not think most people get any practical value out of the chemistry or physics they learn in school.

This is a good example of an anti-intellectual comment or attitude.