Уравнять в правах науку и миф не удалось. Вопросы остались_2

Что именно?
Быть пойманным на банальной истерике?
Конечно, неприятно. Конечно, захочется обвинить в собственной истерике другую тетеньку.

И Вам, детка.
Вставайте с пола.

Принимаю второе (что помочь не можете), а вот первое - неа:
когда есть взаимонепонимание, то не факт, что когнитивная проблема только у одного.

А вот здесь Вы оказались правы!
Посмотрела, что именно Чомски говорит о религии, и пришла к выводу, что никакой он не ультра-атеист (т.е. не воинствующий атеист, каким был Лео Таксиль), а самый обычный, со своими взглядами, но при этом принимающий, что у других - могут быть свои.
Цитаты выглядят так:
QUESTION: The spiritual dimension in terms of religion. Is that at all a factor?
CHOMSKY: For me, it’s not. I am a child of the Enlightenment. I think irrational belief is a dangerous phenomenon, and I try to consciously avoid irrational belief. On the other hand, I certainly recognize that it’s a major phenomenon for people in general, and you can understand why it would be. It does, apparently, provide personal sustenance, but also bonds of association and solidarity and a means for expressing elements of one’s personality that are often very valuable elements. To many people it does that. In my view, there’s nothing wrong with that. My view could be wrong, of course, but my position is that we should not succumb to irrational belief.
QUESTION: Is it possible that Religion could ever become a more positive and healthy resource for humanity than it presently is?
CHOMSKY: I think religion has often played a very positive role. Take western civilization, the Catholic Church has played an honorable role in helping those in need. In contrast, the US carried out a virtual war against the church in central America in the 1980’s primarily because prime elements in the church were working with great courage and honor to help those in need. And to organize them to help themselves. It is more than symbolic that the decade opened with the assassination of an archbishop and ended with the murder of 6 Jesuit intellectuals, in both cases by military forces armed and trained by the US government.
QUESTION: I want to ask you something about your views on religion, organized or otherwise. There are passing references in your material to church organizations and communities that you’ve visited or dealt with in the U.S. and also in Central America. You’re often full of praise for the work they’re doing; you cite their human-rights reports in your books, and so on. But on a more personal level, I’m interested in how you relate. By the light of your own atheist, Enlightenment-oriented philosophy, people who believe devoutly in supernatural phenomena like resurrection, miracles, and the rest might seem a little off their rocker. You wouldn’t let that kind of mysticism pass uncriticized in the political sphere. How does it work in your relations with these people?
CHOMSKY: It basically doesn’t come up. I mean, they know where I stand, I know where they stand. You could ask the question: How important is it to fight this battle, how important to try to convince people they shouldn’t have irrational beliefs? I think it’s reasonably important, and I do it when the thing comes up. But it’s marginal to these pursuits. I don’t let it get in the way.
While I think in principle people should not have irrational beliefs, I should say that as a matter of fact, it is people who hold what I regard as completely irrational beliefs who are among the most effective moral actors in the world, in many respects. They’re among the worst, but also among the best, even though the moral beliefs are ostensibly the same. Take, say, the solidarity movement in Central America, which I think is what you probably had in mind. To a large extent, it comes out of mainstream Christianity, based on beliefs that have had outrageous human consequences in the past, and that I think are totally indefensible. In this case, they happen to lead to some of the most courageous, heroic, and honourable human action that’s taking place anywhere in the world. Well, that’s how life is, I guess. It doesn’t come in neat little packages.

Do I believe in God? Can’t answer, I’m afraid. I’m not being flippant, but I don’t understand the question. What is it that I am supposed to believe or not believe in? Are you asking whether I believe there is something not in the universe (or the universes, if there are (maybe infinitely) many of them), and that somehow stands above them? I’ve never heard of any reason for believing that. Something else? What? There are many concepts of spirituality, among them, various notions of divinity developed in the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions. Within these the concepts vary greatly. St. Augustine and others, for example, argued that one should not take seriously the Biblical account of God as an exaggerated human, and other Biblical accounts, because they were crafted so as to make the intended message intelligible to humans — and on such grounds, he argued, organized religion ought to accept persuasive conclusions of science, a conception that Galileo appealed to (in vain) when he faced Papal censure.

Нет, не знакома.
Кто это?
Российский шахматист, судя по русско-звучащей фамилии?
Вряд ли Лео Таксиль.

Не знаю, характерны ли, но читала автобиографии нескольких. Достаточно часто пишут, что проходили период сомнений в вере.
Дискуссионность в литовских - да, приветствуется или хотя бы допускается. В хассидских - меньше.

А я тут была в городке с новым университетом..
Такая радость - видеть столько молодых, радостных студенческих лиц. И сам университет, и новые кварталы, которыми он оброс.
И винодельня Псагот по дороге домой..

Там так:
эту задачку нельзя решить арифметическими методами.
Но знаю, что используя аксиомы Теории Множеств (т.е. гораздо более "высокой" науки) - гипотеза легко доказывается.
А как именно доказывается - не знаю.

Просто так:
В Сети гуляет письмо 1907 года профессора Вильгельма Хеинрейха, декана Бернского Университета, отказавшегося принять Эйнштейна на работу, поскольку его теория артистична, а не научна
Письмо выглядит очень убедительно:
.
Но кому-то пришло в голову задать простенький вопрос:
С какой бы стати немец из Берна стал бы писать немцу Эйнштейну по английски?
А кому-то еще пришло в голову проверить, был ли такой декан Вильгелм Хеинрейх вообще? И оказалось, что нет.
А такая красивая подделка...

O, я спаковалась быстрее, чем думала (улетаю на 3 недели), позвонила знатоку, знаток сказал так:
причем тут ТМ, не знаю, но выглядит так:
В худшем случае одна пара дает увеличение в 1.5 раза (если нечетное - то в 3, оно становится четным, а четное мы делим на 2).
НО: есть еще куча четных чисел, которые при делении дадут тоже четное (4,8...), и картинка выглядит как если статистически последовательность будет не расти, а уменьшаться. Но, дескать, надо считать.
Все, что могла узнать.
Пока, слоны и воздушный шар меня ждут!