FOM: Defense of Mayberry's charge of unprofessional polemics

[Robert Tragesser]

        I want to support Mayberry's
complaints about Friedman's polemics.--
And I'm not so sure HF's opinions are
presented (as HF says) as "humble
opinions".
        To take one example from another
context: Friedman rebuked McLarty. . .to the 
effect that since Grothendieck stayed within
the frame of set-theoretical methods,
McLarty ought to,  also.
        Since Friedman is indeed a professional
he would not have made such a remark unless he
saw with piercing clarity that and how exactly in 
this case,  topos-theoretic methods offer no
worthwhile insight/understanding.  Friedman
must have it within his immediate power to
say,  Look,  here is the topos theoretic 
construction,  here is the set construction,
on the one hand here are the virtues of what
the former have to offer by way of
insightful understanding,  and,  on the other
hand,  here are what the set-construction has
to offer by way of insightful understanding.
        If Simpson could put the screws on
McLarty to get down to cases,  shouldn't he
put the screws on HF to do the same?

rt