Editing H. L. Mencken (section)

===Science and mathematics===
Mencken defended the evolutionary views of [[Charles Darwin]] but spoke unfavorably of many prominent physicists and had little regard for pure mathematics. Regarding [[theoretical physics]], he said to longtime editor [[Charles Angoff]], "Imagine measuring infinity! That's a laugh."<ref name="Angoff, Charles 1961 pp. 141">Angoff, Charles. ''H. L. Mencken: A Portrait from Memory''. A. S. Barnes (New York, 1961), p. 141</ref> Elsewhere, he dismissed higher mathematics and [[probability theory]] as "nonsense", after he read Angoff's article for [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] in the ''American Mercury'': "So you believe in that garbage, too—theories of knowledge, infinity, laws of probability. I can make no sense of it, and I don't believe you can either, and I don't think your god Peirce knew what he was talking about."<ref>Angoff, Charles. ''H. L. Mencken: A Portrait from Memory''. A. S. Barnes (New York, 1961), p. 194</ref>

Mencken repeatedly identified mathematics with metaphysics and theology. According to Mencken, mathematics is necessarily infected with metaphysics. Mathematicians tend to engage in metaphysical speculation. In a review of [[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''The Aims of Education,'' Mencken remarked that, although he agreed with Whitehead's thesis and admired his writing style, "Now and then he falls into mathematical jargon and pollutes his discourse with equations", and "[T]here are moments when he seems to be following some of his mathematical colleagues into the gaudy metaphysics which now entertains them".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mencken |first=HL |date=June 1929 |title=What Is It All About? |journal=[[The American Mercury]] |volume=XVII |pages=251–252 |number=66}}</ref> For Mencken, theology was characterized by it using correct reasoning from false premises. Mencken uses the term "theology" more generally to refer to the use of logic in science or any field of knowledge. In a review of [[Arthur Eddington]]'s ''The Nature of the Physical World'' and [[Joseph Needham]]'s ''[[Man a Machine]]'', Mencken ridiculed the use of reasoning to establish any fact in science.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mencken |first=HL |date=April 1929 |title=The Riddle of the Universe |journal=[[The American Mercury]] |volume=XVI |pages=509–510 |number=64}}</ref>

Mencken wrote a review of Sir [[James Jeans]]'s book, ''The Mysterious Universe'', in which Mencken wrote that mathematics is not necessary for physics. Instead of mathematical "speculation" (such as [[Quantum mechanics|quantum theory]]), Mencken believed physicists should directly look at individual facts in the laboratory, as do chemists.<ref name="Mencken 252–54">{{Cite journal |last=Mencken |first=HL |date=February 1931 |title=The Eternal Conundrum |journal=[[The American Mercury]] |volume=XXII |pages=252–254 |number=86}}</ref>

In the same article, which he re-printed in the ''Mencken Chrestomathy,'' Mencken primarily contrasts what real scientists do, which is to simply directly look at the existence of "shapes and forces" confronting them instead of (such as in statistics) attempting to speculate and use mathematical models. Physicists and especially astronomers are consequently not real scientists, because when looking at shapes or forces, they do not simply "patiently wait for further light", but resort to mathematical theory. There is no need for statistics in scientific physics, since one should simply look at the facts while statistics attempts to construct mathematical models. On the other hand, the really competent physicists do not bother with the "theology" or reasoning of mathematical theories (such as in quantum mechanics).<ref name="Mencken 252–54" />

Mencken ridiculed [[Albert Einstein]]'s theory of [[general relativity]], believing that "in the long run his curved space may be classed with the psychosemantic bumps of [[Franz Joseph Gall|Gall]] and [[Johann Spurzheim|Spurzheim]]".<ref>Mencken, HL. ''Minority Report, H. L. Mencken's Notebooks''. Alfred A. Knopf (New York, 1956), pp. 273–274</ref>{{Conservatism US|intellectuals}}