As a former mathematician, I can understand what he writes. Mathematically, it is basically a lot of ranting and raving over nothing. Set theory provides a foundation for mathematics. It is not the only foundation. Category theory is another. Pedagogically, his argument makes more sense. I think he is mostly arguing against using set theory in the teaching of math. True most mathematicians do not use set theory and mathematicians studied math for years without the concept of a set. Set theory is more used as a language and for that reason it is taught. In this sense, set theory is like turing machines and turing equivalence. Important concept, yes. Good to know, yes. Used by most in comp sci, no. Necessary, no.

I'm glad I read that article. Do any mathematicians here (or at least math majors) have any comment on it? I don't know much pure mathematics, myself, but the author makes some very interesting assertions and claims which have piqued my interest.