[FOM] Fwd: The Ideal Mathematician

[Sam Sanders]

Walt Read stated that:  

> But to say that, academically, most of us are in our own
> little world is hardly libelous.

One could go even further and state that all humans live in their own little world (some worlds being bigger than others),
but that is neither what Joe Shipman meant, and not the point of the essay either (I believe).  

Yes, cutting-edge research is highly specialized and its results hard to understand to all but a few specialists.  
However, this does not mean that one cannot talk to people outside of one’s field X and try to get the general idea of
“what do people in X do and what is X all about” across.  Lots of people (try to) do the latter, and they should.  
The exact subtleties and technical details are much harder (if not impossible) to communicate to non-specialists, of course.  

The essay intends to criticize those who do not even bother to “look over the garden fence of X”.  
Furthermore, Math has the added problem that while physics is about modeling and describing reality, i.e. “something real” for most humans, the world of
mathematics has a less objective existence for most humans (excluding the platonists).  I would say the essay also  takes a stab at platonism too, perhaps even
insinuating that platonism is a cause of the attitude “Not bothering to look over the garden fence of X”.  

In that sense, I would also call it libelous (and other less-suitable-for-FOM words).  

Best,

Sam

On 10 Jan 2014, at 23:52, Walt Read <walt.read at gmail.com> wrote:

> Libelous? Hardly. It sounds like a description of almost any
> specialty. In the last hundred years the growth of science and
> technology has pushed the current research boundaries past the point
> that the average educated person can participate. Do you think most
> physicists could explain to people outside the field why the Unruh
> temperature is important? Most specialties in medicine - cardiology,
> radiology, surgery - involve subtleties that the typical patient won't
> be able o understand - often even when the patient is also a
> physician. Opera singers, plumbers and chefs deal with issues that
> would be esoteric to most of their consumers. Given the surge of
> hostility to rationality and science in culture today, we should
> treasure those people who can successfully connect with the larger
> public. But to say that, academically, most of us are in our own
> little world is hardly libelous.
> 
> -Walt
> 
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Joseph Shipman <joeshipman at aol.com> wrote:
>> I didn't need to read the second half to get the point. It is an accurate summary of a certain type of bad mathematician, but it is libelous to regard this description as in any way representative of the norm.
>> 
>> -- JS
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Jan 9, 2014, at 4:32 PM, Charlie <silver_1 at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    I would be very interested in FOMers' reactions to a short essay by Phillip J. David and Reuben Hersh entitled "The Ideal Mathematician".   I have been able to find the article in its entirety in a .pdf file accessible on the web, but pdfs are not permissible in this forum.  Below is a URL, which contains about half the essay, which in its entirety is 8 pages long, taken from their book _The Mathematical Experience_.)  To read the rest of the article, look for a pdf of it.
>>> 
>>> http://forum.wbfree.net/forums/showthread.php?t=29870
>>> 
>>>    Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Charlie Silver
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FOM mailing list
>>> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
>>> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
>> _______________________________________________
>> FOM mailing list
>> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
>> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
> _______________________________________________
> FOM mailing list
> FOM at cs.nyu.edu
> http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom