From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3259 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Marta Bunge" Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: [Fwd: du Sautoy] Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:03:55 -0400 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019189 7951 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:33:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:33:09 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Wed Apr 19 15:08:20 2006 -0300 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:08:20 -0300 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FWH5Y-00008p-6I for categories-list@mta.ca; Wed, 19 Apr 2006 15:07:40 -0300 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 57 Original-Lines: 34 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3259 Archived-At: Dear Vaughan, >On the concern you raised a while back about perceptions of crankiness, >physics runs the gamut from well-publicized spectacular advances to more >cranks than just about any other scientific discipline; in that respect >it nicely brackets both CT and chemistry on both sides. Whether CT has >accumulated more cranks than chemists is an interesting question, which >brings to mind the category theory professors from the Mahareshi Yogi's >TM university in Fairfield buttonholing Bill Lawvere at an AMAST meeting >in Iowa a while back. Wish I could have video'd that. The thread I unintentionally initiated (with mixed results) did not express any concern about cranks, but about crackpots, whom I view as dangerous only if not spotted in time. I think that "cranks" means "eccentric" and, in it itself, it means nothing to me -- crankiness (if that is the correct adjective) can be: (a) the result of genuine absent-mindedness and total commitment to their activities as mathematicians/scientists, or (b) it can also be a pose by an insecure person who may have nothing else but his crankiness to be distinguished from the others. Some fields (like Physics) have both. Chemists are too serious (boring) to tolerate any cranks in their midst. CT? Yes, there are a few, but in my view, that is the least of our worries. Maybe by "crank" you meant something else ("crackpots"?), as the incident you recall (first time I hear about it) seems to indicate. In any case, the last thing anybody wants right now is to go back to discuss this sensitive issue. Best, Marta