From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.science.mathematics.categories/3262 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: James Stasheff Newsgroups: gmane.science.mathematics.categories Subject: Re: [Fwd: du Sautoy] Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 16:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1241019191 7959 80.91.229.2 (29 Apr 2009 15:33:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:33:11 +0000 (UTC) To: categories@mta.ca Original-X-From: rrosebru@mta.ca Thu Apr 20 10:23:23 2006 -0300 Return-path: Envelope-to: categories-list@mta.ca Delivery-date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:23:23 -0300 Original-Received: from Majordom by mailserv.mta.ca with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1FWYzp-0002JF-ST for categories-list@mta.ca; Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:14:57 -0300 Original-Sender: cat-dist@mta.ca Precedence: bulk X-Keywords: X-UID: 60 Original-Lines: 47 Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.science.mathematics.categories:3262 Archived-At: ah, linguistic problems not sure about British/Canadian English but in American cranks ae slightly worse than crackpots and not at all the same as being cranky Jim Stasheff jds@math.upenn.edu Home page: www.math.unc.edu/Faculty/jds On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Marta Bunge wrote: > > 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 > >