Re: Dangerous knowledge

[Robert Seely <rags@math.mcgill.ca>]

Actually, I think Dana understates the problem with this program.  It
suffers from what I call the "PBS documentary syndrome" (equally
afflicting the BBC, however, so the name is not universal enough!):
it repeatedly tells you what's cool about its topic, without ever
actually telling you what the topic really is.  Afraid to scare
viewers away with the actual details of the topic, it just talks about
it in terms so general (and often over-inflated or sensationalized,
which was Dana's point) they are really quite meaningless.

Though not perfect by any means, I think a recent 4-part series "The
Story of Maths" narrated by Marcus du Sautoy does better - he even
tries to sketch some proofs.  (The episode closest to "Dangerous
Knowledge" would be the fourth.)  Even better is an old series (but
still to be found on Youtube!) called Mathematical Mystery Tour.

But generally, science documentaries are disappointing, and maths ones
even more so.  It's a pity, because you actually can get an audience
of non-specialists to understand (at least a little) what mathematical
results etc are about.  I teach an honours Liberal Arts maths & logic
class, and a surprisingly large percentage can actually appreciate the
beauty of (eg) natural deduction proofs in predicate logic, basic
theory of natural numbers (infinitude of primes, irrationality of
primes, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic, ... ), simple
axiomatics (we do Boolean algebras as an example), and even Godel's
theorems, and the "Lambek calculus" for linguistics (even a bit of
category theory there!).  This isn't a mickey mouse course (sample
class tests available on request!), and it's a challenge to many of
the students.  The point is: they are willing to make the effort if
they know you're not being condescending, and that you are giving them
"the real thing", not some pablum that only looks good in the box.

I wish more TV documentary producers took that attitude - they might
get a slightly smaller audience, but their audience will appreciate
their efforts more.

-= rags =-


On Mon, 30 Nov 2009, Dana Scott wrote:

> I think the premise of the work is silly.  I knew Gödel personally
> and many people who knew him.  My long-time friend Robin Gandy was
> a close friend and associate of Turing.  I think it is true that
> Godel was very frustrated by not being able to settle the status of
> the Continuum Hypothesis, but to say that his mathematics drove him
> mad is terrible pop psychology.  In the case of Turing, the matter
> is even less clear.  For him, persecution may have been a big factor
> in his suicide -- which also could have been an accident.  Gödel
> did suffer from paranoia, and Cantor was oppressed by religious
> questions, which he did relate to his theories of the infinite.
> But to conclude cause and effect seems pretty hard to prove.
> And what is the point?
>

[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]