Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by elfexec 2370 days ago
Academia was always broken. Despite the current undeserved reputation as academia being open to debate and new ideas, the opposite has always been true. Academia has its sordid history of dogmaticism and hero-worshipping. And progress in knowledge usually advanced in spite of academia rather than because of it.

Go read about the battles between Newton and Hooke or even Newton and Leibniz.

The doctor who first suggested washing hand to cut down on infections in the 1800s was ridiculed and mocked by surgeons.

Scientists who brought up germ theory were mocked as quacks by doctors and scientists who rigidly adhered to the miasma theory as gospel.

Of course white supremacy was accepted "scientific fact" for a very long time by academia and anyone who thought otherwise would have been viewed similarly to a flat earther today. You could argue that white supremacy would still be "scientific fact" were it not for ww2.

My personal favorite is Georg Cantor who was mercilessly attacked by his fellow academics within math and even without for his theories on infinite numbers.

"The objections to Cantor's work were occasionally fierce: Leopold Kronecker's public opposition and personal attacks included describing Cantor as a "scientific charlatan", a "renegade" and a "corrupter of youth".[8] Kronecker objected to Cantor's proofs that the algebraic numbers are countable, and that the transcendental numbers are uncountable, results now included in a standard mathematics curriculum. Writing decades after Cantor's death, Wittgenstein lamented that mathematics is "ridden through and through with the pernicious idioms of set theory", which he dismissed as "utter nonsense" that is "laughable" and "wrong".[9][context needed] Cantor's recurring bouts of depression from 1884 to the end of his life have been blamed on the hostile attitude of many of his contemporaries,[10] though some have explained these episodes as probable manifestations of a bipolar disorder"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Cantor

"charlatan", "renegade", "corrupter of youth". Isn't it interesting how academics attack each other like religious people attack each other? The odd thing about some of the attacks on Cantor is that it came after his death and after he had PROVEN his countable and uncountable infinites.

The history of academia is as nasty and vicious as any other institution. And its gatekeepers and heroes as petty and pathetic as any you'd find anywhere else.

4 comments

Let's not forget Ludwig Boltzmann, who derived the thermodynamic properties of gases assuming the existence of atoms:

' In 1904 at a physics conference in St. Louis most physicists seemed to reject atoms and he was not even invited to the physics section. Rather, he was stuck in a section called "applied mathematics" '

Things did not end well for Boltzmann [1].

And my favourite, John Bell, who was the first to understand the consequences of entanglement, in 1964. These ideas were met with derision by the mainstream for decades (citation needed.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Boltzmann

Funny how words meanings change in time. The original Plato's Academia vs today's academia. Socrates was a "corrupter of youth" too. The word "supremacy", as in "quantum supremacy" is much discussed now but why would anybody risk his career to complain about the alliance of ACM with Elsevier against Open Access?
> My personal favorite is Georg Cantor who was mercilessly attacked by his fellow academics within math and even without for his theories on infinite numbers.

I do not think this is comparable to other examples. Math is not science in the sense that its correctness is not determined by the outside reality, only by its internal consistency.

Different (finite vs infinite) axiomatizations leads to different classes of math structures, so it is only a matter of custom which structures are worthy of studying and how these 'leading' structures are defined.

And there is a point that if one studies countable structures (e.g. arithmetics or graph theory) then using arguments from infinite set theory (e.g. ZFC) is overkill. We do not know whether such theory is consistent and if it is not, then most likely much simpler theories covering the countable structures would still be consistent.

> so it is only a matter of custom which structures are worthy of studying

Or in other words, which proof steps are considered valid.

> Isn't it interesting how academics attack each other like religious people attack each other?

Maybe it is if you don't know that academies started as religious institutions, but knowing the history I would rate it as an amusing anecdote.