|
|
|
|
|
|
by tacomonstrous
1021 days ago
|
|
|
Professional pure mathematician here, so I'm curious if you have many examples of this bullshitting you seem to think is omnipresent. In my experience, the field is reasonably efficient at policing this, as in the case of the one example (Mochizuki) you cite. In fact, the reason he got any attention at all is because of his initial record of nonbullshit and quite non-trivial work on the anabelian program. |
|
|
> In fact, the reason he got any attention at all is because of his initial record of nonbullshit
Sure, if he didn't have a reputation to burn he would be dismissed a priori as a crank. No one should have the time to parse and debunk random 500-page manifestos.
My issue with pure math is that, for any given (sub)*field, there are at best a handful of experts, and the probability of that small clique of experts being willing to spend time debunking/criticizing each other is low. Quid-pro-quo back-scratching has far better payout. We have an environment with low accountability, but also low stakes.
Basically, my position is that pure math is chock full of arcane nonsense (bullshit is admittedly a strong term that implies bad faith). But, it also doesn't cause harm, so it's not a big deal. Still, it behooves anyone entering or established in mathematics to understand the reality of the game. You will deal with charlatans and it's acceptable if your own work isn't perfect or even remotely correct or applicable.