| > "useless" pure math often turns out to have scientific applications. I don't think that's true for a reasonable interpretation of "often". I'm pretty sure the vast majority of pure math research is and remains useless. > Also, you're misusing the term "self-referential". You seem to mean that it's a closed system ... but it's not, since mathematicians interact with it. Then which better term do you propose? The point was that its subject matter lies within itself, which is very different from science and philosophy. > so your argument ends up being circular --- useless math is useless. It's not circular: You can replace "pure" with "useless" and the argument stays the same. I contrasted useless math with useless science and useless philosophy for a reason. > Finally: so what? I'll just point out that "so what" is not a counterargument. If you agree with my point but find it unimportant: that's fine with me. > Solving Erdős problems seems at least as justifiable as finding the trillionth digit of pi or writing an Apple ][ emulator in Brainfuck or playing those video games that you demonize by calling them addictive. The difference between achieving a new record for a video game, and pure math research, is that nobody is confused about what the former is: It's a game, or a sport. Speed runners or chess champions or pi digit calculators don't confuse themselves with noble researchers advancing the frontier of human knowledge. |