Saturday, September 23, 2006

 

JSH: Nothing but ridicule

If you look over the thread where I talk about the Catch-22 of catching members of a major discipline with a massive and very old error, which invalidates too many of them for them to acknowledge it on their own, you will see post after post in reply that is just about ridicule.

Math people have this down to a science.

They do not answer objectively. They do not concern themselves with the facts.

They just ridicule and it works!!!

Yup, many of you will expect—no matter what I remind about when careers are challenged—that if there were anything to what I'm saying SOMEONE would reply agreeing with me.

But they just ridicule, and some of you may have an inkling that maybe there is something to what I'm saying, but despair working it all out, and why bother? So you just wander off, maybe a little more skeptical of what people in math areas might claim, but then again, is it really your problem?

Well, consider just how broad the strokes of these people are by doing a web search on Britney Gallivan, a young woman who gained distinction for figuring out something that may seem trivial—equations on paper folding when she was a teenager.

Now do a web search on Karl Gauss, the great German mathematician who among many, many other things found the gaussian distribution, otherwise known as the bell curve. He also did mathematical research in astronomy, figuring out planetary orbits, worked out a lot of calculus and so many other areas that it is hard to imagine his full impact on our world.

But what did he gain a lot of early fame for?

He figured out how to draw a 17-sided figure using only a straight-edge and compass, as, yup, as a teenager, like Britney Gallivan.

Yes, Ms. Gallivan has had recognition, but the fluffly celebrity-ish kind, and some mention here and there on mainstream math sites but NOTHING like the official recognition she should get, and what impact might that have?

Are we losing a potential Gauss because math society is dominated by people who challenge real discovery, partly maybe to hide serious flaws in their own research?

Allowing mathematicians to behave this way with a young woman should be criminal, and should sicken those of you who care about our intellectual future, and may even wonder why women are less represented in mathematics and the sciences.

If despite all of that modern mathematicians can just mostly ignore a dramatic accomplishment of one young woman, and not have to answer to anyone, then maybe you need to wonder about your role in allowing this sort of thing to go on.

YOU fund more mathematical research than you probably know, if you are in a country like the United States or in the European Union or other areas where there is a lot of public funding for mathematical research.

These people can do what they do because of your tax dollars in those cases, and they can escape accountability by snowing people, using ridicule when challenged—and ignoring important research from outsiders—like Britney Gallivan.

It is a corrupt society that you help create, every day, every moment that you sit back while your tax dollars work—to keep people satisfied and secure in academic jobs when those same people spend their time fighting the discoverers.

Read over my thread about the academic nightmare and look at those replies as a smoking gun.

You may disdain sports, but ask yourself: Would Mario Andretti, a race car driver, spend much time attacking amateur drivers? Would Michael Jordan go out of his way to lament "crackpot" amateur basketball players? Can you see Jack Nickolson, ridiculing golfers who dare to try his sport?

Why then do you think it normal and ok for mathematicians, supposedly well-trained professionals, to use playground tactics, like namecalling and ridicule against people who dabble in mathematics?

And if you don't think it matters—what if Britney Gallivan were your daughter? Or your sister? Or your friend? Or just someone you knew in school?

These people have a contempt for knowledge and they are worse than just being wrong, as my research has shown they are wrong in some key areas of number theory, but they also go out of their way to ignore or attack people who are right.

And they do it with your tax dollars.





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?