Re: Mathematics without apologies - Portrait of a Problematical Vocation

[Dima Pasechnik]

Let me summarize an exchange of messages I just had with Richard.
He is upset by the fact that tax dollars (NSF grants) go to people who have pleasure
working. Is he unable to comprehend how this is at all possible?
I wonder whether throughout his career he ever had any pleasure working...

I just hope that he won't start lobbying for making sure that any tax-funded work is always
accompanied by some truly horrendous pain and suffering inducing activity, such as daily
filling 100-page long forms on a typewriter...

Follow-ups ro sage-flame please...

On Wednesday, 25 November 2015 18:18:51 UTC, rjf wrote:

This is a new book by Michael Harris.

I have not read it, but there is an extensive review in the NY Review of Books. (Dec 3, 2015)

Apparently Harris rejects the argument that justifies pure mathematics

 because of its beauty or truth (or its utility).  He says it is motivated by pleasure.

Why should society pay for a small group of people to exercise

their creative powers on something they enjoy?

"If a government minister asked me that question"  says Harris,

"I could claim that mathematicians, like other academics, are needed in

the universities to teach a specific population of students the skills

needed for the development of a technological society and to keep

a somewhat broader population of students occupied with courses

that serve to crush the dreams of superfluous applicants to 

particularly desirable professions (as freshman calculus used to be a

formal requirement to enter medical school in the United States)"

Maybe he knows someone at the NSF. :)

Best wishes to all for a Happy Thanksgiving  (USA holiday this week).

RJF

[rjf]

I am sure that Dima is not aware of the sarcasm intended in my original posting.

I assume it is a language problem.  To explain:

1.  I was quoting from a review, which quoted from a book.   The sentiment

was from Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris has written a whole book on mathematics.

2.  I am not upset by the use of tax dollars for the pursuit of mathematics,

generally. though some mathematicians are more deserving than others.

3. I think that it is important that people find pleasure in their work.

On the other hand, one cannot be surprised when (US) taxpayers object to

what they see as wasted money.   My own institution, the University

of California, used to be "state supported".  The state dropped its funding to

11% (2011-2012). (may be slightly higher in this next year).  

Outside of academia, taxpayers apparently object to paying for

 the repair of bridges and roads.  (etc. etc.)

How then can one drum up government (or private!) support for studies in 

 pure mathematics when they are portrayed as having no utility except to give pleasure to a

small group of mathematicians?

Again, Happy Thanksgiving, esp. to US readers who are taking this

day off to have pleasure in shopping, but have so little restraint as to

read this posting on the same day.

RJF