wpt@princeton.UUCP (William Thurston) (10/17/86)
There has been a rapid increase in military funding in mathematics recently. Many mathematicians are disturbed by this trend, as unhealthy for the discipline and unhealthy and dangerous for society at large. A group of us is seeking ways to reverse this trend. I've written an article on the subject, which will probably appear in the January Notices of the AMS. There will also be a panel discussion (in which I am involved) at the joint annual meeting of the AMS-MAA in San Antonio. Resolutions will be put forward on the floor concerning SDI (star wars) and military funding in general. I would like to hear from people with information related to military funding. I will be happy to surface-mail a copy of my article to anyone who sends an address; if you are interested in distributing copies locally, I will e-mail the TeX source. Bill Thurston ...!princeton!wpt Mathematics Department Princeton University Fine Hall, Washington Road Princeton, NJ 08544
ashby@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (10/20/86)
/* Written 7:58 pm Oct 16, 1986 by wpt@princeton.UUCP in uiucdcsp:net.math * /* ---------- "military funding in mathematics" ---------- */ There has been a rapid increase in military funding in mathematics recently. Many mathematicians are disturbed by this trend, as unhealthy for the discipline and unhealthy and dangerous for society at large. /* End of text excerpt from uiucdcsp:net.math */ Why, pray tell, is this trend so "unhealthy and dangerous" for math and society. It really irritates me when people make such outrageous and unsubstantiated claims. The least you could do is provide *some* thread of evidence - if such exists. -Steven Ashby Dept. of Computer Science Univ. of Illinois
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (10/23/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Distribution: Keywords: Wow. I am impressed. I thought in the past year that I have seen it all. And done a goodly chunk of it. And now some ignorant dweeb from Illinois flames William Thurston. Of all the people in the world. Wow wow wow. I thought Tim Maroney set an unbeatable low with his endless articles on Heinlein. But you with your single article have Tim and his dogged re- fusal to comprehend the obvious outclassed by miles. I'm impressed. Anyway, on with the show. For sci.misc and talk.politics.misc readers who did not see the originals in net.math, William Thurston had a brief article concerning the stated subject line--"military funding in mathematics". I am directing all followups out of sci.math, for obvious reasons. In article <9600044@uiucdcsp> some dweeb from U Illinois says: >Why, pray tell, is this trend so "unhealthy and dangerous" for math >and society. It really irritates me when people make such outrageous >and unsubstantiated claims. The least you could do is provide *some* >thread of evidence - if such exists. He did. He offered to e-mail anyone a copy of his forthcoming paper on the subject. Did you take him up on the offer? Uh, duhuh. (I have not seen Thurston's article, as I subscribe to the journal it is due to appear in.) This trend--the increased presence of the military in the funding of mathematics (and science, by the by)--is a good way to o drive good people away from the field who object to militarization in the first place What's our dweeb's response to that? Tough toodles, who needs them? It's a good thing the Nazis took that attitude, or THEY would have had an atomic bomb. o make mathematical/scientific funding subservient to random political winds If our next president cancels SDI, do a lot of researchers who switched fields for the bucks suddenly find themselves too late in a bloated field? Why should optics suddenly get flooded with funds, and particle physics have to beg? o introduce spurious and harmful efforts to classify university research The NSA has tried to do this. The SDI folks have suggested the same. o cut off funding/research for those with outspoken opinions This has in fact occurred a few times. The Oppenheimer case stands out particularly. A recent researcher at your own school, if I remember correctly, was threatened with non-access to the Cray there because he signed an anti-SDI pledge. That sort of bullying was SOP for Nazi Germany. But AMERICA? For crying out loud, whose side are you on? o reduce international contacts among scientists Or do you think "their" scientists deserve to be kept uninformed of new purely scientific discoveries? Watch out, because it can boomerang. o introduce uncertainty to the openness of conferences Several conferences have in the past years received last minute orders to keep some talks American/American-friend-only, even though the topics are in themselves unclassified. o increase the bureaucracy for researchers Does this need to be explained in detail, dweebie? I wouldn't be sur- prised, considering how difficult it is for you to see the obvious. It is bad enough dealing with OMB/NSF all on their own. In the end, if the trend continues, the military brass will be happy, shuffling their paperwork funding approvals, but the best minds of our generation will be elsewhere. Surely you heard about the genius at Livermore who designed the X-ray laser quit when he realized that his weapon was not really going to be useful defensively, but that it would make a great offensive weapon. Actually, he himself is keeping mum about his exact reasons, but he has not denied these assertions. So DoD will become bloated with second-rate epigones, and our defense will suffer for it. In the immortal words of the late Edward Morgan Blake, "and then Ozzy here is going to be the smartest man on the cinder." By the way, do you want to know why the Soviets are so scared of SDI? Because it's a great offensive weapon: ASAT & anti-CCCI, in less than a second. Total destruction ala James Bond "Diamonds are Forever" is not needed--just a touch and those delicate objects are useless. It obviously can't work as a defensive weapon, since if the Soviets do want to attack us, they first blow up several nuclear bomb satellites, whose resulting EMP would paralyze SDI instantly, and THEN they launch their ICBMs. With enough shovels, they can protect their silos from the EMP. And it's dirt cheap for them too. By the way, Illinois dweeb, I freelance for a certain DoD related agency now and then. I'm proud of the classified work done there. But if our country turns into another Soviet Union from the inside out, why bother defending it in the first place? Or is that too rhetorical for you. I personally do not object to SOME military funding for the sciences, or some scientific research done for the military. Indeed, it is very easy to point out examples where this has been extremely beneficial in the long run. What is so distressing is the extreme excess that is presently being thrown around, completely distorting all sense of perspective. I really should not have used any name-calling in the above, but I am still so completely astonished/annoyed at the new supreme low in net intelligence that you have set. Congratulations. If you read sci.math and don't know who William Thurston is, I suggest you unsubscribe and save yourself future embarrassment. Woof. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 If my answers sound confusing, I think they are confusing because the questions are confusing, and the situation is confusing and I'm not in a position to clarify it. -Ron Ziegler, former Disneyland employee
larsen@brahms (Michael Larsen) (10/23/86)
In article <9600044@uiucdcsp> ashby@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > >/* Written 7:58 pm Oct 16, 1986 by wpt@princeton.UUCP in uiucdcsp:net.math * >/* ---------- "military funding in mathematics" ---------- */ > There has been a rapid increase in military funding in mathematics > recently. Many mathematicians are disturbed by this trend, > as unhealthy for the discipline and unhealthy and dangerous > for society at large. >/* End of text excerpt from uiucdcsp:net.math */ > >Why, pray tell, is this trend so "unhealthy and dangerous" for math >and society. It really irritates me when people make such outrageous >and unsubstantiated claims. The least you could do is provide *some* >thread of evidence - if such exists. > >-Steven Ashby > Dept. of Computer Science > Univ. of Illinois Well, we can speculate about some of the possible unhealthy and dangerous con- sequences of the trend: 1) Pure mathematics. The purer it is, the less it is apt to be funded by the military. Since most people prefer to work on problems for which they can get funding, this introduces the risk of systematic distortion of the subject over time. 2) Secrecy. The applied problems of greatest interest to the military are precisely those where classification is most likely to become a problem. Science thrives on free exchange of information. Moreover, certain important problems, like program verification and computer security, have industrial as well as military application. It would be nice for the literature on these subjects to remain in the public domain. 3) Control of universities. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. In his day, the specter of a military-industrial-educational complex had not yet appeared. 4) Reduced international ties. Collaborations between scientists from different countries are more frequent in mathematics than in any other subject. Security considerations could destroy this state of affairs. A distinguished mathematician of my acquaintance was once dissuaded by the State Department from attending a conference in Eastern Europe. He had done secret work on cryptography during World War II. 5) Guilt by association. Some people don't like doing research for an organization involved in figuring out ways of killing people, even if their own work has no such application. This would not matter so much except that these people are often the leaders in their fields. Thurston, who posted the first letter on this subject, won a Fields Medal for his work on 3-manifolds. Other world class mathematicians who are on record for their opposition to military funding of research include Tate and Rapaport. The subject cannot afford to lose its best people because they are boycotting the military. 6) Gresham's Law. Bad money drives out good. We should not think of military funding as an addition to existing sources of money, but as a replacement. To expect private philanthropy and NSF support to remain constant in the face of rising military support of science is to live in a dream world.
dko@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (Dan O'Neill) (10/24/86)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: military funding in mathematics Summary: Expires: References: <2055@princeton.UUCP> <9600044@uiucdcsp> <48@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> Sender: Reply-To: dko@calmasd.UUCP (Dan O'Neill) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: GE Calma R&D, San Diego Keywords: ------ Article from Weemba ----- In article <48@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P Wiener) writes: >Wow. I am impressed. I thought in the past year that I have seen it all. >And done a goodly chunk of it. And now some ignorant dweeb from Illinois >flames William Thurston. Of all the people in the world. Wow wow wow. > > In article <9600044@uiucdcsp> some dweeb from U Illinois says: > Why, pray tell, is this trend so "unhealthy and dangerous" for math > and society. It really irritates me when people make such outrageous > and unsubstantiated claims. The least you could do is provide *some* > thread of evidence - if such exists. > >He did. He offered to e-mail anyone a copy of his forthcoming paper >on the subject. Did you take him up on the offer? Uh, duhuh. ------ End of Weemba posting ------ I would hardly call the poster from Illinois ignorant. He precisely pointed out that the original article did not, in itself, justify the opinion presented. ----- Original article ---- From: wpt@princeton.UUCP (William Thurston) Subject: military funding in mathematics Organization: CS Department, Princeton University There has been a rapid increase in military funding in mathematics * recently. Many mathematicians are disturbed by this trend, * as unhealthy for the discipline and unhealthy and dangerous * for society at large. A group of us is seeking ways to reverse this trend. I've written an article on the subject, which will probably appear in the January Notices of the AMS. There will also be a panel discussion (in which I am involved) at the joint meeting of the AMS-MAA in San Antonio. Resolutions will be put forward on the floor concerning SDI (star wars) and military in general. I would like to hear from people with information related to military funding. I will be happy to surface-mail a copy of my article to anyone who sends an address; if you are interested in distributing copies locally, I will e-mail the TeX source. ------ End of original article --- Yes, Mr. Thurston will send a copy of his paper to interested parties, but does the rest of the posting justify his opinion? The paper Mr. Thurston has written most likely contains the nessesary justifications, but his usenet posting most certainly does not. Don't read this as a yea or nay vote on the subject, I just don't see why Mr. Wiener (weemba@brahms) attempts to flay each and every poster with whom he disagrees. Post your opinions, I'll read them, but don't post articles meant to demean the person on the other end. This serves no useful purpose and simply detracts from the discussion at hand. -- Dan O'Neill uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!dko (619) 587-3112 arpa: "calmasd!dko"@ucsd.arpa "Say, isn't that one of those new two-way diodes?" - db
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (10/24/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Distribution: Keywords: In article <2097@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> dko@calmasd.UUCP (Dan O'Neill) posts the same article three times--learn how to cross-post please!: >I would hardly call the poster from Illinois ignorant. He precisely >pointed out that the original article did not, in itself, justify the >opinion presented. Nonsense. The Illinois dweeb said he was *really irritated* by "outrageous and unsubstantiated claims". Asking that the *least* that could be done is that a thread of evidence be provided, with the remark "if such exists", is practically a direct insult to William Thurston's intelligence. > I just don't see why Mr. >Wiener (weemba@brahms) attempts to flay each and every poster with whom he >disagrees. Such is balderdash. I only flame the bigoted, the rude, and the liars. If you don't like it, unsubscribe. I am directing followups to talk.politics.misc, the only group where flaming is not out of the way. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
jml@cs.strath.ac.uk (Joseph McLean) (10/27/86)
With all this argument for and against military funding of mathematics,or
for and against some military funding,I would like to point out the
following.Before this,bear in mind that being from Britain,the SDI
doesn't particularly affect me,and that I am not expressing my own
opinions in this article.
During the French revolution,arguably the six greatest mathematicians
of the period worked for the new France either in technical capacity or
for teaching.The six are Lagrange,Legendre,Laplace,Monge,Condorcet and
Carnot.I could even throw in Fourier and Poisson.Either directly or
indirectly these mathematicians,whether politically motivated or not,
either taught in military academies,went on campaigns as technical
advisors,or even took up influential political positions.
Without these mathematicians,mathematics in general would probably be
several decades behind its present position.
Thus there are some things to point out:-
1)Military crises directly encourage mathematics.
2)Mathematics doesn't win wars.
3)Mathematicians come in every conceivable political attitude.
4)There's no accounting for taste.
I hope this is borne in mind in future arguments.
---jml,the historical mathematician.
"Anti-right,anti-left,anticipate the love of creation."
Being anti-war and non-pacifist at the same time.leimkuhl@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (10/27/86)
I am rather shocked by the arrogance of "weemba"'s response. I have spent a great deal of time studying (and working against) SDI funding. But I think his response was generally offensive to people from Illinois (or at the University of Illinois in particular). Before you name us "ignorant dweebs" and imply that students here do not have the ethical maturity to have opinions on the subject, perhaps you might take a few minutes to recall that it was the greatest American scientists of the 40's who brought us the terror that SDI is supposed to protect us against. Obviously, being from Berkeley (or even being the Fields medalist) does not necessarily imply a better appeciation of the philosophy of science. -Ben Leimkuhler
ashby@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu (10/27/86)
Please see sci.misc and/or talk.politics.misc for my response to Weemba's recent criticism of me.
weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener) (10/29/86)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: In article <9600045@uiucdcsp> leimkuhl@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > But I think his response was generally offensive to people from >Illinois (or at the University of Illinois in particular). You must be kidding. You have to be some sort of dweeb yourself to believe that calling one person from UI a dweeb is calling everyone there a dweeb. Or is this some meaning of dweeb that I am not familiar with? ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (11/02/86)
>Mathematics doesn't win wars.
False.