cel@romeo.cs.duke.edu (Christopher Emery Lane) (08/11/90)
In article <1990Aug6.004419.8001@vlsi.waterloo.edu> arun@vlsi.waterloo.edu (Arun Achyuthan) writes: >>but while I understand the arguments I don't agree with them. Any effort >>of concentration (be it knitting or be it posting a well thought out article >>on this net) requires an ability to remove everything except what is in front of >>you from your mind. This is not inherently male or female. My mother, when she >>sings Carnatic Music is oblivious to her surroundings. And she remembers the >>years of hard work involved in acquiring the skill. I am talking about the >>mechanics and the craftsmanship she had to learn, just to do well, and not the >>artistry. She would expect the same concentration from me when I did >>mathematics (she was a Physics teacher). I have seen similar things in my >>Grandmother. >I think you are confusing concentration with divergent knowledge. I agree >with what you say about requiring concentration, but my point was that >it is not all justified when somebody says "I don't care what will be the >widespread impact of my research or discovery, all I am interested in is >the beauty behind it and the satisfaction that I derive in the execution". This is fascinating to me; I am currently applying for grad school in pure math. My feelings towards pure math certainly encompass the feeling that I do it with no thought of the "widespread impact of my research or discovery." This I believe is essential to doing any skill. For one thing, most (or maybe only some) pure math has no predictable impact will ever be useful. Of course, trying to only do research that has a discernably useful effect will in the long run not increase the amount of useful skills and techniques we know. At the same time, mathematicians must be aware of who is using what they develop, and, I think, shun destructive owners. The pure mathematician, like anyone, should own the whole of what they produce; this means the mathematician has a stake in whether it is used by the NSA for destabilizing the third world, or by an environmental research group to understand biological stability; the mathematician also has a stake in whether or not they are teaching in a university that is primarily a production facility for technically skilled people that will do what they are called to do or a place where people who can be active agents in creating a society that works in human terms. However, despite my dislike for splitting off things, the math and the broader questions seem to be distinct. It's really silly to try to make mathematics have a socially useful content, and it's sad for a mathematician to deny themself completely the pleasure of doing math for the sake of the struggle. I have long fantasized about a journal called the Feminist Journal of Mathematics, which would have a 1/2 and 1/2 format; half math, and half articles relating to the difficulties of gender, hierarchy, and social responsibility in the world of math academics. Tips on how to fight gender discrimination, tales of setting up on-site childcare for faculty and staff, problems encountered in trying to mesh fatherhood and research, where to get non-defense grants, etc., in between articles on large cardinals, PDE's, p-adic fields, the differences between algebraic and differentiable manifolds, whatever. What exactly did you mean by "divergent knowledge"? In my opinion, the problem is mathematicians that lack the confidence or courage to consider themselves anything other than mathematicians. One may be a mathematician, but that doesn't mean one is not a human, a creative part of society, with the opportunities and responsibilities that entails. Chris send non-net appropriate messages to cel@cs.duke.edu