Comments on: Announcing the Shtetl-Optimized Math Journalism Award!

By: Ars Mathematica » Blog Archive »

Ars Mathematica » Blog Archive » — Sat, 16 Dec 2006 05:10:29 +0000

[...] I take a few days vacation, and I see (via Scott Aaronson) and things promptly spin out of control. Now people are publicly dividing by zero. I shudder to think what would have happened if I’d been gone for a full week. [...]

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:38:08 +0000

But shouldn’t science stories be checked by someone who actually understands science?

In all fairness, print media has been a tremendous intellectual success lately and our standards have risen substantially. The BBC certainly should have specialist science editors, but this is a fairly recent trend. 40 years ago, an article as inane as this one could easily have been in the New York Times; now it is unlikely.

I think this supports the idea that the difference between a crackpot and a legitimate scientist is not, in any literal sense, the intellectual content of their ideas.

On the contrary, the entire difference is in the intellectual content of their ideas. There are plenty of legitimate scientists who are as narcissistic as any crackpot, but they get away with it because they have something useful to say. On the other side, a fair fraction of crackpots were once competent scientists or students, until they were hit with mental illness, or even in some cases suffered head injuries. It is reassurring to suppose that errors of free will distinguish crackpots from ordinary Joes, but the truth is that any of us can fall into the nightmare.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:20:07 +0000

Students of the distinction between science and pseudoscience will find it instructive to compare Anderson's papers with this legitimate mathematical article which makes very similar points. Needless to say, the context and tone are rather different! I think this supports the idea that the difference between a crackpot and a legitimate scientist is not, in any literal sense, the intellectual content of their ideas. It is, rather, the fact that the legitimate scientist always has an interest in and understanding of mainstream work in the subject (whether or not he or she accepts all of its implications), whereas the crackpot is obsessed with his or her own "originality" to the point of disregarding the existing body of knowledge.

By: rrtucci

rrtucci — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 07:29:08 +0000

Andris, I’m sure Ben Moore was fully aware, when he wrote this piece, that Dr. Anderson’s nullity theory is ridiculous. Look at the picture of the innocent students and read their comments. It’s a brilliant piece of writing. It’s no coincidence that it sounds like it was taken out of The Onion. That was the intent of the author. You can’t fault the guy. The story is true, and it certainly is newsworthy, judging from the response it has received. And Moore did report it fairly accurately.

By: Andris

Andris — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:56:53 +0000

I googled for other writings by Ben Moore and it turns out he is a regional reporter for Berkshire (that part of Britain) who covers everything that happens in Berkshire (music festivals, locals getting scammed for World Cup tickets, etc.). So, he probably lacks any science background which explains the story. (But shouldn’t science stories be checked by someone who actually understands science?)

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 04:51:29 +0000

Note that the web article now has this update:

UPDATED: 11:50 GMT, 8 December 2006
Given the, er, light-hearted mathematical debate Dr Anderson’s theory has generated, we’re delighted to announce he will join us on Tuesday 12 December to answer questions and discuss some of the criticisms levelled against his theory of ‘nullity’.
You will be able to hear in more detail from Dr Anderson on this page later on Tuesday.

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 04:22:04 +0000

Andris has a good point. I would argue that the “problem” of division by zero is as old as human language, conjecturally then 50,000 years old.

By: Andris

Andris — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:16:28 +0000

Non-math/CS friend e-mailed this article to me a few days away and I still have to write back and tell that this is a complete nonsense… aaaagh. I used to have better opinion of BBC science section.

Did anyone figure out why he called it 1200 year old problem instead of, say, 3000 year old one?

By: Kurt

Kurt — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:17:54 +0000

The last time I visited Amazon.com, they presented me with a blurb for the book, Automata Theory with Modern Applications by James A. Anderson (which, for what it's worth, looks like an interesting treatment of that material). It could be just a coincidence, but I can't help thinking that Amazon is picking up on the fact that lots of people have been searching for books by the other James Anderson.

By: rrtucci

rrtucci — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:18:31 +0000

sloopy->sloppy