4 ms·

It looks like a well written paper with some really cool ideas. Too bad about what happened to it

AlexCoventry 8y ago
There is nothing original or subtle about it, and it was blatantly intended by the Mathematical Intelligencer editor to stir shit up.
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  All of that can be true and Amie Wilkinson's campaign of harassment would still be vile and disgusting behaviour, unworthy of an adult of any kind. She got the paper withdrawn from two different journals, and got Dr Tabachnikov to withdraw his name from the paper. What do you think of Dr Wilkinson's behaviour? Because that’s what the article is about, a campaign of harassment from a woman in a position of power.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    What's relevant here is her unprofessional and harassing behavior. If she were a man, the behavior would be no less vile, nor more so.
  - AlexCoventry 8y ago
    > What do you think of Dr Wilkinson's behaviour? I'd need a more authoritative account of it to form a view.
    - aunasdfuyb 8y ago
      And what authoritative accounts have you used to dismiss the paper and the journal editor? If you believe the editor when they say "I am happy to stir up controversy" why not also believe them when they say "we could make a real contribution here"?
      - AlexCoventry 8y ago
        > what authoritative accounts have you used to dismiss the paper and the journal editor? I read the paper and drew my own conclusion. > why not also believe them when they say "we could make a real contribution here"? That snippet in context: "After the Middlebury fracas, in which none of the protestors had read the book they were protesting, we could make a real contribution here by insisting that all views be heard." That's just fancy language for "stir shit up." There's nothing there about the intellectual merit of Hill's paper, just an unobtainable value that "all views be heard." People should read the paper to make up their own minds, though. I'm with her, there.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        > That's just fancy language for "stir shit up." How so? > I'm with her, there. With who?
  - mathprof 8y ago
    Antithetical to the scientific idea in the extreme. Vile and enraging mob mentality. Horrible human, danger to academia.
UncleMeat 8y ago
Why do you feel qualified to evaluate the paper? This is the risk. It is difficult for laypeople to properly evaluate a paper, so any nonsense when presented well can convince people.

There is nothing original or subtle about it, and it was blatantly intended by the Mathematical Intelligencer editor to stir shit up.

barry-cotter 8y ago
All of that can be true and Amie Wilkinson's campaign of harassment would still be vile and disgusting behaviour, unworthy of an adult of any kind. She got the paper withdrawn from two different journals, and got Dr Tabachnikov to withdraw his name from the paper. What do you think of Dr Wilkinson's behaviour? Because that’s what the article is about, a campaign of harassment from a woman in a position of power.
- mirimir 8y ago
  What's relevant here is her unprofessional and harassing behavior. If she were a man, the behavior would be no less vile, nor more so.
- AlexCoventry 8y ago
  > What do you think of Dr Wilkinson's behaviour? I'd need a more authoritative account of it to form a view.
  - aunasdfuyb 8y ago
    And what authoritative accounts have you used to dismiss the paper and the journal editor? If you believe the editor when they say "I am happy to stir up controversy" why not also believe them when they say "we could make a real contribution here"?
    - AlexCoventry 8y ago
      > what authoritative accounts have you used to dismiss the paper and the journal editor? I read the paper and drew my own conclusion. > why not also believe them when they say "we could make a real contribution here"? That snippet in context: "After the Middlebury fracas, in which none of the protestors had read the book they were protesting, we could make a real contribution here by insisting that all views be heard." That's just fancy language for "stir shit up." There's nothing there about the intellectual merit of Hill's paper, just an unobtainable value that "all views be heard." People should read the paper to make up their own minds, though. I'm with her, there.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        > That's just fancy language for "stir shit up." How so? > I'm with her, there. With who?
- mathprof 8y ago
  Antithetical to the scientific idea in the extreme. Vile and enraging mob mentality. Horrible human, danger to academia.

UncleMeat 8y ago

Why do you feel qualified to evaluate the paper? This is the risk. It is difficult for laypeople to properly evaluate a paper, so any nonsense when presented well can convince people.