4 ms·

It's different. Painters, sculptors, musicians, etc. are all doing something which is ultimately in service of making others happy and fulfilled. A mathematicia

It's different. Painters, sculptors, musicians, etc. are all doing something which is ultimately in service of making others happy and fulfilled. A mathematician or scientist working on something terribly narrow and abstruse is arguably only working on something in service of making themselves happy and fulfilled. Since they are frequently supported by taxpayer money, asking whether what they're working on is worth that expense is totally legitimate. The idea that we can't question the legitimacy or applicability of research because we can't predict how useful that research will be useful in 300 years is dumb. If you want to be taken seriously, it's better to spend some time dwelling on whether you are responsibly fulfilling your obligation to society. For many professors, I think this could easily be addressed by shifting the focus away from research back to where it belongs: teaching.

chongli 3y ago
Since they are frequently supported by taxpayer money, asking whether what they're working on is worth that expense is totally legitimate. That's not the deal they signed up for. They were told that they were going into a purely theoretical field. To turn around and demand applications is called a bait-and-switch. For many professors, I think this could easily be addressed by shifting the focus away from research back to where it belongs: teaching. Same as above. The universities hired these professors on the basis of their research. If they want teaching staff they should hire teachers. The researchers will seek greener pastures elsewhere. As for taxpayers demanding applications? Vote for it! Give the money to DARPA or Johns Hopkins instead of Princeton IAS. But to demand that theoreticians come up with applications on the spot is disingenuous.
- sfpotter 3y ago
  Most people don't have the luxury of tenure. Frankly, most people don't have the luxury of a single career that's well paying throughout their professional life. If funding dried up tomorrow and every number theory professor was out on their ear, that wouldn't be a bait and switch. That would be a uniquely nice and pleasant situation for them coming to an end. It's probably also good to contextualize this historically. The NSF has only existed since 1950. The high degree of funding for pure math let alone the rest of science and engineering could easily be a historical blip. I don't really care what happens to people who are currently employed doing some kind of useless research in academia. Indeed, they got hired for it. I'm simply pointing out that it's totally fair and reasonable for anyone to ask whether it's a good idea to employ people this way. Your earlier comment seems to suggest that you don't think it's OK for people to call this into question. I'm also not particularly worried about it. I'm not sure how much money IAS gets, but my guess is that DARPA and the DOE get a hell of a lot more, which (at least in my opinion ;-) ) is good.
  - 13415 3y ago
    It may be fair but it's definitely not reasonable. Progress in mathematics has foreshadowed practical applicability sometimes by centuries. It's short-sighted to consider applications outside of mathematics in the hiring of mathematicians. In that context, it's worth noting that research mathematicians almost always mean "applications to other fields of mathematics" when they talk about the applicability of their research.
    - sfpotter 3y ago
      I don't agree. You're basically sticking your head in the sand saying that because there have been unanticipated benefits sometimes hundreds of years later, we can't even attempt to decide what research is valuable. If the public is paying for research, it is both fair and reasonable to ask questions about its utility. It's as simple as that.
      - maleldil 3y ago
        > it is both fair and reasonable to ask questions about its utility. What questions, though? How do we know that these questions are well-calibrated for the long-tail cases that end up being valuable centuries later?
  - chongli 3y ago
    It’s totally fine if you want to say “defund pure mathematics!” I was complaining about the bait-and-switch people do when they take someone who was hired to do pure mathematics and then demand applications from them. It’s disingenuous and unfair. Likewise for the superstar researcher who is demanded to teach!
    - sfpotter 3y ago
      I never said we should defund pure math. How many pure mathematicians have gotten tenure in math departments and were subsequently forced to work on "applications"? Do you have any actual examples? How many superstar researchers have been forced to teach against their will? If they're working as a regular, tenure-track professor, then teaching is part of their job. The word doctor comes from the Latin word for teacher!
jltsiren 3y ago
On the other hand, if there are potential commercial applications 10-20 years in the future, it may not be the best idea for the government to fund the research. The topic is already concrete enough for the market, and it could be a waste of tax money to fund it. There is a lot more money in commercial research than publicly funded research. The government should focus on funding topics where the applications are too uncertain or too far in the future to make sense in the market.

chongli 3y ago

Since they are frequently supported by taxpayer money, asking whether what they're working on is worth that expense is totally legitimate. That's not the deal they signed up for. They were told that they were going into a purely theoretical field. To turn around and demand applications is called a bait-and-switch. For many professors, I think this could easily be addressed by shifting the focus away from research back to where it belongs: teaching. Same as above. The universities hired these professors on the basis of their research. If they want teaching staff they should hire teachers. The researchers will seek greener pastures elsewhere. As for taxpayers demanding applications? Vote for it! Give the money to DARPA or Johns Hopkins instead of Princeton IAS. But to demand that theoreticians come up with applications on the spot is disingenuous.

sfpotter 3y ago
Most people don't have the luxury of tenure. Frankly, most people don't have the luxury of a single career that's well paying throughout their professional life. If funding dried up tomorrow and every number theory professor was out on their ear, that wouldn't be a bait and switch. That would be a uniquely nice and pleasant situation for them coming to an end. It's probably also good to contextualize this historically. The NSF has only existed since 1950. The high degree of funding for pure math let alone the rest of science and engineering could easily be a historical blip. I don't really care what happens to people who are currently employed doing some kind of useless research in academia. Indeed, they got hired for it. I'm simply pointing out that it's totally fair and reasonable for anyone to ask whether it's a good idea to employ people this way. Your earlier comment seems to suggest that you don't think it's OK for people to call this into question. I'm also not particularly worried about it. I'm not sure how much money IAS gets, but my guess is that DARPA and the DOE get a hell of a lot more, which (at least in my opinion ;-) ) is good.
- 13415 3y ago
  It may be fair but it's definitely not reasonable. Progress in mathematics has foreshadowed practical applicability sometimes by centuries. It's short-sighted to consider applications outside of mathematics in the hiring of mathematicians. In that context, it's worth noting that research mathematicians almost always mean "applications to other fields of mathematics" when they talk about the applicability of their research.
  - sfpotter 3y ago
    I don't agree. You're basically sticking your head in the sand saying that because there have been unanticipated benefits sometimes hundreds of years later, we can't even attempt to decide what research is valuable. If the public is paying for research, it is both fair and reasonable to ask questions about its utility. It's as simple as that.
    - maleldil 3y ago
      > it is both fair and reasonable to ask questions about its utility. What questions, though? How do we know that these questions are well-calibrated for the long-tail cases that end up being valuable centuries later?
- chongli 3y ago
  It’s totally fine if you want to say “defund pure mathematics!” I was complaining about the bait-and-switch people do when they take someone who was hired to do pure mathematics and then demand applications from them. It’s disingenuous and unfair. Likewise for the superstar researcher who is demanded to teach!
  - sfpotter 3y ago
    I never said we should defund pure math. How many pure mathematicians have gotten tenure in math departments and were subsequently forced to work on "applications"? Do you have any actual examples? How many superstar researchers have been forced to teach against their will? If they're working as a regular, tenure-track professor, then teaching is part of their job. The word doctor comes from the Latin word for teacher!

jltsiren 3y ago

On the other hand, if there are potential commercial applications 10-20 years in the future, it may not be the best idea for the government to fund the research. The topic is already concrete enough for the market, and it could be a waste of tax money to fund it. There is a lot more money in commercial research than publicly funded research. The government should focus on funding topics where the applications are too uncertain or too far in the future to make sense in the market.