6 ms·

Authors routinely cherry pick mathematicians / scientists to perpetuate the 'scientist as weirdo' myth. It is fundamentally dishonest and misleads the general p

by shas3 11y ago

Authors routinely cherry pick mathematicians / scientists to perpetuate the 'scientist as weirdo' myth. It is fundamentally dishonest and misleads the general population. Here, the author chooses, Newton, Nash, and Pearlman. Of that, Nash was diagnozed and treated for a mental illness. That doesn't make him a weirdo at all. There is very likely no causative relationship between passion for math or science and schizophrenia. However, in Newton and Pearlman's case, their singular passion for math / science probably did lead them to be 'weirdos' in other matters. Now, coming to the cherry picking part, the author may well have chosen, Bohr, Einstein, Feynman, Von Neumann, and Witten and come to the exact opposite conclusion that Tao is in the mold of the 'typical' otherwise-normal scientific genius. I think journalists, etc. owe it to the general public, and in particular, to young aspiring scientists, to not perpetuate the myth of the mad scientist.

Zikes 11y ago
This is why I'm so thankful for scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, who have put themselves very much in the public eye as positive representatives of hard science. Similarly, the Mythbusters cast, Bill Nye, and others that are not particularly "notable" scientists (as far as I know) but have done a great deal to make it more accessible to aspiring scientists.
nilkn 11y ago
While I very much agree with the point you're making here, I don't known if Witten (assuming you mean Edward Witten, of string theory fame) and Einstein were the best choices. Einstein basically is THE stereotype of the aloof genius.
- shas3 11y ago
  > Einstein basically is THE stereotype of the aloof genius. 'Aloof' is a subjective term and you are entitled to judge him that way if you want to. I'll assume, 'aloofness' to mean that his thinking was confined to his work and that he lived by himself without much contact with the outside world (a la Pearlman). The reality may have been the exact opposite of this, if you look at his biography. My main source is Walter Isaacson's book. Einstein was a humanist who cared much for the well being of humans. He was a social person by all accounts, forming warm relationships with people from all walks of life. As a youth, he was a keen student of music and philosophy, as evinced by his deep involvement in a study group with a couple of his friends. His personal relationships and tribulations (e.g. divorcing Mileva Maric and marrying his cousin) seem no more deviant than that of many normal people. He was a committed pacifist who campaigned for many issues by using his standing in society as an intellectual. He supported the Zionist cause, decried racism and bigotry, etc. He wrote many essays and expressed very clear and reasonable opinions on a wide range of topics ranging from the American society to nuclear weapons. Compare that to Pearlman declining the Fields Medal and Newton dabbling with alchemy and occultism, which are both representative of fairly weird behavior. To reiterate, 'weird' by societal norms, which individuals may or may not be expected to uphold (unlike, laws).
  - nilkn 11y ago
    It doesn't necessarily mean that his thinking didn't extend beyond physics or that his social contact didn't extend beyond his office. In this case it's more about an indifference towards social conventions, e.g., his famous messy hair which is now the definitive image of the mad scientist. As for Witten, I just looked up a video of him on YouTube. One of the top comments, unfortunately very inflammatory: "If Witten wasn't a mathematician he would have been a serial killer." I supposed this is referring to his unorthodox mannerisms of speech. (The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6b3DjOnv3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6b3DjOnv3I)
  - fraserharris 11y ago
    It's incorrect to label Isaac Newton's (1642 - 1726) alchemy as fairly weird for that era. Modern chemistry was invented during the same period. For example, Robert Boyle's The Sceptical Chymist, which argued that chemicals were composed of atoms, was published in 1661. It was not until the 1720's that the distinction between chemistry and alchemy was thoroughly established. "The terms "chemia" and "alchemia" were used as synonyms in the early modern period, and the differences between alchemy, chemistry and small-scale assaying and metallurgy were not as neat as in the present day. There were important overlaps between practitioners, and trying to classify them into alchemists, chemists and craftsmen is anachronistic." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
  - zpconn 11y ago
    I don't think popular culture is on your side. Even Time Magazine's biography of him describes him as aloof: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993017,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993017,...
nsajko 11y ago
Surely you meant to say 'Perelman', not 'Pearlman'. :)
- shas3 11y ago
  I guess I'm allowed to correct a posteriori, when my spelling evokes the true 'Pearlman'.

by shas3 11y ago

Zikes 11y ago

This is why I'm so thankful for scientists like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan, who have put themselves very much in the public eye as positive representatives of hard science. Similarly, the Mythbusters cast, Bill Nye, and others that are not particularly "notable" scientists (as far as I know) but have done a great deal to make it more accessible to aspiring scientists.

nilkn 11y ago

While I very much agree with the point you're making here, I don't known if Witten (assuming you mean Edward Witten, of string theory fame) and Einstein were the best choices. Einstein basically is THE stereotype of the aloof genius.

shas3 11y ago
> Einstein basically is THE stereotype of the aloof genius. 'Aloof' is a subjective term and you are entitled to judge him that way if you want to. I'll assume, 'aloofness' to mean that his thinking was confined to his work and that he lived by himself without much contact with the outside world (a la Pearlman). The reality may have been the exact opposite of this, if you look at his biography. My main source is Walter Isaacson's book. Einstein was a humanist who cared much for the well being of humans. He was a social person by all accounts, forming warm relationships with people from all walks of life. As a youth, he was a keen student of music and philosophy, as evinced by his deep involvement in a study group with a couple of his friends. His personal relationships and tribulations (e.g. divorcing Mileva Maric and marrying his cousin) seem no more deviant than that of many normal people. He was a committed pacifist who campaigned for many issues by using his standing in society as an intellectual. He supported the Zionist cause, decried racism and bigotry, etc. He wrote many essays and expressed very clear and reasonable opinions on a wide range of topics ranging from the American society to nuclear weapons. Compare that to Pearlman declining the Fields Medal and Newton dabbling with alchemy and occultism, which are both representative of fairly weird behavior. To reiterate, 'weird' by societal norms, which individuals may or may not be expected to uphold (unlike, laws).
- nilkn 11y ago
  It doesn't necessarily mean that his thinking didn't extend beyond physics or that his social contact didn't extend beyond his office. In this case it's more about an indifference towards social conventions, e.g., his famous messy hair which is now the definitive image of the mad scientist. As for Witten, I just looked up a video of him on YouTube. One of the top comments, unfortunately very inflammatory: "If Witten wasn't a mathematician he would have been a serial killer." I supposed this is referring to his unorthodox mannerisms of speech. (The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6b3DjOnv3I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6b3DjOnv3I)
- fraserharris 11y ago
  It's incorrect to label Isaac Newton's (1642 - 1726) alchemy as fairly weird for that era. Modern chemistry was invented during the same period. For example, Robert Boyle's The Sceptical Chymist, which argued that chemicals were composed of atoms, was published in 1661. It was not until the 1720's that the distinction between chemistry and alchemy was thoroughly established. "The terms "chemia" and "alchemia" were used as synonyms in the early modern period, and the differences between alchemy, chemistry and small-scale assaying and metallurgy were not as neat as in the present day. There were important overlaps between practitioners, and trying to classify them into alchemists, chemists and craftsmen is anachronistic." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy
- zpconn 11y ago
  I don't think popular culture is on your side. Even Time Magazine's biography of him describes him as aloof: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993017,00.html http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993017,...

nsajko 11y ago

Surely you meant to say 'Perelman', not 'Pearlman'. :)

shas3 11y ago
I guess I'm allowed to correct a posteriori, when my spelling evokes the true 'Pearlman'.