Re: Publication not so important in mathematics
jstevh_at_msn.com
Date: 03/18/05
- Next message: Jim Spriggs: "Re: Who is Halton Arp?"
- Previous message: r.e.s.: "Re: REPOST: Re: Flies in the ointment."
- In reply to: Michael J Hardy: "Re: Publication not so important in mathematics"
- Next in thread: Michael J Hardy: "Re: Publication not so important in mathematics"
- Reply: Michael J Hardy: "Re: Publication not so important in mathematics"
- Reply: Alan Morgan: "Re: Publication not so important in mathematics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 17 Mar 2005 16:55:14 -0800
Michael J Hardy wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > I wonder if you misunderstand the purpose of publication.
> >
> > The purpose is NOT to use publication as a sort of assurance
> > of correctness, on the theory that published papers have been
> > checked for correctness. That's not even a small part of the
> > purpose.
> >
> > The main purpose is to acquaint readers with the material.
> > A secondary purpose is that math faculty members are judged
> > in part by their publication records.
>
>
> jstevh@msn.com answered:
>
>
> > Which basically is saying that math people believe that it's all
about
> > their needs and interests, and others are just outside of the
process.
>
>
> Huh? Maybe the part about the _secondary_ purpose says that.
>
> But I said the MAIN purpose is to acquaint readers with the material.
>
> You wrote something; it gets published; readers read it.
> Making your work available for others to read is the purpose.
>
> Is that wrong? -- Mike Hardy
Well, like let's talk about Andrew Wiles. Newspapers around the world
published that he proved Fermat's Last Theorem. Encyclopedias say he
proved Fermat's Last Theorem.
Those people who believe he proved Fermat's Last Theorem, probably
believe that the publication process has something to do with that
belief.
Math people might disagree, claiming that all that scrutiny from around
the world is really what it's about, as if he were wrong *someone*
somewhere in the world would speak up and holler about the error.
I say they wouldn't necessarily, as the system is broken.
Now for those of you who are still wondering, the issue here is that
math folks have basically been admitting that they don't necessarily
count publication of a paper in math journal for much, with the poster
I'm replying to claiming that the purpose of publication is not to show
correctness, but to get people acquainted with the material, and to
help academics build up their publications, basically for their
careers.
My point is that for some of you that might be a surprise.
You may have erroneously believed that publication in a math journal
was more respected by math people, but here you're hearing different,
and part of the reason is that I got a paper published in an admittedly
small electronic math journal, and sci.math'ers acted like it was
nothing.
Notice how the bar keeps moving...some people tell you to ignore
someone as a "crank" or "crackpot" and that person gets published--only
to have the journal try to de-publish under Usenet pressure, and a few
months later shut down--and now publication doesn't matter so much, now
they say, but of course, they still want you to ignore that person--me.
I'm the guy who's been negatively labeled by these people, pointing out
the inconsistencies.
>>From what I've seen, they basically just say what suits them.
James Harris
- Next message: Jim Spriggs: "Re: Who is Halton Arp?"
- Previous message: r.e.s.: "Re: REPOST: Re: Flies in the ointment."
- In reply to: Michael J Hardy: "Re: Publication not so important in mathematics"
- Next in thread: Michael J Hardy: "Re: Publication not so important in mathematics"
- Reply: Michael J Hardy: "Re: Publication not so important in mathematics"
- Reply: Alan Morgan: "Re: Publication not so important in mathematics"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
