Subject: categories: Re: [Fwd: du Sautoy]

From: "Marta Bunge" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:03:55 -0400

Dear Vaughan,

>On the concern you raised a while back about perceptions of crankiness,
>physics runs the gamut from well-publicized spectacular advances to more
>cranks than just about any other scientific discipline; in that respect
>it nicely brackets both CT and chemistry on both sides.  Whether CT has
>accumulated more cranks than chemists is an interesting question, which
>brings to mind the category theory professors from the Mahareshi Yogi's
>TM university in Fairfield buttonholing Bill Lawvere at an AMAST meeting
>in Iowa a while back.  Wish I could have video'd that.

The thread I unintentionally initiated (with mixed results) did not express
any concern about cranks, but about crackpots, whom I view as dangerous only
if not spotted in time.

I think that "cranks" means "eccentric" and, in it itself, it means nothing
to me -- crankiness (if that is the correct adjective) can be: (a) the
result of genuine absent-mindedness and total commitment to their activities
as mathematicians/scientists, or (b) it can also be a pose by an insecure
person who may have nothing else but his crankiness to be distinguished from
the others. Some fields (like Physics) have both. Chemists are too serious
(boring) to tolerate any cranks in their midst. CT? Yes, there are a few,
but in my view, that is the least of our worries. Maybe by "crank" you meant
something else ("crackpots"?), as the incident you recall (first time I hear
about it) seems to indicate. In any case, the last thing anybody wants right
now is to go back to discuss this sensitive issue.

Best,
Marta