User talk:Gregbard/Mathematosis

Suggest moving this to Greg's personal space; I don't think there is anyone else who has yet expressed agreement with the essay. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of proposing it for deletion with an {{mfd}} but was leaving it till the template referring to it was deleted which will pretty much establish the case. Dmcq (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Why exactly does anyone find it necessary to delete an essay at all? I have my opinion, you may disagree. Is there something so offensive here that it just can't stand, even as an essay? What exactly would anyone choose to feel such a degree of offense? Is there some kind of threat going on here at all? A proposal to delete sure would be consistent with the veracity of the central message of the essay. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be deleted as WP:POINT. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Politeness Police for a recent example of this sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You see the problem is that it isn't a disruptive application of a policy at all. Point is not relevant to the issue here at all. Just the mere presence of the essay does not consist in any disruption. What is clear that it annoys, but what is not clear whether or not someone annoyed with it has to live with it. Being annoyed is their own choice, so yes... they do have to live with it. The issue that it addresses is real. There is a habit among mathematicians to ramp up the drama, accusing certain editors of just NOT KNOWING ANYTHING about what they are doing. It's widespread, childish, and it deserves to be noted. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments would carry no more weight than for the essay I indicated which was deleted. From WP:POLICY "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to outright contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace." It violates widespread consensus due to WP:POINT as evidenced by the deletes in progress. Wikipedia is not a web space provider or publisher of your personal thoughts. Plus sticking references to it into policies is not just being present. If you want to keep it move it to your userspace, I believe it would be left alone there though sometimes even userspace essays are deleted on these grounds. Dmcq (talk) 09:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Dmcq, but the creation in multiple namespaces could be a reasonable attempt to determine the correct placement, rather than being WP:POINTy. As for certain editors of NOT KNOWING ANYTHING about what they are doing, that part seems to be accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I am talking about. Black and white thinking. No ability to deal with nuance. It's just all or nothing. It isn't conducive to civil discussion. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a joke...

The personal essay must be a joke. Clearly, there are no citations, no references, no external support -- how is anyone going to believe these claims? The essay also carries a condescending attitude toward mathematicians and does not distinguish professional mathematicians and amateur mathematicians, both of which use mathematical formulae and equations, laws and theorems, conjectures and postulates, examples and counterexamples, to analyze quantity, space, structure, and change. It is agreeable that mathematics expresses certainty on certainty and uncertainty, but this is nothing to be ashamed of, as the article seems to suggest. This so-called "pride" in mathematics is presumably based on the nature of mathematics in general. Furthermore, you don't need to be a professional mathematician to understand calculus or differential equations. Just learn it, and you'll set. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC

It's not a joke. Your statement here is consistent with the claims of the essay, SuperSuperSmarty . Greg Bard (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Google search engine to do a quick confirmation on the quote:

The term is a neologism identified by the philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine which refers to excessive pride for the field of mathematics. [1] The root of this pride is the fact, and wide spread acknowledgment of the fact that mathematics is the most exact of all the sciences. One manifestation of mathematosis is the lack of rigorous detail in construction and formulation of proofs, as well as in written communication on talk pages in which the editor presumes that everyone knows what is being talked about. This results in the rescission of expository rhetoric. Another manifestation of mathematosis is a disdain for formalism. Mathematosis may result in a stubborn adherence to jargon and notation common to in-groups among mathematicians, even at the expense of simplicity and elegance. This may include the inclusion of gratuitous and unnecessary terms for the sake of conformity which may otherwise be left out.

OK, maybe you do have some back-up evidence to support your point. It is basically trying to say that mathematics can be complicated. However, I think the claim ignores that mathematics is also about simplicity, and that mathematicians, professional and amateurs alike, simplify yet convey the most accurate information. See brevity. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have completely missed the point. It's about the philosophy and attitudes of mathematicians, not the complexity of some mathematical object. The point is that mathematicians can be seriously arrogant and incurable assholes. Greg Bard (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that SuperSuperSmarty was a puppet created to make a joke. 271828182 (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Economistosis

There is a similar affliction among neo-classical economists (economistosis in the nomenclature). Alfy32 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]