cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/14096418

A link from @highergeometer@mathstodon.xyz to a 1972 talk by Grothendieck (including a recording; I don’t think I’d ever actually heard his voice before!). It’s interesting how complaints that seem very modern have existed for so long.

I’ve been taking every opportunity to meet scientists, whether in public discussions like this one or in private, and raise these questions. In particular: “Why do we do scientific research?” […] The extraordinary thing is to see how incapable my colleagues are of answering this question. In fact, for most of them, the question is simply so strange, so extraordinary, that they refuse even to contemplate it. In any case, they are extremely reluctant to give any kind of answer.

I’ve come to realize that in fact this satisfaction that scientists are supposed to derive from exercising their cherished profession, is a pleasure… which is not a pleasure for everyone! […] Once you’ve got your job, it’s an imperative to move up the ladder. Once you’ve moved up the ladder, even assuming you’ve made it to the top, it’s an imperative to be considered in the running. You’re expected to produce. Scientific production—like any other kind of production in the ambient civilization—is considered an imperative in itself. The remarkable thing about all this is that in the end, the content of research becomes a second thought. It’s all about producing a certain number of “papers”. In extreme cases, a scientist’s productivity is measured by the number of pages they publish. Under these conditions, for a large number of scientists—certainly for the overwhelming majority, with the real exception of a few who are fortunate enough to have an exceptional gift or to be in a social position and disposition that enables them to free themselves from these feelings of constraint—for most, scientific research is a real constraint that kills the pleasure one can have in carrying it out.

  • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    What the fuck are they talking about? Yes, esoteric math exists, but this text just seems like misanthropy with extra steps. Maybe I don’t get it.

    • vuptm@mander.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      What do you find misanthropic about it? If anything, I feel like he’s embracing the human side of research.

      • 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Just because the world supposedly ends in two generations (spoiler: it didn’t), doesn’t mean specialised knowledge production is utterly useless.

        Also, there’s a whole science about science’s societal position and function.

        • vuptm@mander.xyzOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Fair point, and of course Grothendieck was notoriously extreme on this point (retiring completely from society and asking for his works to be destroyed). For us modern readers, it’s probably more interesting to view this as a glimpse into his mind and the mind of the mathematical community at the time than any kind of guidance.