Mathematicians duped by a fake lecture

mbkennel
What evidence is there that they were "duped"? Nobody said "oh yes this (junk) is brilliant!". Nobody published a paper or gave a good review. They sat politely and didn't understand a word which is what you expect to happen. Also, most mathemetician's personalities are not aggressive, so even if they thought it was BS they wouldn't bother to say so publicly.

Research mathematics is sufficiently difficult that non-experts in a particular field, even top mathematicians, might not be able to distinguish good from bad. And the professionals working in that know it.

edit on 26-9-2013 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

100% this.

Maths lectures aren't like normal lectures. The lecturer spends pretty much all the time deriving equations while students hurriedly scribble down everything he's writing/saying before the lecture is over, then you spend the next week trying to get your head 'round it all.

You can get a hint of BS, but like you say most maths types are pretty meek objections would generally be questions like 'I don't follow what you did here...' rather than 'professor, you're using incredibly obscure and complicated calculations here, I don't understand them all immediately, therefore you're talking complete BS'.

simus
Another problem with your logic is this. If almost all of the lecture was correct, as you insist, then why

Nobody had got anything out of this lecture save Rene de Possel

?

1+1=2
1+2=3
1+3=4
1+4=5
1+5=6
1+6=7
1+7=8
1+9=10
purple monkey dishwasher

Most of my post is correct; how much did you get out of it?

bastion
You can get a hint of BS, but like you say most maths types are pretty meek objections would generally be questions like 'I don't follow what you did here...' rather than 'professor, you're using incredibly obscure and complicated calculations here, I don't understand them all immediately, therefore you're talking complete BS'.

I dunno, I've known plenty of scientists who'd be happy to interrupt a talk to explain why the speaker is an idiot . Usually, though, they just read a paper they brought with them or work on something they brought with them. Not because they're "meek", they just have better things to do.

Also, when you have big meetings with lots of people, often the fraction of terrible talks is pretty high, just because you have lots of young people who don't know any better giving talks (well, and older people who should know better...). But if we objected to every nonsense or poorly done talk at these kind of things, we'd be spending all our time objecting . So we tend to not.

simus
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Here is the complete description of the lecture

a talk which, taking off from a modicum of classical function theory, rose by imperceptible degrees to the most extravagant heights, ending with a "Bourbaki's theorem"

So only the very beginning was correct, afterward nonsense gradually increased. Your statement that only the end of the lecture was nonsensical is obviously wrong.

Another problem with your logic is this. If almost all of the lecture was correct, as you insist, then why

Nobody had got anything out of this lecture save Rene de Possel

?

It started off 100% math, and gradually less and less was real math. There is nothing that contradicts the assertion it was not mostly real math, and logically I can assume that like most good lies it was backed up by mostly truth. This is backed up by the fact he started off with 100% real math. Nothing you posted proves it was not mostly real math.
No one got anything out of it because the real math that was used they already understood. It was when he went off radar with the lies (which would be the "new information") that everyone became lost. This really isn't hard to figure out. Now how about you deal with the rest of my comments.

The speaker was Raoul Husson, a more advanced student.

It was a student, not a professor, or a mathematician, who was duped.

The one person duped only understood some of the lecture (which we proved started off as actual math). And he was a student at the time.

reply to post by Moduli


This is highly ironic since all the people criticising academia in this thread... didn't actually read the source itself. This means that many of those who criticize academia are hypocrites and don't actually read their own sources, and are duped into believing anything as long as it doesn't come from those who they are biased against.

Moduli
1+1=2
1+2=3
1+3=4
1+4=5
1+5=6
1+6=7
1+7=8
1+9=10
purple monkey dishwasher

Most of my post is correct; how much did you get out of it?

edit on 28-9-2013 by Moduli because: (no reason given)

This example vividly demonstrates your fertile mathematical imagination. Now here is the quote

Nobody had got anything out of this lecture save Rene de Possel who believed he had understood some ideas

So what do you say about a person who finds ideas in your masterpiece?

reply to post by Moduli


To add to this, the first documents a speaker who is from a different discipline talking to non-experts (mathematician to psychologists.) Psychologists can't tell if a math theory is good or not, any more than an astronomer can tell if a Bayesian network theory is sound or sheer garbage.

In the second case, it was to a class. In class, we are expected to be respectful to a lecturer and to not stand up and shout "nonsense" or yawn or be rude.

Let them present it to a REAL academic conference and a REAL set of experts on the subject. If they'd presented the "Math for psychologists" to a math conference, the pseudo-expert would have been raked over the coals. I've heard of this happening (this is why people from the so-called fringe sciences do not present at formal conferences. When they try, they get a lot of questions they can't answer.)

simus
This example vividly demonstrates your fertile mathematical imagination. Now here is the quote

Nobody had got anything out of this lecture save Rene de Possel who believed he had understood some ideas

So what do you say about a person who finds ideas in your masterpiece?

The question has to be "what ideas did de Poussel find?"

Formulating a good research question often requires you to look at data in a different way (such as looking at pro wrestling matchups and matches from the veiwpoint of "what kind of story do the promoters want to tell?") So de Poussel might have heard something that sparked a question in his own mind that suggested a different approach to a problem.

Until you know what avenue de Poussel thought interesting, your question can't really be answered.

OccamsRazor04
It started off 100% math, and gradually less and less was real math. There is nothing that contradicts the assertion it was not mostly real math, and logically I can assume that like most good lies it was backed up by mostly truth. This is backed up by the fact he started off with 100% real math.

And nothing supports this assertion. If a lecture started with real math and gradually became complete nonsense, it will be mostly math only if the fraction of nonsense function is convex up. Since there is no reason to expect that the probability that this function is convex up is bigger than the probability for it to be convex down, the expectation value for the fraction of nonsense is 50%.

OccamsRazor04
Nothing you posted proves it was not mostly real math.

OK. Imagine a car with just one square wheel. 75% of the wheels are correct. Taking into account the engine, transmission, electrical, and body, 99% of the car is correct. 1% of nonsense is enough.

OccamsRazor04
No one got anything out of it because the real math that was used they already understood. It was when he went off radar with the lies (which would be the "new information") that everyone became lost. This really isn't hard to figure out.

It is equally easy to figure out that the one who "understood some ideas" referred to the new information.

Byrd
To add to this, the first documents a speaker who is from a different discipline talking to non-experts (mathematician to psychologists.) Psychologists can't tell if a math theory is good or not, any more than an astronomer can tell if a Bayesian network theory is sound or sheer garbage.

OK. But why did they rated so high the speaker whose lecture they didn't understand?

Byrd
In the second case, it was to a class. In class, we are expected to be respectful to a lecturer and to not stand up and shout "nonsense" or yawn or be rude.

They did not say that it was nonsense even after the lecture.

Byrd
Let them present it to a REAL academic conference and a REAL set of experts on the subject. If they'd presented the "Math for psychologists" to a math conference, the pseudo-expert would have been raked over the coals.

Are you sure of that?

Byrd
I've heard of this happening (this is why people from the so-called fringe sciences do not present at formal conferences. When they try, they get a lot of questions they can't answer.)

Anybody feels confident to attack "fringe sciences" or other stigmatized things.

simus
Mathematicians listened to a hoax lecture and did not suspect anything. Some claimed that they understood the nonsensical lecture.

ecclesiastes911.net...

Hoaxes belong in the Hoax Bin - right?

bastion
Maths lectures aren't like normal lectures. The lecturer spends pretty much all the time deriving equations while students hurriedly scribble down everything he's writing/saying before the lecture is over, then you spend the next week trying to get your head 'round it all.

Where did you get this from? Your own experience? Perhaps, your mathematical abilities are below average. Some people find the lectures too easy. A reasonable lecturer tailors his lecture for an average student in the class. The whole meaning of the lecture is that you can ask questions when you don't understand. Otherwise it is easier to use textbooks.

bastion
most maths types are pretty meek

But not all. Descartes fought in wars as a mercenary. But if a mathematician is meek even in a math class what is the use of him?

bastion
objections would generally be questions like 'I don't follow what you did here...' rather than 'professor, you're using incredibly obscure and complicated calculations here, I don't understand them all immediately, therefore you're talking complete BS'.

The problem is that nobody said that the lecture was nonsense even to fellow students after the lecture.

reply to post by simus


My own experience. Considering I got a 1st class honours with distinction and merit it certainly had nothing to do with my own ability. Third year was easy but second year required working round the clock five days a week to keep up with things and about 2/3 of the class failed that year.

Lectures are there to rush through all derivations. Seminars, tutorials and independent study is where you actually take it all in and ask questions. At least in the UK anyway. For each lecture you're expected to put in a bare minimum of 20 hours independent study to grasp the subject.

Also if you read the article it states only one student claimed to understand it all.

bastion
My own experience. Considering I got a 1st class honours with distinction and merit it certainly had nothing to do with my own ability. Third year was easy but second year required working round the clock five days a week to keep up with things and about 2/3 of the class failed that year.

Lectures are there to rush through all derivations. Seminars, tutorials and independent study is where you actually take it all in and ask questions.

If what you are saying is true, and the best student in the class did not understand anything during the lectures and only had time to scribble the equations, what is the use of those lectures? All the equations are already neatly printed in the textbooks.

bastion
At least in the UK anyway. For each lecture you're expected to put in a bare minimum of 20 hours independent study to grasp the subject.

Really? Then you can have only two lectures a week.

simus

bastion
My own experience. Considering I got a 1st class honours with distinction and merit it certainly had nothing to do with my own ability. Third year was easy but second year required working round the clock five days a week to keep up with things and about 2/3 of the class failed that year.

Lectures are there to rush through all derivations. Seminars, tutorials and independent study is where you actually take it all in and ask questions.

If what you are saying is true, and the best student in the class did not understand anything during the lectures and only had time to scribble the equations, what is the use of those lectures? All the equations are already neatly printed in the textbooks.

bastion
At least in the UK anyway. For each lecture you're expected to put in a bare minimum of 20 hours independent study to grasp the subject.

Really? Then you can have only two lectures a week.

This is University level, most of he Maths we did was too recent/advanced to have texts on it. We didn't use textbooks as you're expected to derive and prove everything by using mathematical ability rather than learning by wrote. The use is to be given the bare bones then use/develop intelligence/mathematical ability to derive the 1000s of equations required.

Pretty much, though we had four lectures a week. Like I said, Maths lectures aren't like normal lectures. You have, at most, 10 contact hours with staff per week. The rest of he time you're expected to teach yourself as that's the only way to become a mathematician.

If someone is only capable of working within what a textbook/lecturer taught them they'd be completely useless once they've graduated.

reply to post by bastion


I knew I hated college math for a reason. Yes..indeed.. I sensed a path and purpose to this that I had absolutely no interest in being a part of. lol... Thanks for clarifying how .....interesting.... it gets, for someone who really has no interest in math or numbers.

bastion
This is University level, most of he Maths we did was too recent/advanced to have texts on it. We didn't use textbooks as you're expected to derive and prove everything by using mathematical ability rather than learning by wrote.

Do you want to teach me that there are no textbooks for university math?

bastion Like I said, Maths lectures aren't like normal lectures.

And what lectures are normal?

bastion You have, at most, 10 contact hours with staff per week. The rest of he time you're expected to teach yourself as that's the only way to become a mathematician.

Yes you should solve problems. But if you do not get the theoretical material during lectures I doubt that you can do anything useful in mathematics.

bastion If someone is only capable of working within what a textbook/lecturer taught them they'd be completely useless once they've graduated.

But they are, aren't they?