In this lecture, Freeman Dyson surveys the history of progress in mathematics (and related fields of physics) and concludes that there is no One Best Way. Here's the opening:
Some mathematicians are birds, others are frogs. Birds fly high in the air and survey broad vistas of mathematics out to the far horizon. They delight in concepts that unify our thinking and bring together diverse problems from different parts of the landscape. Frogs live in the mud below and see only the flowers that grow nearby. They delight in the details of particular objects, and they solve problems one at a time. I happen to be a frog, but many of my best friends are birds. The main theme of my talk tonight is this. Mathematics needs both birds and frogs. Mathematics is rich and beautiful because birds give it broad visions and frogs give it intricate details. Mathematics is both great art and important science, because it combines generality of concepts with depth of structures. It is stupid to claim that birds are better than frogs because they see farther, or that frogs are better than birds because they see deeper. The world of mathematics is both broad and deep, and we need birds and frogs working together to explore it.
Dyson is always worth reading, and this is a particularly rich piece, full of personal reminiscences as well as insights into the way mathematics and science work. And it demonstrates a characteristic that is far too rare in both great minds and ordinary ones: the ability to appreciate the importance of genuine difference, rather than to argue that one's own approach to problems (of whatever type) is the only correct--or the better--one.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on January 18, 2009 • Comments
It's the worst regulatory news I've heard in a long time--and it predates the new administration by a half year. Sidney Wolfe, who seemingly never met a new drug or device he thought should be legal, has been named to four-year term on the FDA's Drug Safety and Risk Management Committee. He's got the "consumer" slot. Well, I'm a big-time pharmaceutical consumer, and this man does not speak for me.
His philosophy: "If there were any question, they would take the drug off the market." As he explains in the WSJ video above, the committee he'll serve on goes into action when questions have been raised about a drug. So I guess we know what he'll be thinking about each and every one the panel is supposed to evaluate. (He will maintain his position at Public Citizen while serving on the panel.)
What I really want to know is, Who maneuvered him into this position, and how?
Posted by Virginia Postrel on January 18, 2009 • Comments
The recession is bad and probably will get worse, but historical context doesn't scream Great Depression. Journalists, who are like steelworkers in the 1980s, can be forgiven for thinking the economy is collapsing--we're all afraid of losing our jobs--but the rest of you should know better.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on December 21, 2008 • Comments
A D.C. friend told me that publicity-chasing attorney Gloria Allred, whose litigation took gay marriage out of the legislature (where it passed twice) and into the courts and who was quick to file a suit to overturn Prop. 8, gave not a dime to the campaign against Prop. 8. So I went to the searchable database and, sure enough, she's nowhere to be found. I tried every search I could think of. (Search yourself, and if you find her, I'll be happy to correct the record.) I guess there weren't enough TV cameras on the contribution site.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on December 13, 2008 • Comments
Sam Macdonald, a former Washington editor for Reason and author of the new book The Urban Hermit: A Memoir, emails in response to my Depression lust post below:
I just wrote a book (released November 25) about my own experience with starvation. Long story short, I was really fat and really broke after college, so I decided to live on 800 calories a day. I ended up losing 160 poounds and, eventually, digging myself out of debt.
I wrote the thing when the economy seemed rather strong. So it was never supposed to be "timely." But now it's intereting to see the way the media is reacting. For instance, here's a review in the LA Times stating that the timing is "... uncanny..." That is, that there are lessons for people to learn.
On the other hand, here's someone from Time magazine saying that the book WOULD be funny and interesting, but the timing is awful, somehow making it not funny anymore.
In my mind, and in my experience, hunger sucks. I much prefer plenty. But I guess that's just me being a libertine. Or some such.
Posted by Virginia Postrel on December 07, 2008 • Comments
, emails in response to my Depression lust