> we urgently need to come up with good ways of explaining the value of having a large pool of human mathematical experts, even if it is no longer part of their role to find new proofs of theorems.
This is the main issue, and while I fully agree with that value sentiment, the Fields medallists’ letter failed to provide convincing arguments for why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things, and how competition for postdoc and tenure positions would work under these circumstances.
>why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things
imagine yourself living in the 1700s. how would you justify Newton and Leibniz's work on calculus?
all maritime engineering and trade was done with geometry and arithmetic at the time. there were no practical applications, not for likely at least a century until hydrodynamics were incorporated into shipbuilding
now look at today. how many of our modern technologies rely on the field having been birthed? that could only exist because of even further decades-worth of antecedent refinements, extrapolations, applications that had, at their time, no direct utilitarian cause?
there's no KPI to be derived from any academic field of study at the bleeding edge of theory. theoretical underpinnings lead to practical applications much further down the line after many paradigm shifts
semiotics and cultural capital as theoretical concepts is another example - at the time they were purely seen as navel-gazey literary theory work. these days, half a century later, they're in wide use (for better or worse) in marketing and advertising - they birthed the whole concept of 'branding'
not everything needs immediate, quantifiable justification. to believe it does indicates a need for a period of self-reflection, to figure out how and when you became so heavily influenced by the MBA-brained propaganda that the world should revolve around the quarter-by-quarter creation of capital
True, but this is also a stunning example of survivorship bias.
Countless other mathematical curiosities were developed in the 1700s -- and forgotten. Calculus just happens to be the one that found practical applications later, so that's the one that's well known today.
It's difficult to draw the conclusion that "every possible branch of learning ought to be funded" by appealing to "later practical value" based on this cherrypicked example.
On the other hand, clearly _some_ novel theoretical work with no apparent immediate value _does_ yield real world benefit later.
Since we lack the resources to fund every PhD with a crazy theory on what the next new subfield ought to be, how do we decide?
Seems like AI could help massively there, by removing a huge bottleneck around technical elaboration and application seeking.
> Countless other mathematical curiosities were developed in the 1700s -- and forgotten. Calculus just happens to be the one that found practical applications later, so that's the one that's well known today.
1. You may not agree, but some people will argue that knowledge is worth accumulating in itself. We fund astronomy well beyond the solar system despite there being no real prospect of practical applications.
2. The value of calculus justifies the cost of all the curiosities. The economic benefits of funding lots of "curiosities" was well worth the few that were useful.
in general, yes. but specifically studying exoplant A or exoplanet B? or understanding dark matter? or driving a little science robot on Mars? what's the immediate utility of that?
The same thing could have been asked of radio waves when they were first discovered. It was actually considered purely an academic curiosity with no practical application. You can't know ahead of time which discoveries will be the lynchpin for some as yet unimagined future advance. Much like VC you need to spread out your bets and expect that most won't make direct return, but that every now and then something with 10000x return will surface.
right, which is all the more reason to continue studying them in spite of the lack of immediate returns. our capitalist mode of quarter-driven roadmaps means we no longer care about the long horizon, it's all 'results this, metrics that, now now now' - meanwhile any student of history who's ever looked at the history of computing, or data science, or virtually any of our modern marvels knows how much purely abstract stone had to first be cut to get us to the results we have today
can you imagine chucking all of computer science away because Babbage's thinking machines and Lovelace's programming cards didn't really result in meaningful capital gains here in FY26Q3? or, a more realistic example - imagine biology and genetics today if Mendel's discoveries had been published in a more widely read journal, if he hadn't been outright dismissed for his mathematical approach. or Semmelweis' advocacy of antispetic procedures that flew in the face of the then humors-based understanding of medicine in the 1800s - how many lives would have been saved between then and when Germ Theory finally took off decades later?
it's ironic to me that it's often the same people who'll adopt the logic of banning reproductive rights on the off chance that someone very unprepared to have a child might birth someone who can cure cancer in spite of the probabilistic evidence of SES being highly correlated with educational attainment (eg that graph of the income bracket that the parents of all Nobel Prize winners start with). and yet when it comes to the actual nascent research and development required to pave the way for larger discoveries, that's seen as totally pointless and not worthy of funding. it's truly flabbergasting
Agreed. For a long time it felt like most governments/funders accepted that pure research is a necessary part of feeding the applied research machine. And now the funders seem particularly short-sighted.
In saying that, in the spirit of a good faith argument, is there value in temporarily deprioritising pure research in (current) times of funding drought?
layer8 · · focus · HN ↗
This is the main issue, and while I fully agree with that value sentiment, the Fields medallists’ letter failed to provide convincing arguments for why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things, and how competition for postdoc and tenure positions would work under these circumstances.
paimapi · · focus · HN ↗
imagine yourself living in the 1700s. how would you justify Newton and Leibniz's work on calculus?
all maritime engineering and trade was done with geometry and arithmetic at the time. there were no practical applications, not for likely at least a century until hydrodynamics were incorporated into shipbuilding
now look at today. how many of our modern technologies rely on the field having been birthed? that could only exist because of even further decades-worth of antecedent refinements, extrapolations, applications that had, at their time, no direct utilitarian cause?
there's no KPI to be derived from any academic field of study at the bleeding edge of theory. theoretical underpinnings lead to practical applications much further down the line after many paradigm shifts
semiotics and cultural capital as theoretical concepts is another example - at the time they were purely seen as navel-gazey literary theory work. these days, half a century later, they're in wide use (for better or worse) in marketing and advertising - they birthed the whole concept of 'branding'
not everything needs immediate, quantifiable justification. to believe it does indicates a need for a period of self-reflection, to figure out how and when you became so heavily influenced by the MBA-brained propaganda that the world should revolve around the quarter-by-quarter creation of capital
rdbl27 · · focus · HN ↗
Countless other mathematical curiosities were developed in the 1700s -- and forgotten. Calculus just happens to be the one that found practical applications later, so that's the one that's well known today.
It's difficult to draw the conclusion that "every possible branch of learning ought to be funded" by appealing to "later practical value" based on this cherrypicked example.
On the other hand, clearly _some_ novel theoretical work with no apparent immediate value _does_ yield real world benefit later.
Since we lack the resources to fund every PhD with a crazy theory on what the next new subfield ought to be, how do we decide?
Seems like AI could help massively there, by removing a huge bottleneck around technical elaboration and application seeking.
graemep · · focus · HN ↗
1. You may not agree, but some people will argue that knowledge is worth accumulating in itself. We fund astronomy well beyond the solar system despite there being no real prospect of practical applications.
2. The value of calculus justifies the cost of all the curiosities. The economic benefits of funding lots of "curiosities" was well worth the few that were useful.
xmprt · · focus · HN ↗
There are a lot of immediate practical benefits to learning more about the physics and chemistry of the universe beyond our solar system.
paimapi · · focus · HN ↗
Bjartr · · focus · HN ↗
paimapi · · focus · HN ↗
can you imagine chucking all of computer science away because Babbage's thinking machines and Lovelace's programming cards didn't really result in meaningful capital gains here in FY26Q3? or, a more realistic example - imagine biology and genetics today if Mendel's discoveries had been published in a more widely read journal, if he hadn't been outright dismissed for his mathematical approach. or Semmelweis' advocacy of antispetic procedures that flew in the face of the then humors-based understanding of medicine in the 1800s - how many lives would have been saved between then and when Germ Theory finally took off decades later?
it's ironic to me that it's often the same people who'll adopt the logic of banning reproductive rights on the off chance that someone very unprepared to have a child might birth someone who can cure cancer in spite of the probabilistic evidence of SES being highly correlated with educational attainment (eg that graph of the income bracket that the parents of all Nobel Prize winners start with). and yet when it comes to the actual nascent research and development required to pave the way for larger discoveries, that's seen as totally pointless and not worthy of funding. it's truly flabbergasting
jamiejquinn · · focus · HN ↗
In saying that, in the spirit of a good faith argument, is there value in temporarily deprioritising pure research in (current) times of funding drought?