Dear Peter, You were lucky to have been away on vacation, but perhaps quickly reading (how else) the mass of postings in the "cracks and pots" postings has caused you intellectual indigestion. Your reaction is therefore quite understandable. For your sake (and that of others in similar situations), I will sum up what caused my postings, and be more explicit concerning
Is there any evidence to support this claim? I.e., actual examples where such research was disproportionally supported that was uncritical and perhaps unwarranted? There have been several posts seemingly agreeing that this is the case, but none have given concrete evidence.
From the many responses that I got (some public, and many more privately), I
1. On March 13, I shared with you all a disturbing posting in Motl's blog, criticizing category theory in its applications to physics, and more particularly, John Baez. My concern was based on the possibility that any of this criticism might be justified because I could not failed to notice how John Baez had become more or less a prominent figure (as speaker/member of the scientific committee) in recent(ly announced) meetings in CT. Explicitly, I was thinking of Firenze, Ramifications of CT, 13-Nov, 2003, Sydney, StreetFest, July 11-16, 2005, Union College, UC Mathematical Conference, December 3-4, 2005, Chicago, MacLane Memorial Conference (Unni Nambondiri Lectures), April 7,10,11, 2006, Halifax (near), CT'06, June 25-July 1, 2006. 2. On March 14, and in response to some, I asked more explicitly what caused organizers of meetings to bring to center stage one aspect of CT over others, particulaly one which seemed to me not to be in good standing after Motl's postings. Was it because it is indeed the case that CT is in disrepute, and if so its reputation needs to be restored, this being the best way to do it? Was it because it is funding for CT (notoriously lacking in the USA) that may be more easily secured that way? I wanted to know myself, but also possibly alert organizers of meetings to reflect on this issues, since their power and responsibility is indeed enormous in promoting a certain kind of research over another. 3. picked on one (March 17) to add some information that I had just come across by reading Nature (on our coffee table, along with a dozen or so scientific journals), in an article which connected Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute with the Templeton Foundation, the latter a promoter of anything they can in the borderline of science and religion. In the Scientific American articles by Lee Smolin on Loop Quantum Gravity and the discreteness of the universe, a paper John Baez is quoted among the few references given at the end of the article. This, in turn, led me to research the Templeton Foundation itself, and with some help from a fellow categorist who seemed to know a lot about it, I easily located references to Templeton funding to the Goedel Centenary Symposium in Vienna, and to the A.Connes workshop on NCA at the Sir Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge. I was, however, relieved not to find any direct connection between Templeton and Category Theory. Still, I meant to warn those unaware of this easy source of funding (with strings attached). In a subsequengt posting (March 27) I gave explicit references to these claims in response to some queries. 4. In short, I do not think that I can be blamed for not being explicit enough in matters that I could be explicit about. I still do not have all the answers to my questions. As I mentioned on March 27, I was mistaken in thinking of John Baez as a promoter of string theory when, in fact, he promotes a competitor thery, LQG. But the general question of categorical applications to physics remained. Why are they promoted now? As you, Peter, kindly offer as a possible explanation,
Can one rule out another possibility, namely that such research is supported because it is original, timely, and interesting?
No, of course not -- one cannot rule it out. Here, I am ignorant of physics so I cannot answer this question (David Yetter has supported the view that they are original, timely and interesting, and has contrasted "algebraic" to "foundational" aspects of CT). But even if the answer were "yes", I would welcome responses to the question which still remains unaswered (except that most of us surely have a formed opinion) -- is CT in such a poor state that it needs revamping? Sould we not wait a few years until several original and interesting (maybe not timely) contributions to CT in connection with other fields of mathematics are appreciated and incorporated into the mainstream? What do we gain by pushing those under the rag? To imply, perhaps, that we lourselves do not value them? These, I believe, are crucial and timely questions, and I do not regret unwilingly having brought them up 5. I take this opportunity to thank Bill Lawvere for his first posting "Why are we concerned? I", in which the lucid article by Saunders MacLane (Synthese, 1997) is recalled in connection with the discussions that arose in the "cracks and pots" so-called-thread (why "thread"?). I am sure that most of you have read it, but just in case you have not, I attach it here it in pdf form. This is very timely in view of the upcoming MacLane Memorial Conference in Chicago. Peter, I hope that I have answered your questions. I can't speak for the others who have contributed to this "thread". Unlike what has been suggested, what I originated on March 13 was far from a "complot". It was a genuine concern of mine and I see now, by many of the responses, that it is also a concern of others. On the other hand, getting personally attacked (for the wrong reasons, to boot) is a necessary price that I have to pay and it does not concern me as much. Yours, Marta ************************************************ Marta Bunge Professor Emerita Dept of Mathematics and Statistics McGill University 805 Sherbrooke St. West Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 2K6 Office: (514) 398-3810 Home: (514) 935-3618 marta.bunge@mcgill.ca http://www.math.mcgill.ca/bunge/ ************************************************
From: selinger@mathstat.dal.ca (Peter Selinger) To: categories@mta.ca Subject: categories: Re: cracks and pots Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:28:57 -0400 (AST)
I just returned from a vacation and caught up with this thread, so please bear with me as I back up to the central question posed by Marta Bunge. She suggested that
anything which even remotedly claims to have applications to physics (particularly string theory) is given (what I view as) uncritical support in our circles.
Is there any evidence to support this claim? I.e., actual examples where such research was disproportionally supported that was uncritical and perhaps unwarranted? There have been several posts seemingly agreeing that this is the case, but none have given concrete evidence. I feel that it is necessary to establish that such practices indeed exist, before discussing what, if anything, needs to be done about it. Can one rule out another possibility, namely that such research is supported because it is original, timely, and interesting?
-- Peter
Marta Bunge wrote:
Robert Dawson wrote:
It is not clear to me that the majority of theoretical physicists
with the negative view of categorical string theory held by the cited blog writers; and in the absence of a consensus among the physicists, I for one (with an undergradate degree and some graduate courses in physics) do not feel qualified to take sides; if anything, errors should be on the side of trying out too many ideas, not too few.
I was trying to elicit an open response from those who *do* know about
agree the
value (or lack of it) of categorical string theory. In particular, I would like to have an answer to this question. Why is it that anything which even remotedly claims to have applications to physics (particularly string theory) is given (what I view as) uncritical support in our circles?
Best, Marta