22/01/2017

is Yitang Zhang an intellectual?


Yitang Zhang in conversation


An intellectual is a person who engages in critical thinking... about the reality of society, and proposes solutions for the normative problems of society, and thus gains authority as a public intellectual. Coming from the world of culture... the intellectual participates in politics, either to defend a concrete proposition or to denounce an injustice, usually by producing or by extending an ideology...
- wiki

Yitang Zhang achieved great progress on one of the outstanding problems in number theory, the twin primes conjecture. But he doesn't hype his work, hasn't set himself up as a celebrity, and I imagine it is impossible to get a political statement out of him.

Remarkably, our primary usage of the noun "intellectual" wouldn't include Zhang. It is something like:
  1. intellectual: A brainy outspoken celeb. A famous person who broadcasts their opinions on serious social matters. (Particularly if they're involved in the public speaking circuit, particularly if they speculate about politics.)

This is pure Two Cultures bullshit: a mental land grab by arts people. (They pulled off a similar annexation of the idea of creativity, around the late C19th.) All scientists are knowledge workers.

Scholars (especially scientists or mathematicians) who don't debate in public and don't mouth off about, say, elections or creationists on Twitter are excluded from this sense. As if said mouthing off was a more creditable act of intellect than proving the deep connectedness of the Monster group and modular functions. It is no deficiency of Zhang that 1) the discourse can't follow number theory and 2) that he is a comically and beautifully diffident man.

Let's see when "intellectual" came in as a proper noun: Doesn't tell us much. We can get some evidence for the arts colonisation of the term as follows: Some wider senses:
  1. intellectual: Any scholar. Anyone whose labour is mostly intellectual.
  2. intellectual: Anyone whose interests include researching and forming reasoned positions on classically academic things.
  3. intellectual: Anyone whose interests include researching and forming reasoned positions.


So usage (1) covers a really tiny fraction of intellectually active people. This is maybe because "intellectual" (1) is a contraction of "public intellectual" - which is maybe derived from the Leninist concept of a vanguard intelligentsia: basically just propagandists, whose role was to steer the educated public. (So the hypothesis is: social commentary was the raison d'etre of the Marxist intelligentsia, and so their descendents and the descendents of their opponents have inherited this distorted and limited idea of intellectuality.)

I'm not insisting that usage (4) is best just because it's biggest. Consider the little essays at the start of mainline TVTropes pages (e.g. these brief histories of Western animation): they definitely are research and definitely. "Hobbyist" or "fan" can probably pick up some of this group, if we are to leave "intellectual" with its high status.

(Dissemination does seems important: a full-blown intellectual should publish, and engage with incompatible views.)

21/01/2017

doing a bit


"Yeah, the wedding was last week."
"Oh! Congratulations."
"Job's just begun."


"If the backlash against fake news succeeds, I wonder if we'll see the sites aiming for partial credibility, say mixing in two truths for each lie?"
"We have those already, they're called newspapers."



"Your identity has been stolen."
"Amazing! You mean there's another one of me running around?"
"No: stolen. You are not you."



"I'm going to read philosophy."
"Oh, my first degree was in philosophy."
"Where did you go?"
"Aberdeen."
"Why did you pick
there?"
"The honest answer is, Because they gave me money to, and I felt guilty about leaving my mother on her own. The answer you want to hear is, Have you heard of the Northern Institute it briefly did cutting-edge work in maths and language I also really like Luca Moretti, Steve Bruce and Bill Naphy. At any rate, your question reflects an unworthy fixation on status, when the only distinctive value of university philosophy is that its uncommercialisability lets you transcend gross social pressures in favour of substance: nobody cares enough to exploit or degrade it. Try 'So where do you stand on [Question]?' if you ever want to not be a prig."



"So, after all, James will be the software architect for this project."
"How senior is he?"
"Do you mean, how good is he?"
"No, I mean: 'am I being insulted with non-prestigious staff?'"



"Our guide is, simply, ordinary experience —"
"— suitably formalized, of course."
"Of course."