On 4/1/2013 12:36 PM, david petry wrote: > On Monday, April 1, 2013 2:25:31 AM UTC-7, Dan wrote: > >> On Apr 1, 7:20 am, david petry <david_lawrence_pe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Applied mathematicians know they have to produce something > that is of use to the scientists, which does imply that they > are taking falsifiability into consideration. > > >> Real mathematicians do their own thing > > Are you suggesting that applied mathematicians are not real mathematicians? > > >> Scientists take the mathematics given to >> them [...] and use it to build theories > > Revisionist history? A huge amount of mathematics was developed by scientists > simply because they needed it, and then the mathematicians took it and > added their own bells and whistles. >
History is a somewhat "wobbly" concept in this regard, is it not?
The profession of "scientist" evolved in the nineteenth century in conjunction with trends such as industrialization, globalization, and a mercantile imperialism.
So who is claimed by whom will not really depend on fact as much as the fiction of how a partial accounting of some individual's accomplishments fit into some narrow history accounting for some specific subject matter.
The practical motivation for using and developing mathematics should not be minimized.
Nor should the demands of critics who forced philosophical investigation of the practices so introduced.
If, however, you wish to subtract the "bells and whistles" then you should begin by identifying which of the historical criticisms "mathematicians" should have ignored.