Want to lower your Erdös Number in a hurry? Bill Tozier is flogging off the right to co-author a scientific paper with him on eBay. An undoubted bargain for social scientists, humanities types and others with high Erdös counts. Given Bill’s chops in complex systems and agent-based modelling, I’m half tempted to bid myself.
Still, prospective bidders should note his strict caveat emptor.
However, the seller retains the right to refuse (and publicly ridicule) proposals for research in non-scientific fields, such as “Intelligent Design”. Such kooks need not apply.
That’s really funny, thanks for the pointer. This should be a huge hit in some circles.;-)
Eszter, are you trying to say you didn’t click on that and think, “Ha! My Erdos number is lower than his already!”
I know I did.
Yeah Matt, but it’s not nice to gloat.;) The bummer part is that his number is low enough that I can’t try to sell him my co-authorship for an improved number, because by co-authoring with me, he’d be where he is already.
However, the seller retains the right to refuse (and publicly ridicule) proposals for research in non-scientific fields, such as “Intelligent Design”.
Number of articles by TOZIER WA indexed on ISI Web of Science for 1984-2004: 2.
Caveat Emptor, indeed.
(By way of comparison, my old grad school prof who’s on the editorial advisory board of William “Intelligent Design” Dembski’s journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design has 59 articles referenced on ISI.)
Number of articles by TOZIER WA indexed on ISI Web of Science for 1984-2004: 2
More important: Neither was at all important. Follow the citation inks onwards, and I think you’ll find one published in response the second paper.
Ahh, but do I say at any point in the listing that I will reliably improve the winner’s scientific standing or reputation? Do I say that the research resulting from our collaboration will be important? I hope not, since I was quite careful not to do so.
Henry: How did you hear about the auction? Technorati reference, or referral some other way?
Ha! My 11 year old has an Erdos number lower than this Tozier fellow.
Well, we’d do well to be careful about who we exclude.
If being devoutly religious and believing in divine creation will be an automatic disqualifier for collaborative work, then both Isaac Newton and Georg Cantor are off the list.
On Cantor:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1993/PSCF3-93Hedman.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691024472/qid=1082559367/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9761033-0187254?v=glance&s=books
On Newton:
http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521274354/qid=1082559326/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/002-9761033-0187254?v=glance&s=books
But Bill didn’t say he wouldn’t work with people who had such beliefs in their spare time. He just wouldn’t do any work that purported to be scientific in a particular research program that hasn’t generated anything of scientific value whatsoever.
Of course, there’s a big gap between divine creation and what’s currently known as Intelligent Design. Most Christians I know believe the first but not the second, and I think that’s the official Catholic position.
Granted, Brian. I’m not defending Intelligent Design.
I’m worried about the sort of hyper-aggressive anti-theist who thinks every scientist/mathematician/thinker must be just like Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett. People can have “kooky” ideas about one thing and also brilliant ideas about another.
Cantor is a great example of someone that most secularists would think is a first class “kook”. And yet, without Cantor, think how impoverished certain branches of mathematics would be.
Cantor is a good example here.
Check the references to “religious” in the pages from Dauben’s biography:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0691024472/002-9761033-0187254?%5Fencoding=UTF8&resultsPage=2&keywords=religious&v=search-inside
I imagine that some university faculties today would simply not give someone with his mentality the time of day, because of his overt religiousness.
There’s an official Catholic position against Intelligent Design? References, please.
Here’s another example of “kookiness” (very religious/defender of an ontological argument for God’s existence) and brilliancy side by side: Kurt Gödel
http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Godel.html
Alas for diversity, sellers on eBay are allowed to set their terms of sale as they see fit. Many prohibit bids from users outside the US, or those from people with too little or too much negative feedback.
I’m not a hyper-aggressive anti-theist. I despise fools, and powerful fools most of all.
Well and good, Bill.
I’m just suggesting that we be cautious about exactly who’s a fool and a kook, and thus, not worth collaborating with.
I agree, David. Caution and skepticism about our own prejudices is a good thing.
For instance, somebody might have prejudiciously assumed Newton and Cantor were dead, as well. Poor fellows have very few people working with them these days as a result.
“[beep] (—king answering machine again) Helloo? … Isaac?…. Are you there? …. If you’re there, please pick up….. Ummm, I was wondering, if you have a chance, could I get your feedback, please, on that draft I sent you…..? Hello….? All right then…. Suppose you’re busy with the end of term and all……. Umm Call me! Looking forward to hearing from you! ….. (bloody great gi—[click]”
Now that would be silly, eh? No reason to be a pariah.
LOL. Yeah, the dead never return my calls either.
A more recent philosophical example of fruitful collaboration between some extremely different mindsets—the correspondence between W.V.O. Quine and P.T. Geach, which Quine quite appreciated.
I couldn’t imagine a more unlikely pairing—Geach the conservative Roman Catholic and Quine the decidedly unreligious man.
See “Selected Correspondence with Geach; W.V.O. Quine” in the volume Peter Geach: Philosophical Encounters:
http://www.wkap.nl/prod/b/0-7923-0823-9
Any evidence that Gödel believed in Intelligent Design? Indeed, any evidence that he believed in anything like Christian theory?
I don’t know why David keeps equating belief in some kind of God or other with Intelligent Design, which is a really kooky theory. Lots and lots of theists don’t believe it, without thereby holding any contradictory views. I didn’t see Bill’s statement as attacking religious belief at all - just attacking belief in an awful would-be scientific theory.
There’s a bunch of references to various statements by popes and other Catholic spokespeople here, though the guy writing this clearly doesn’t like the Catholic position.
I’ve already conceded the point you repeat, Brian. Bill is entirely within his rights in refusing to work with someone on a Intelligent Design Project.
I think the part that worries me is the assumption that anyone who espouses a “kooky” theory is, thereby, a kook or a fool, and somehow damaged goods.
The late David Lewis held a “kooky” theory about possible worlds, prompting all those incredulous stares. Was he a kook? The academic community surely didn’t consider him such, despite this one odd view.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0337/modal.realism.html
According to one description of a biography of the man, Kurt Gödel believed in a few things far kookier than Intelligent Design:
“Godel believed in an afterlife, telepathy, ESP and the possibility of time travel.” (my emphasis)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568810253/qid=1082637893/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-9761033-0187254?v=glance&s=books
Brian Weatherson writes:
“There’s a bunch of references to various statements by popes and other Catholic spokespeople here”
But nothing that appears to come close to being an official Catholic position against Intelligent Design.
Here are links to two sources where 20th century Popes comment on Evolution:
John Paul II’s 1996 Address:
http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html
and
Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical, Humani Generis:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html
If you think the possibility of time travel is kookier than Intelligent Design, we’ve got very different views on the state of current science. Gödel’s work showing that there were solutions to GR with closed timelike curves was a great mathematical achievement, and it has spurred a lot of serious work on whether time travel is possible in anything like our world. The majority of physicists are against, but there’s plenty of well-respected physicists who are in favour, and plenty more who are agnostic. (Or who think that time travel is possible in principle but technologically infeasible, etc. There’s plenty of options on the table here.)
Intelligent Design doesn’t just mean God set the whole thing running and Darwinian forces did the rest. (Presumably in accord with God’s plan - just like everything else.) Lots of people believe that, and it’s hardly a kooky view. Indeed, that’s what I’ve always taken the Catholic position to be. Whatever Intelligent Design is, it’s incompatible with the evolution of new species, so when the Pope says that evolution is how God’s plan unfolds, he’s taking a position that’s inconsistent with Intelligent Design. That seems to me like taking a position against it.
Well, I highlighted two (telepathy, ESP) of the four things to indicate that I thought they, in particular, were “kooky” views.
Doesn’t my point about not assuming that people who hold one or two “kooky” views are themselves kooks or fools still hold?
Why do you persist in thinking that I’m somehow defending Intelligent Design itself? I’m not. How many times do I have to say it?
Brian Weatherson writes:
“Whatever Intelligent Design is, it’s incompatible with the evolution of new species,”
Says who? There are prominent ID’ers who are on record as believing in the evolution of new species.
On the vexed question of the possibility of time travel and Gödel, there’s a interesting 1999 book on the matter by Palle Yourgrau:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0812694082/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-9761033-0187254#reader-link
And a brief review of Yourgrau’s book by Steven Weinberg can be found here:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sw9/Yourgrau.pdf
I’ll venture to say this about Gödel and the possibility of time travel:
The view that Gödel’s work somehow straightforwardly proves that time travel is possible in this world, as opposed to some really odd possible world, is KOOKY.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review