Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?

In this paper we re-examine the implications of the differences between 'doing' and 'writing' science and mathematics, questioning whether the way that science and mathematics are presented in textbooks or research articles creates a misleading picture of these differences. We fo...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Christian Greiffenhagen, Wes Sharrock
Format:	Default Article
Published:	2011
Subjects:	Other human society not elsewhere classified Other language, communication and culture not elsewhere classified Certainty Fallibilism Ideology Mathematics Myths Language, Communication and Culture not elsewhere classified Studies in Human Society not elsewhere classified
Online Access:	https://hdl.handle.net/2134/13250
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

id	rr-article-9473336
record_format	Figshare
spelling	rr-article-94733362011-01-01T00:00:00Z Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back? Christian Greiffenhagen (1254093) Wes Sharrock (7188197) Other human society not elsewhere classified Other language, communication and culture not elsewhere classified Certainty Fallibilism Ideology Mathematics Myths Language, Communication and Culture not elsewhere classified Studies in Human Society not elsewhere classified In this paper we re-examine the implications of the differences between 'doing' and 'writing' science and mathematics, questioning whether the way that science and mathematics are presented in textbooks or research articles creates a misleading picture of these differences. We focus our discussion on mathematics, in particular on Reuben Hersh's formulation of the contrast in terms of Goffman's dramaturgical frontstage-backstage analogy and his claim that various myths about mathematics only fit with how mathematics is presented in the 'front', but not with how it is practised in the 'back'. By investigating examples of both the 'front' (graduate lectures in mathematical logic) and the 'back' (meetings between supervisor and doctoral students) we examine, first, whether the 'front' of mathematics presents a misleading picture of mathematics, and, second, whether the 'front' and 'back' of mathematics are so discrepant that mathematics really does look certain in the 'front', but fallible in the 'back'. 2011-01-01T00:00:00Z Text Journal contribution 2134/13250 https://figshare.com/articles/journal_contribution/Does_mathematics_look_certain_in_the_front_but_fallible_in_the_back_/9473336 CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
institution	Loughborough University
collection	Figshare
topic	Other human society not elsewhere classified Other language, communication and culture not elsewhere classified Certainty Fallibilism Ideology Mathematics Myths Language, Communication and Culture not elsewhere classified Studies in Human Society not elsewhere classified
spellingShingle	Other human society not elsewhere classified Other language, communication and culture not elsewhere classified Certainty Fallibilism Ideology Mathematics Myths Language, Communication and Culture not elsewhere classified Studies in Human Society not elsewhere classified Christian Greiffenhagen Wes Sharrock Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?
description	In this paper we re-examine the implications of the differences between 'doing' and 'writing' science and mathematics, questioning whether the way that science and mathematics are presented in textbooks or research articles creates a misleading picture of these differences. We focus our discussion on mathematics, in particular on Reuben Hersh's formulation of the contrast in terms of Goffman's dramaturgical frontstage-backstage analogy and his claim that various myths about mathematics only fit with how mathematics is presented in the 'front', but not with how it is practised in the 'back'. By investigating examples of both the 'front' (graduate lectures in mathematical logic) and the 'back' (meetings between supervisor and doctoral students) we examine, first, whether the 'front' of mathematics presents a misleading picture of mathematics, and, second, whether the 'front' and 'back' of mathematics are so discrepant that mathematics really does look certain in the 'front', but fallible in the 'back'.
format	Default Article
author	Christian Greiffenhagen Wes Sharrock
author_facet	Christian Greiffenhagen Wes Sharrock
author_sort	Christian Greiffenhagen (1254093)
title	Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?
title_short	Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?
title_full	Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?
title_fullStr	Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?
title_full_unstemmed	Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?
title_sort	does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?
publishDate	2011
url	https://hdl.handle.net/2134/13250
_version_	1797468531822952448

Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?

Similar Items