Erik Thomson may have a point. Wikipedia, for what it is worth, says that
others than Lobachevsky developed non-Euclidian geometry independently.
There was just enough controversy to give Tom Lehrer an opening, but my
brother, a veteran math professor, thinks Lobachevsky "deserves full
credit".

Along the way, though, I learned something else of relevance. The Wikipedia
article on Harvard College has a list of  well know grads.  The list is
organized by discipline, and most of them are straight forward.  E.g.  legal
includes supreme court justices, physics includes Oppenheimer, etc.   But
Mathematics has only two entries:  
The Unibomber and Tom Lehrer!  

So one may still wonder if immersion in higher mathematics guarantees purity
and objectivity, as Thomson originally alleged.

As for Thomson's musings on original sin, they seem to me to be off the
track.

Mason Gaffney

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Erik Thomson
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 9:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] "Inside Job" and code of ethics for economists

Dear List, 
A small point, but the Russian mathematician Nicolai Lobachevsky was not a
plagiarist.  Tom Lehrer did the memory of a creative mathematician a
disservice, when he chose him for his amusing song.  

A greater point, though, is that all of the examples of scientific
controversy Mason Gaffney adduces were not matters of pure math, or even
scientific knowledge per se, but instances where science made claims for
changing current social and political authorities and arrangements.  As
Augustine of Hippo suggested, ideals like purity and motive and freedom from
prejudice largely exist to remind us of how completely sinful and bent we
poor sinners are, in mind, body and spirit.  I think the comparison of
economists to presidents--while not perfectly apt as economists (as
economists) are not in any way representatives of a democratic polity--rests
on the territory economics occupies.  Economists do make claims to change
current social and political arrangements, based on a superior theoretical
understanding or science.  Therefore their scientific territory is exactly
that political terrain that provokes debates, which gets close to the sort
of public claims presidents have to make and defend. 

Best,
Erik Thomson   

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of mason gaffney
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 10:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] "Inside Job" and code of ethics for economists

Rob Tye writes:

"But it is interesting to consider the question, why compare economists to
recent US presidents?  Why not say, Professors of Pure Mathematics?  For I
think only a satirist would suggest an oath of truthfulness even needful,
regarding Pure Maths."

The name "Lobachevsky" comes to mind. 
"The new math" - that became a political football.
Darwin, pro and con, is as political as they come. Malthus? Eugenics?
Anthropogenic global warming? Medicine? Pest control? Lysenko?
Astronomy? Geocentrism surely died hard.

No, purity of motive and freedom from prejudice hardly can be assumed in any
discipline.

Regretfully,
Mason Gaffney