Public engagement and popularisation

[ajb]

A mathematical theory is not to be considered complete until you have made it so clear that you can explain it to the first man whom you meet on the street.

David Hilbert 1900.

 

Is this really possible?

 

I doubt I can explain much about what I am interested in to the first man whom I see on the street. Maybe that is a reflection on me rather than the subject matter.

 

Any thoughts on this?

[Mr Skeptic]

I think its an exaggeration. However they did have some nasty maths 100 years ago. However if the first man you see on the streets were patient enough (has this changed?), then I'm sure it could be explained to him, even if it takes a year or ten...

[ajb]

I think its an exaggeration.

 

I also think so, however Hilbert's message is clear.

[mississippichem]

I think the "man on the street" is often limited by vocabulary but maybe not by wit. A random bystander might not have the slightest idea what a derivative is, but the general concept is easily explained. If one explained it as the "steepness" of a curve at any given point on the curve, it might be easily understood. Some concepts though, no matter how intricate or simple to the expert, might be out of reach for the common man that frankly doesn't care. I think its a question of will to understand.

Edited October 13, 2010 by mississippichem

[StringJunky]

I interpret his statement as...the onus is on the giver to try to speak in the language of the receiver so that they may understand...a laudable aspiration.

[lemur]

Don't underestimate the role played by social-identity management in whether people are willing to comprehend math or anything else. Many people don't avoid comprehending academic knowledge because they can't but because they are afraid of losing their "regular person" status. They may think that intelligence would make them "an intellectual" and if they have some social bias against intellectuals as a sociotype they will avoid learning anything they think will move them in that direction.

 

Still, I don't think that's the point of the quote anyway. The point, imo, is that convoluted language is a mark of science that is unconvinced of its own solidness. Someone who really believes in the solidity of their science will explain it as simply as possible because they have no fear that it will sound simple and unintelligent when worded simply. Some science, on the other hand, is just glorified common sense translated into expensive-sounding language. This is common in social-science that is little more than political ideology disguised as proven knowledge. In that case, scientific complexity becomes more of a propaganda strategy than a methodological inevitability.