Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!celit!billd
From: billd@fps.com (Bill Davids_on)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics
Subject: Re: fractals as bad science
Message-ID: <3775@celit.fps.com>
Date: 15 Nov 89 22:24:25 GMT
References: <19544@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1619@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Reply-To: billd@fps.com (Bill Davids_on)
Organization: FPS Computing Inc., San Diego CA
Lines: 50

In article <1619@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <19544@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, ph@miro.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Heckbert) writes:
>|  The journal also printed a rebuttal by Mandelbrot, who basically
>|  defends his work as highly regarded, but does not address Krantz'
>|  contention that the study of fractals has been unscientific.
>
>  Thanks for the posting. I don't buy the argument that a study is
>unscientific if it doesn't solve problems. And I think the problem it
>has raised is "how does this relate to the real world?" I will try to
>find the article if I can.

Here is another excerpt from Krantz for those of you who may have trouble
finding a copy:

	     There is an important issue implicit in this discussion that
	I would now like to examine.  A famous counterexample (due to
	Celso Costa) in the theory of minimal surfaces was inspired by
	the viewing of a Brazilian documentary about samba schools -- it
	seems that one of the dancers wore a traditional hat of a bizarre
	character that was later reflected in the shape of the example.  I
	once thought of an interesting counterexample by lying on my back
	and watching the flight of seagulls.  Whatever the merits of
	samba dancers and seagulls may be, they are not scientists and
	they are not mathematicians.  Why should fractal geometers be
	judged any differently?

I think this guy just wants to get a little fame for himself.  Maybe
he's just annoyed that there is so much emphasis on fractals these
days (actually he alludes to this in the next to last paragraph where
he talks about how getting money to buy hardware to do fractals is
easier than getting money to study algeraic geometry).  I still think
he's a dweeb for writing the paragraph I just quoted.  It was
completely uncalled for.

The editor's note says that Krantz originally submitted this paper to
the American Mathematical Society (AMS) and the editor asked for
changes (which were made).  Upon second review, he decided that it was
still too strong and requested more changes and Krantz declined
and complained to the Council of the AMS because he wasn't getting
published as previously agreed.  Krantz had distributed copies of
the paper after the first revisions to several mathematicians (including
Mandelbrot).  It ended up never getting published by the AMS and the
Mathematical Intelligencer picked it up along with Mandelbrot's
rebuttal.

I do think it's good that someone's watching the fractal geometers
and not allowing them to get away with just showing pretty pictures
but Krantz has crossed the line from being a skeptic to being a jerk.

--Bill Davids_on