I suppose this episode has no direct relevance to the validity of
Grattan-Guinness's estimation of how mathematicians regard history of
mathematics. But maybe it does.
I've found most mathematicians I've known to be respectful of history of
mathematics, and sometimes deeply interested in it, although I do remember
some exceptions. For example, I remember Ed Moise many years ago saying
contemptuously that all historians (of any kind, I guess) do is take
records from library shelves and write things which transfer the records to
other library shelves (or something along these lines). I also remember
some other topologists of the school of R L Moore (Ed Moise was one, and so
am I as far as my dissertation is concerned -- it was directed by R D
Anderson, a student of Moore) who thought history of mathematics should be
avoided by mathematicians because it would interfere with their creativity.
But then, Moore topologists have not been noted for their breadth, or
perhaps I should say have been noted for their narrowness. I remember when
R L Wilder (a student of Moore) was, so to speak, drummed out of the Moore
coterie by R L Moore for descending to the study of general manifolds,
using (ugh) algebraic techniques and other alien devices.
I also remember John Milnor saying something along these lines many years
ago when I was at Princeton. Or at any rate, I remember being struck by
his then little knowledge of the history of mathematics, in the midst of
his great creativity. However, I don't think such attitudes are the same
as contemptuous ones.
Gordon Fisher gfisher@shentel.net