Ivor Grattan-Guinness, in his recent "History of the Mathematical Sciences",
states:
"The study of philomaths is rather new in the history of
mathematics, which is our concern here as an activity.
One might expect that mathematicians' interest in history
would be deep, for their subject has shown long continuous
concerns; after all, all the ancient roots are still with
us. However, mathematicians often treat history with
contempt (unsullied by any practice or even knowledge of
it, of course)."
There surely is truth in this cliche/, but there is also falsehood, as
it always happens with this kind of statements.
I'd like to do a little empirical investigation to gather some information
on what you think about this controversial issue so as sort out informally
the truth and the falsehood.
If you do agree that "mathematicians often treat history with contempt",
(a) what are (in your personal opinion, naturally) the main reasons?
(b) to which extent has this "contempt" been a problem to historians
of mathematics (of yesterday and to-day)?
(c) I would much appreciate any precise citations (references), either
about public "contempt" implicitly alluded or explicitly said.
Reactions, anecdotes, and/or personal experiences are most welcome to hearing
from you.
Greetings from MVD, JGC