Subject: Re: [HM] The Universal History of Numbers
From: Kim Plofker (Kim_Plofker@Brown.edu)
Date: Wed Jun 07 2000 - 15:08:33 EDT
John Fauvel wrote:
> I understand that in its native France, this book has attracted rather
> a lot of criticism from specialists in the areas covered by the book.
> The 'Bulletin APMEP' for April-May 1995 and June 1995 (nos 398 and 399)
> carried reviews by specialists in Maya numeration, Indian numeration,
> Chinese numeration and Mesopotamian numeration, all drawing attention
> to problems with the account of these subjects given by Ifrah. [...]
>
> This kind of debate doesn't seem to have occurred in the English-speaking
> world, and so if any of our French colleagues could fill us in on the
> points at issue this would be rather helpful.
A resume by Patrick Guyot is visible at
http://www.ac-dijon.fr/etab/saone/ldumaine/Homepage%20Lycee/maths4.html#ifrah
[...]
> It might be worthwhile to debate how the balance between inspiration and
> accuracy is to be struck. Can it be argued that an exciting book that is
> rather cavalier with its sources is nevertheless on balance a good thing, or
> must a book of this sort be considered to set such a disreputable example
> that it should be kept away from vulnerable minds? From books people learn
> not only factual information (which may or may not be true) but also, by
> example, an approach to acquiring and evaluating that information. Perhaps
> one's judgement about Ifrah depends on how one balances being told things
> with learning to find out things.
Well, I haven't read the book, so my comments may not be worth much; but
it seems to me that the relative value of inspiration and accuracy will
depend largely on the nature of the subject matter. The history of
numeration is a topic so heavily dependent on the evidence from textual
traditions that I can't quite see the point of writing a book on it that is
sloppy about sources. (Mind you, I recognize that it's not humanly possible
to attain the necessary familiarity with _all_ the sources relevant to
the "universal history of numbers"; my reaction to such hugely generalist
works tends to be divided between sympathy for the author's overwhelming
difficulties and puzzlement as to why he or she would even attempt
such a task.)
Kim Plofker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 12:17:21 EDT