Difference between revisions of "Greiffenhagen-Sharrock2011"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Christian Greiffenhagen; Wes Sharrock; |Title=Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back? |Tag(s)=EMCA; Ethno...")
(No difference)

Revision as of 12:34, 6 June 2015

Greiffenhagen-Sharrock2011
BibType ARTICLE
Key Greiffenhagen-Sharrock2011
Author(s) Christian Greiffenhagen, Wes Sharrock
Title Does mathematics look certain in the front, but fallible in the back?
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Ethnomethodology, Mathematics, certainty, fallibilism, ideology, myths
Publisher
Year 2011
Language
City
Month
Journal Social Studies of Science
Volume 41
Number 6
Pages 839-866
URL
DOI
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

In this paper we re-examine the implications of the differences between ‘doing’ and ‘writing’ science and mathematics, questioning whether the way that science and mathematics are presented in textbooks or research articles creates a misleading picture of these differences. We focus our discussion on mathematics, in particular on Reuben Hersh’s formulation of the contrast in terms of Goffman’s dramaturgical frontstage–backstage analogy and his claim that various myths about mathematics only fit with how mathematics is presented in the ‘front’, but not with how it is practised in the ‘back’. By investigating examples of both the ‘front’ (graduate lectures in mathematical logic) and the ‘back’ (meetings between supervisor and doctoral students) we examine, first, whether the ‘front’ of mathematics presents a misleading picture of mathematics, and, second, whether the ‘front’ and ‘back’ of mathematics are so discrepant that mathematics really does look certain in the front’, but fallible in the ‘back’. Keywords

Notes