Mathematician Claims New Yorker Defamed Him

An anonymous reader writes, "Last month the New Yorker ran the article 'Manifold Destiny' (slashdotted here), by Sylvia Nasar, author of 'A Beautiful Mind.' Now a renowned Harvard mathematics professor, Dr. Shing-Tung Yau, is claiming the article defamed him. His attorney wrote the New Yorker a letter (PDF) threatening that Yau will have 'no choice but to consider other options' if Nasar, her co-author, and the New Yorker fail to undo the damage done."

Comments

Hey!

[AltGrendel]

Doesn't this prove the article's point?

Re:Hey!

[the-empty-string]

Doesn't this prove the article's point?

Actually, no. He claims the authors distorted the facts, and he provides his own account of said facts as he sees them. How does this prove anything? What you're saying is no different from "I think this guy really raped that girl, because he acted too outraged when we accused him."

I actually read the original article in the New Yorker at the time, and found it to be a fascinating look into the inner workings of science at the highest level. Having no direct knowledge of any of the people involved, my impresion of their roles in the story (and ultimately of their character), was shaped entirely by what the article authors have said. In particular, Dr. Yau did come across as a deeply flawed, manipulative individual obsessed by his place in history, which I thought was very sad indeed, given his apparently uncontested mathematical genius and his achievements formaly acknowledged by having been awarded his very own Fields Medal.

However, after reading the letter, I am not so sure anymore. Don't forget that he who frames the discussion controls the outcome. Once this article has been out there, people already formed their perceptions. The deck is stacked against the defendant. Remember how Al Gore took credit for inventing the Internet? Oh, wait, he didn't.

What if the thrust of the story is in fact false? The letter states rather convincingly that the interviews were conducted under false pretenses, that certain critical quotes were distorted or outright fabricated, and that important pieces of information that would have painted a different picture were simply left out. Yeah, he "looks" guilty in the original article, but why should we consider that version of the facts true, and discard the letter as "proving the point"? That's not how we arrive at the truth.

I'm not totally surprised

[igb]

When I read the original article it struck me that either they had very good sources, or they were confident he wouldn't sue, or they were happy to get embroiled in one of those venue shopping disputes. Given The New Yorker is sold in newsagents in the UK, and people here have subscriptions (I do, for example), and mathmatics is an international field, it's hard to see how a UK court would object to being the venue for a libel action such as this. And, on the face of it, the guy wouldn't have problems showing the words were capable of admitting a defamatory reading, which is the basic test, or that it would lower him in the eyes of a reader, which is another. They'd have to plead justification, and that's hard.

Hell hath no fury like an academic with his reputation scorned.

ian

Re:I'm not totally surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell hath no fury like an academic with his reputation scorned.

Probably because academics seldom have more than a reputation. It's their legacy and what they leave in the world, they don't accumulate toys to show status at the end but instead rest in peace knowing their papers added to mankind's knowledge.

Re:Yau

[Timesprout]

While I dont even begin to understand the math it looks a little more murky than blatantly just trying to steal Perelmans credit. No one seems to have found significant error in Perelmans work but also no one seems to understand completely how he actually arrived at his solution. Now I remember from my math class that if you could not show how you arrived at your answer it was treated as a guess and thrown out.

I am not saying Perelman did not solve the conjecture but his approach to publishing his work in a piecemeal and incomplete manner was a poor choice and left him wide open to what has happened (note he does come across as somewhat eccentric in the article). Yau does appear to be filling in gaps though after someone else did all the grunt work for him so while he has completed the work by doing so he has proved that Perelman was in fact correct.

Re:Defamation

[cool_arrow]

When you speak negatively about someone, however true it may be, how likely are you to confess to it when asked by that person (or his reps) whether it was true. Human nature being what it is.

Re:sue!

[Wavicle]

Why cant we all get along

Because there is more money to be made in not getting along.

Does anyone actually doubt that Yau is a theif?

[chaboud]

This isn't the first time that he's used failure to understand portions of proofs to piggyback on others by collaborating to fill non-holes in proofs.

Part of this is due to the obscenely political state of modern mathematics. Part of it is the silly amount of credit given to people willing to do the grunt work of filling out proofs, even though it's important. Still, a great deal of this has to be put on Yau and his strong-arm, slap-dash tactics. It doesn't help that the accusation of the portrayal of a racial stereotype is contained within fulfillment of the accused behavior, but Nasar never said that Chinese mathematicians are dirty, cheating bastards. She said that Yau is.

Yau's press-release shows how much he believes he represents Chinese mathematics. A statement disparaging Yau does the same for Chinese mathematicians?

Please.

There's nothing racial about someone spending the latter half of his life manipulating a broken system when his actual intellect is insufficient.