TL;DR
This paper critically examines claims about ethics in mathematics, challenging assumptions about mathematicians' traits and behaviors, and argues for a nuanced understanding of ethical engagement in the field.
Contribution
It provides a critical perspective on existing discussions of ethics in mathematics, highlighting the importance of individual differences and questioning generalized psychological assumptions.
Findings
Challenges assumptions about mathematicians' psychological traits
Highlights diversity in ethical engagement among mathematicians
Questions the validity of generalized ethical recommendations
Abstract
This is a critical response to some arguments and general recommendations presented in a discussion paper Four Levels of Ethical Engagement [EiM Discussion Paper 1/2018 University of Cambridge Ethics in Mathematics Project, https://www.ethics-in-mathematics.com/assets/dp/18 1.pdf] by Maurice Chiodo and Piers Bursill-Hall. Much in their article is based on certain observations about characteristic psychological traits of mathematicians and their patterns of behavior that I find to be in stark contrast to my own observations. I argue against their assumptions and conclusions using examples.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques · History and Theory of Mathematics · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment