When you've won a Fields Medal and then made fundamental contributions to an entirely different area of mathematics, you might have earned the right to make such comments on Mumford's thoughts. Until then, at least follow the HN site and comment guidelines!

I don't accept your premise -- there are no rights predicated on a Fields medal. At the same time you do make a point, my comment could and should have been more constructive.

I find that the cavalcade of stimulus/fMRI/"We've discovered the part of the brain responsible for beauty/truth/Tea Party/etc." studies, as a class, to be poorly designed experiments which add little to the broad base of scientific knowledge. I am always skeptical if these studies (and I always get voted down.)

I think the mass of these fMRI studies are much like the man looking for his keys under the streetlight. He's not looking there because they're likely to be there, but because that's the only place he can see.

Ok. I'm a moron. I have no problem at all with what Mumford wrote. In fact it is not a waste of time at all.

I realize I followed the link to the original study he cited. That, I think is a waste of time.

Why? It gives us an insight about how a mathematician think about his discipline. I found it very interesting.