Landau and Lifshitz are used very widely in physics. Good books, they hold up surprisingly well too and they're straight to the point, they omit the bullshit. But Landau was... Um... Not exactly the best politically lol.
Even more widely used are USSR math books, for many reasons. However I have generally noticed that usually scientists were not exactly the greatest fans of communism. Part of it I guess has to do with the shit they had to put up due to Stalin and the dumb Lysenkoism. I guess it got better after Stalin but the attitude stayed.
There were massive fights by scientists during de-stalinization fighting to not have to toe the philosophical line in their research (and other social issues). One reason a lot of soviet scientists did military instead of civilian research was because they got more leeway to have access to stuff in the military (Kolmogorav got to live with his, likely, same sex partner for example). Slava Gerovitch wrote a really good book on this in the context of the cybernetics boom then crash in the soviet union called From Newspeak to Cyberspeak. They really disliked the old party mostly, that's one reason the party appointed less orthodox members to run the science cities, because they didn't want hardliners fighting with the local scientists and engineers.
Yeah overpoliticization of science was pretty bad under Stalin. I remember reading how Vladimir Fock tried to ground general relativity in dialectical materialism because of how many overzealous party members kept attacking it. It's good that the left as a whole eventually figured out this shit is dumb.
Yeah there was this guy Kolman who was pretty bad, from the book:
Kolman labeled mathematical physics “wrecking” and branded
“mathematical abstraction” a weapon of counterrevolution:
“Matter disappears, only equations remain”—this Leninist description of academic papism in modern physics gives the clue to the understanding of the wrecker’s predilection for the mathematization of every science. The wreckers do not dare to say directly that they want to restore capitalism, they have to hide behind a convenient mask. And there is no more impenetrable mask to hide behind than a curtain of mathematical abstraction.
He actually accepted cybernetics but tried to do so on a weird argument that the old philosophy was right, but all the other Stalin era philosophers were wrong in fighting cybernetics on their understanding of dialectical materialism. It got ridiculous, and no one wanted to hire him at any of the institutes post 1953.
Some of the cybernetics critics were even worse. There was a vitriolic 1953 attack on it called "Whom Does Cybernetics Serve" which literally argued Marx foresaw cybernetics and prepared arguments against it in advance. Kolman did the same thing, but saying Marx in fact foresaw direct approval of cybernetic machinery.
Yeah, well, Lysenko is the best known one. But yeah, "this confuses me so it is actually a bourgeois conspiracy, my uncle knows Stalin so I'm gonna have all professors researching that demoted" was a prevalent attitude these years unfortunately. They still had great science though, especially physics and math.
I've seen some people talk about how SCIENTISTS may be reactionary or whatever, but not science itself. Never seen an ML or anything similar say something about how science is just bad and wrong or something, so maybe you did just encounter really weird people.
Yeah in the 1930s he reportedley gave fake testimony during the Luzin affair in 1936 because, according to some later soviet mathematicians, the NKVD blackmailed him over a relationship he had with Pavl Aleksandrov. It's not totally clear how true this is though. I lean towards it possibly being overembellishment as it was imo an open secret. The testimony itself though was definitely bs, as the whole affair was crap by Kolman against "counterrevolutionary" mathematicians.
I think it's virtually certain he was in a long term relationship with Aleksandrov. They lived together for years. One of my professors interviewed some old soviet mathematicians and they were like, yeah everyone knew.
It's not totally clear the Luzin testimony was gotten via blackmail though.
Why does everyone hate Jackson as much as they do? It wasn't that bad. It was a bit uneven and the exercises were super hard but definitely not what I expected from all the stuff people say. I've read much harder books than Jackson, for instance Mehran Kardar's Statistical Physics (especially the exercises, yes, they are much harder than Jackson but also more interesting, because they're like "see how we derived the equations for this phenomenon? Here's a completely different phenomenon, explain that"), and lots of books in math (Rotman's Introduction to the Theory of Groups comes to mind, though if you search for online reviews people pretend it is just sweet for some reason, it also hides important stuff in the exercises which forces you to go through them, and they are hard). So yeah idk, Jackson is hard, but it's not as hard as people say, there is much harder books. One issue is that some chapters are much harder than the others and so it's like throwing you curve balls.
It is pretty dry. I own Zangwill, very nice book. But I don't think Jackson is bad. I like books which are very to the point, in that sense Jackson is kinda similar to Landau-Lifshitz, just more uneven. Zangwill I'd say is better.
Landau and Lifshitz are used very widely in physics. Good books, they hold up surprisingly well too and they're straight to the point, they omit the bullshit. But Landau was... Um... Not exactly the best politically lol.
Even more widely used are USSR math books, for many reasons. However I have generally noticed that usually scientists were not exactly the greatest fans of communism. Part of it I guess has to do with the shit they had to put up due to Stalin and the dumb Lysenkoism. I guess it got better after Stalin but the attitude stayed.
There were massive fights by scientists during de-stalinization fighting to not have to toe the philosophical line in their research (and other social issues). One reason a lot of soviet scientists did military instead of civilian research was because they got more leeway to have access to stuff in the military (Kolmogorav got to live with his, likely, same sex partner for example). Slava Gerovitch wrote a really good book on this in the context of the cybernetics boom then crash in the soviet union called From Newspeak to Cyberspeak. They really disliked the old party mostly, that's one reason the party appointed less orthodox members to run the science cities, because they didn't want hardliners fighting with the local scientists and engineers.
Yeah overpoliticization of science was pretty bad under Stalin. I remember reading how Vladimir Fock tried to ground general relativity in dialectical materialism because of how many overzealous party members kept attacking it. It's good that the left as a whole eventually figured out this shit is dumb.
Yeah there was this guy Kolman who was pretty bad, from the book:
Kolman labeled mathematical physics “wrecking” and branded “mathematical abstraction” a weapon of counterrevolution: “Matter disappears, only equations remain”—this Leninist description of academic papism in modern physics gives the clue to the understanding of the wrecker’s predilection for the mathematization of every science. The wreckers do not dare to say directly that they want to restore capitalism, they have to hide behind a convenient mask. And there is no more impenetrable mask to hide behind than a curtain of mathematical abstraction.
He actually accepted cybernetics but tried to do so on a weird argument that the old philosophy was right, but all the other Stalin era philosophers were wrong in fighting cybernetics on their understanding of dialectical materialism. It got ridiculous, and no one wanted to hire him at any of the institutes post 1953.
Some of the cybernetics critics were even worse. There was a vitriolic 1953 attack on it called "Whom Does Cybernetics Serve" which literally argued Marx foresaw cybernetics and prepared arguments against it in advance. Kolman did the same thing, but saying Marx in fact foresaw direct approval of cybernetic machinery.
Yeah, well, Lysenko is the best known one. But yeah, "this confuses me so it is actually a bourgeois conspiracy, my uncle knows Stalin so I'm gonna have all professors researching that demoted" was a prevalent attitude these years unfortunately. They still had great science though, especially physics and math.
Yeah the lysenko affair was only in one institute there were several others each with their own things going on.
deleted by creator
I literally have never seen that. Maybe some weird anarchists have that view, idk.
deleted by creator
I've seen some people talk about how SCIENTISTS may be reactionary or whatever, but not science itself. Never seen an ML or anything similar say something about how science is just bad and wrong or something, so maybe you did just encounter really weird people.
BTW I didn't know Kolmogorov was gay lol, that owns, I learned real analysis from his book.
Yeah in the 1930s he reportedley gave fake testimony during the Luzin affair in 1936 because, according to some later soviet mathematicians, the NKVD blackmailed him over a relationship he had with Pavl Aleksandrov. It's not totally clear how true this is though. I lean towards it possibly being overembellishment as it was imo an open secret. The testimony itself though was definitely bs, as the whole affair was crap by Kolman against "counterrevolutionary" mathematicians.
I looked it up and there doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence this happened.
I think it's virtually certain he was in a long term relationship with Aleksandrov. They lived together for years. One of my professors interviewed some old soviet mathematicians and they were like, yeah everyone knew.
It's not totally clear the Luzin testimony was gotten via blackmail though.
Yeah, the gay part is pretty well known from what I understood, the blackmail thing is what I didn't find much evidence for.
deleted by creator
Why does everyone hate Jackson as much as they do? It wasn't that bad. It was a bit uneven and the exercises were super hard but definitely not what I expected from all the stuff people say. I've read much harder books than Jackson, for instance Mehran Kardar's Statistical Physics (especially the exercises, yes, they are much harder than Jackson but also more interesting, because they're like "see how we derived the equations for this phenomenon? Here's a completely different phenomenon, explain that"), and lots of books in math (Rotman's Introduction to the Theory of Groups comes to mind, though if you search for online reviews people pretend it is just sweet for some reason, it also hides important stuff in the exercises which forces you to go through them, and they are hard). So yeah idk, Jackson is hard, but it's not as hard as people say, there is much harder books. One issue is that some chapters are much harder than the others and so it's like throwing you curve balls.
deleted by creator
It is pretty dry. I own Zangwill, very nice book. But I don't think Jackson is bad. I like books which are very to the point, in that sense Jackson is kinda similar to Landau-Lifshitz, just more uneven. Zangwill I'd say is better.
deleted by creator