One of the bits he cites is a table of sociological and cultural distinctions attached to coffee and tea. I can get behind coffee being male to tea’s female, or coffee being hardheaded to tea’s romance, but I simply cannot understand why they say coffee corresponds to topology while tea corresponds to geometry. Unfortunately, the only copy in my university’s library is checked out and not due back until about this time next year. Does anyone have this book to tell me why they make this assertion?
Clearly, it’s because it’s canonically a coffee cup (always coffee, never tea) that’s topologically equivalent to a doughnut, while the teapot is a standard test of geometric rendering engines.
I don’t have the book, but with Amazon’s ever useful “search inside this book” function, I was able to read the relevent passage, pages 130 to 132 for those who have an Amazon.com account.
Anyway, theres no explanation whatsoever where the authors got topology and geometry from. There’s a table, all right, but that’s the only place the word “topology” appears in the whole book. Here’s a short exerpt to give you an idea of the context in which the table appears:
I think a hint would be the inclusion of “outdoorsman” in the list of stereotypical coffee drinkers. “Topology”, in this context would refer not to the branch of mathematics but to the " topographic study of a particular place; specifically : the history of a region as indicated by its topography." (Merriam-Webster)
Geometer are people who, in the quiet of their study, ponder on ideal and abstract shapes. That makes them tea people. Topologists, on the other hand, go out into the world, and get dirty studying the shape of what’s actually out there. That makes them coffee people.
I would note that: 1) IMO, the whole chart is, well, not very scientific, even from a social science point of view. 2) Mathematical topologists are actually geometers in the context of this chart.
Weird. Maybe because of the old idea that boys and men are good at algebra, while girls and women are better at geometry? Not that I know what topology and algebra would have in common, but I do “get” geometry = female. (Not that I agree with it - but I get it.)
I think “feminine” and “masculine” are meant to be taken figuratively in this context.
Thinking a bit more about it, I think this is a case of terribly overstating what should have been nothing more than a casual observation. The most convincing argument for this coffe->masculine, tea->feminine dichotomy is this passage:
The rethorical problem with examples is, of course, that you can shoot down the argument with counter-examples. In this case, the author conveniently ignores Chinese tea houses and Indian, Persian, etc. tea drinking cultures. These venues are no quainter and just as socially vibrant as any coffee house.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t a kernel of truth in the observation, just that going to the trouble of drafting a chart is overkill, if not bordering on bs.
Even so, there are justifications for each of these other alignments. They didn’t just throw this dichotomy in randomly; they (a) assigned one to each for a reason and (b) decided that it was a dichotomy in the first place, which I don’t really understand either.
The article you linked to doesn’t quote the whole chart. In the original text, the chart has 37 pairs. Among them:
Bohemian - Conventional
Passion, earthiness - Spirituality, mysticism
Down-to-earth - Elevated
Work - Contemplation
The Frontier - The Drawing room
If you use a classical distinction between the sensible world and the intelligible world (to use Plato’s terminology), you can see that in this chart, coffee types are concerned with matters of the sensible, and tea types are drawn to the intelligible. The geometer, going back to ancient Greece, is the classical example of the person concerned with the intelligible world. To this, the authors oppose someone who does something similar, but in a sensible world context. That would be the topologist, in that he studies not the shape of ideal conceptual objects, but of material, sensible ones.
Again, this explanation only holds if you ignore that there is a branch of mathematics that is also called “topology”.
Considering the assumptions the authors make about the two camps and using the same bullshit logic* with a lack of knowledge of things mathematical:
Geometry is staid, two dimensional, limited, precise and unadventurous.
Topology is 3D, it’s now, it’s modern and groovy man, it’s unconstrained, wild, it’s sexy, blah blah blah
Any crap the book about coffee : chaos theory, tea : algebra; coffee: general relativity, tea : Newtonian.
Fwiw, I consider coffee to be indoor, poncy, nancy-boy sort of drink and tea to be a rough out-door sort of drink. The former is drunk mainly in cafes with a foccacia and chardonnay and the latter commonly drunk camping or working on the farm.
I thought it was just a donut joke. The torus is something you hear a lot about in topology, donuts are dunked in coffee. Now the authors are having a good laugh at making you all philosophize so deeply about it. ultrafilter got the joke.
antechinus, that’s what you get for being upside-down.
No. Topology only has one meaning, that being the mathematical field (which if anything, is even more abstract than metric geometry). Mapmaking is not topology, it’s topography. It’s possible that “topology” was a typo, in which case the rugged outdoorsman thing would come into play, and it’s possible that this was influenced by the old joke about the definition of a topologist (someone who can’t tell the difference between a donut and a coffee cup).
I thought there was only mathematical topology, but when I checked M-W for clues, I saw the definition I quoted. It seems, though, that it is indeed not a proper field of study outside of mathematics. You can talk about the topology of Canada, for instance, and it seems to be this usage that the definition refers to.
I thought I had a pretty darn good explanation with that sensible/intelligible dichotomy. Oh well. Topology is geometry without measurements. It’s freeeeee, man. As a matter of fact, it reminds me of the following story from the Tang dynasty:
Lào Táy once asked Master Dā Jìe Lǐng: “Why is coffee like topology and tea like geometry?”
Master Dā Jìe Lǐng replied: “Milk!”
I admire a person who can say Merriam-Webster is flat-out wrong. But you may be fighting a losing battle. Some examples of “topology” used in a way that doesn’t relate to the field of mathematics.
Tsunamis are modelled by soliton solutions to wave equations. Solitons are highly dependent on the topology (math sense) of the medium in question.
Again, this is a reference to the topology (math sense) of the solutions of fluid-flow equations.
The other two are clearly intending “topography”. Misuse on the part of speakers does not make the use correct. This line of thought – that it’s a dichotomy between the outdoor life and the inner life of the mind – explains neither the misuse of the term on the part of the authors nor the specific choice of “geometry” as the contradistinction. Why not “academia” in general if that’s what they meant?
It sounds like it’s just an inaccurate analogy – why the authors would think it was accurate, I can’t imagine. Probably they don’t have a good idea of what topology is. (I gather from the subject of the book that they’re sociologists, not mathematicians, right?) At any rate, I’d be interested to see what the author’s response is, if you receive one.
