>>11505880>bourbakist paradigmIf you mean exposition as axioms, definitions, theorems based on previously established results, note that we have had that since Euclid.
>>11505880>>11505893>but it's fucking pathetic that they have to hide from people what real mathematics is just to get them interested. And then they go on about the "inherent beauty" of mathematics, while hiding away any real pure mathematics.Indeed. The root of the problem is that a lot of people want to feel like they are doing something intellectually valuable but they are unwilling to put the effort it requires; therefore they resort to popular “science” like this. It gives them only the finished result so that they can tell to themselves they are knowledgeable about the deep results of mathematics, physics, etc. without really understanding it (the type of people who watch popular mathematics videos could not write a proof for any of them).
The upside is that having a taste of scientific knowledge, even in the barbarised version that is popular science, motivates some people to learn the real science.
