>>11713726Saying that the Fields medal is political does not necessarily detract from the merits of the winners. Of course they are brilliant. But there is no shortage of brilliant mathematicians.
Maybe not hundreds, but you can be sure that, every four years, there are dozens of plausible candidates.
How do you figure they pick four people out of 30 geniuses, each one at the top of their respective field, all working in completely different areas ?
There has to be some kind of non-mathematical input. It cannot be completely neutral.
The same thing happens when unis recruit professors. Certainly not all applicants are equally skilled, but be sure that there are always more outstanding candidates than there are positions.
Now 'political' does not mean PoSt-MoDeRn-NeOMarXisT AgEnDa, but there is definitely some shady stuff going on.
For universities, there is definitely office politics involved: If the number theory team had their pick 3 years in a row, then the uni might not recruit a number theorist that year (unless he is Scholze-tier ofc). If the guy is outstanding AND knows people on the team, that can be a plus, etc.
For the Fields medal, there are similar concerns: area of research (probability theorists used not to be very fashionable for example), country of origin, age (Scholze could have had his medal a long time ago but people thought it good to let him wait and give it to older people who would not get other chances), and others.
In addition, whatever the criteria, prizes, and especially Fields medals, have a political effect on the world of mathematics. Whomever you give a Fields medal to will get very wide exposure. Their university and their country will be in the spotlight; their area of expertise will become very fashionable.
These choices carry a very heavy weight.
