So let me get this straight: you're saying that Terrence Tao, one of the most prominent mathematicians alive today, doesn't know math history? And me pointing this out is merely an appeal to authority?
Get outta here.
Get outta here.
If Tao has a knowledge of the topic (which he does), then it isn't by virtue of being a mathematician per se, but by virtue of an interest in the history of mathematics (which he has). Knowledge of math is enormously helpful here, but it does not imply historical knowledge.
I mean, besides the empty platitude that we have no reason to assume applies here, we can easily search and find Tao commenting on the history and philosophy of mathematics.
This is a really weird subthread.
"Commenting on" does not equal historian of mathematics aware of all the past politics and drama from 100 years ago. There's no reason to assume an expert in applied mathematics is also a historian, especially when their statements are somewhat in conflict with history. And, there's nothing wrong with that, if they have a knowledge gap in some boring past bickering when they're one of the best in the world at what they do, ffs.
Clearly Tao knows the former, but apriori that does not imply he knows the latter.
Not saying he doesn't, just saying one does not imply the other.
Even if you go back and read the original papers, you'll miss all that which happened beyond the page.