4 ms·

Hello! I think I addressed some of the points you are making in my response to the user dvt. TLDR, there's low-quality research in "falsifiable" fields too. Bu

Hello! I think I addressed some of the points you are making in my response to the user dvt. TLDR, there's low-quality research in "falsifiable" fields too. But actually, I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding what your point is, could you help me? I mentioned a specific line that Paul Graham wrote, then said it was "dumb" for the reasons I outlined. Then, in defense of Paul Graham, you posted links to tweets to snippets of research absolutely without any context at all. How would I know whether that research is good or not? I have no training in any of those fields. I'm really confused about how what you posted defended Paul. Did you want me to see that someone wrote the words "decolonizing" and "math" together and subsequently think that it is stupid, after all, to write the words "hegemonic" and "whiteness" in the same paper?

throwawayback 6y ago
An attack on "whiteness" is often paired with an attack on scientific and/or capitalist principles. In my experience, if you see someone use the word "whiteness", what follows is blatant bad-faith racism, often attacking the foundations of every productive institution in society. Somehow, it is granted academic legitimacy. See for example: https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651 https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651 https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/1203784021148340224 https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/120378402114834022... https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1290645039572496385 https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/12906450395724963... Paul is painting with a broad-brush here. "Hermeneutic" for example is sometimes used in good faith inquiry. But academia has burned so much credibility with me as it has become more of an activist enterprise, that I understand the impulse to dismiss it. At this point, I put the burden on defenders of postmodern linguistics to convince me that a piece of writing isn't dishonest, evil, or fluff. Here's a recent paper from Seattle Public Schools on adding social justice principles to Mathematics. It includes such topics as "What is my mathematical identity?", "Who holds power in a mathematics classroom?", "Who gets to say if an answer is right?" and "Can we change mathematics from an individual to a collective enterprise?". The end of this line of thinking is to destroy mathematical education and leave children ignorant. But at least when they underperform in life, they will be left with the political tools to blame it on "hegemony" and "whiteness". This is an ideological cancer. https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudi...
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Are you claiming here that every productive institution in society is capitalist? Also for what it's worth, I don't see attacks on science in any things you link. I see, perhaps, a call for more empiricism in certain fields, and a call for recognition of our society and it's flaws, and how those flaws may extend into systems embedded within our society, such as the scientific community and our educational system. I mean, it's clear you agree with some of these criticisms: in the same post you staunchly defend science as, presumably a source of everything productive, but criticize "academia". Yet how do you propose to differentiate between the two? You're both criticizing different parts of the social system scientific discourse is embedded in. What makes the other criticism inherently invalid? > The end of this line of thinking is to destroy mathematical education and leave children ignorant I want to call out specifically that there is absolutely nothing you've quoted that supports this claim.
  - throwawayback 6y ago
    I hold a graduate degree. I have a certain affection for academia. It's with great sadness that I watch a once-great institution shamble down the path to perdition. Hopefully we find a way to renew it, or else to do basic science outside of it

throwawayback 6y ago

An attack on "whiteness" is often paired with an attack on scientific and/or capitalist principles. In my experience, if you see someone use the word "whiteness", what follows is blatant bad-faith racism, often attacking the foundations of every productive institution in society. Somehow, it is granted academic legitimacy. See for example: https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651 https://twitter.com/ByronYork/status/1283372233730203651 https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/1203784021148340224 https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/120378402114834022... https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1290645039572496385 https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/12906450395724963... Paul is painting with a broad-brush here. "Hermeneutic" for example is sometimes used in good faith inquiry. But academia has burned so much credibility with me as it has become more of an activist enterprise, that I understand the impulse to dismiss it. At this point, I put the burden on defenders of postmodern linguistics to convince me that a piece of writing isn't dishonest, evil, or fluff. Here's a recent paper from Seattle Public Schools on adding social justice principles to Mathematics. It includes such topics as "What is my mathematical identity?", "Who holds power in a mathematics classroom?", "Who gets to say if an answer is right?" and "Can we change mathematics from an individual to a collective enterprise?". The end of this line of thinking is to destroy mathematical education and leave children ignorant. But at least when they underperform in life, they will be left with the political tools to blame it on "hegemony" and "whiteness". This is an ideological cancer. https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudies/pubdocs/Math%20SDS%20ES%20Framework.pdf https://www.k12.wa.us/sites/default/files/public/socialstudi...

joshuamorton 6y ago
Are you claiming here that every productive institution in society is capitalist? Also for what it's worth, I don't see attacks on science in any things you link. I see, perhaps, a call for more empiricism in certain fields, and a call for recognition of our society and it's flaws, and how those flaws may extend into systems embedded within our society, such as the scientific community and our educational system. I mean, it's clear you agree with some of these criticisms: in the same post you staunchly defend science as, presumably a source of everything productive, but criticize "academia". Yet how do you propose to differentiate between the two? You're both criticizing different parts of the social system scientific discourse is embedded in. What makes the other criticism inherently invalid? > The end of this line of thinking is to destroy mathematical education and leave children ignorant I want to call out specifically that there is absolutely nothing you've quoted that supports this claim.
- throwawayback 6y ago
  I hold a graduate degree. I have a certain affection for academia. It's with great sadness that I watch a once-great institution shamble down the path to perdition. Hopefully we find a way to renew it, or else to do basic science outside of it