3 ms·

> "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." This is primary/secondary school

> "Upholding the idea that there are always right and wrong answers perpetuate objectivity as well as fear of open conflict." This is primary/secondary school mathematics, not cutting edge mathematical research, and there quite clearly is a right and wrong answer for simple, commonly used mathematics of that nature. Moreover, it's unclear what's wrong with "perpetuat[ing] objectivity"; most people here on HN would describe objectivity as a good thing.

eesmith 5y ago
As I quoted: """Of course, most math problems have correct answers, but sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer.""" Just how certain are you that all problems posed in primary/secondary school mathematics quite clearly have a right and wrong answer? Judging on my own experience, you aren't correct. My point was to highlight how the WSJ op-ed was overly selective quote mining. You appear to be objecting to how one quote uses the term "objectivity". You likely know there is no simple definition of what "objectivity" means, yes? If not, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ for a lengthy discussion focused just on scientific objectivity, in the introduction writing "The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability" and saying in the conclusion "In each case, there are at least some reasons to believe that either science cannot deliver full objectivity in this sense, or that it would not be a good thing to try to do so, or both." Equitable Math specifically uses the description from Jones and Okun (2001), and links to https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/files/White_Supremacy_Culture.pdf https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/fil... . The first of these is "the belief that there is such a thing as being objective"; a belief which I pointed out "has been criticized repeatedly" and that likely cannot or should not be achieved in science. (See "positivism", "postpositivism", and "interpretivism" in case you find it hard to get to sleep.) Other characteristics from Jones and Okun include "invalidating people who show emotion" and "the belief that emotions are inherently destructive, irrational, and should not play a role in decision-making or group processes." I do not invalidate BitwiseFool for showing emotion ("scares and angers me"). Nor do I think others on HN would regard BitwiseFool's emotions as destructive or irrational. I therefore believe that most people on HN do reject "objectivity" as used by the authors of Equitable Math. While you may dislike the authors' definition of "objectivity", I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss their work based on a tangential quote I pasted here. Consider how confusing is it that in math a set can be neither "closed" nor "open" yet in normal a door is typically either "open" or "closed", or perhaps "ajar."
DanBC 5y ago
Yet whenever Monty Hall comes up on HN there are long threads of people discussing slightly different problems. The answer to "should you switch in the Monty Hall problem" is very much "it depends how you've worded it", and that's a valuable skill we need children to have.

eesmith 5y ago

As I quoted: """Of course, most math problems have correct answers, but sometimes there can be more than one way to interpret a problem, especially word problems, leading to more than one possible right answer.""" Just how certain are you that all problems posed in primary/secondary school mathematics quite clearly have a right and wrong answer? Judging on my own experience, you aren't correct. My point was to highlight how the WSJ op-ed was overly selective quote mining. You appear to be objecting to how one quote uses the term "objectivity". You likely know there is no simple definition of what "objectivity" means, yes? If not, see https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-objectivity/ for a lengthy discussion focused just on scientific objectivity, in the introduction writing "The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability" and saying in the conclusion "In each case, there are at least some reasons to believe that either science cannot deliver full objectivity in this sense, or that it would not be a good thing to try to do so, or both." Equitable Math specifically uses the description from Jones and Okun (2001), and links to https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/files/White_Supremacy_Culture.pdf https://www.thc.texas.gov/public/upload/preserve/museums/fil... . The first of these is "the belief that there is such a thing as being objective"; a belief which I pointed out "has been criticized repeatedly" and that likely cannot or should not be achieved in science. (See "positivism", "postpositivism", and "interpretivism" in case you find it hard to get to sleep.) Other characteristics from Jones and Okun include "invalidating people who show emotion" and "the belief that emotions are inherently destructive, irrational, and should not play a role in decision-making or group processes." I do not invalidate BitwiseFool for showing emotion ("scares and angers me"). Nor do I think others on HN would regard BitwiseFool's emotions as destructive or irrational. I therefore believe that most people on HN do reject "objectivity" as used by the authors of Equitable Math. While you may dislike the authors' definition of "objectivity", I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss their work based on a tangential quote I pasted here. Consider how confusing is it that in math a set can be neither "closed" nor "open" yet in normal a door is typically either "open" or "closed", or perhaps "ajar."

DanBC 5y ago

Yet whenever Monty Hall comes up on HN there are long threads of people discussing slightly different problems. The answer to "should you switch in the Monty Hall problem" is very much "it depends how you've worded it", and that's a valuable skill we need children to have.