5 ms·

From the article there is no suggestion that important mathematical methods discovered by colonists should not be taught or employed. What appears to be called

From the article there is no suggestion that important mathematical methods discovered by colonists should not be taught or employed. What appears to be called for is increased acknowledgment that the people who discovered them also, in some cases, held morally reprehensible views. So a better analogy would be, if you think this is a valid idea, then you should be aware that the people responsible for chairs, eating utensils and the widespread use of the English language may also have had reprehensible views. Do we really need to be aware of that? Maybe, maybe not. But regardless, it's a lot less dangerous or absurd than what you're suggesting.

pif 4y ago
> What appears to be called for is increased acknowledgment that the people who discovered them also, in some cases, held morally reprehensible views. And this is irrelevant at best, stupid at core and dangerous at worst. Learning stuff is what matters in an educational institution, not moral judgement of the one who discovered each bit of current knowledge.
- maweki 4y ago
  > Learning stuff is what matters in an educational institution, not moral judgement But we do hold the discovery process to moral standards. Every study involving humans (and I guess animals as well) goes through an ethics boards. I think it's not too far out there to earmark certain discoveries as "knowledge obtained by methods we would not allow by today's standards".
  - lodovic 4y ago
    But that's basically all medical science before the 20th century
    - maweki 4y ago
      First of all, that's no reason to not talk about/teach it. And second of all, there are degrees to it. Not every bit of medical knowledge was obtained by vivisection and Mengele-style experiments on "undesirables".
      - throw0101c 4y ago
        > First of all, that's no reason to not talk about/teach it. There are a finite number of hours in the day and week: what do we spend them on? If you want to learn the history of science/math, take a history course. If you're in a science/math course presumably your goal is to learn those subjects, and not history.
        n4r9 4y ago
        What if a student wants to learn mathematics, but feels alienated because so many of the results are named after stale old white men, some of whom oppressed their own ancestors, and no one seems to acknowledge this? I'm not saying we should rename the results, but showing a modicum of awareness and sensitivity can do wonders for bolstering students' confidence.
        throw0101c 4y ago
        > What if a student wants to learn mathematics, but feels alienated because so many of the results are named after stale old white men, some of whom oppressed their own ancestors, and no one seems to acknowledge this? Who did Euclid or Pythagoras oppress? Leibniz or Newton? Pascal or Laplace? Euler or Gauss?
        n4r9 4y ago
        Well, Isaac Netwon supported the slave trade by holding the equivalent of millions of pounds in shares in the South Sea Company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company Liebniz wasn't much better: "Leibniz’s early views were no more savoury; ‘barbarians,’ whom he considered ‘beasts’ (see Perkins, 111), could be destroyed in order to civilize them." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-leibniz/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-leibniz/ Obviously not all mathematicians espoused problematic views, but it's worth demonstrating sensitivity to this aspect if it broadens the appeal of the subject.
        pif 4y ago
proc0 4y ago
I think it's both. There seems to be an effort to change the methods as well because I guess it was made for the wrong target audience. It all seems based on a different epistemology, that reality isn't objective but rather a social construct, therefore it's inherently moral and needs to account for all the injustices of the world. The reason this is sinister is because it's implicitly trying to teach people that objective knowledge does not exist.
- n4r9 4y ago
  In the linked statement there are exactly two mentions of decolonisation. Firstly on p6: > Values of EDI [Equality, Diversity and Inclusion] should permeate the curriculum and every aspect of the learning experience to ensure the diverse nature of society in all its forms is evident. MSOR providers should reflect on their curricula and processes to ensure that no group is disadvantaged or othered; for example, decolonising the curriculum can involve explicit reflection on the history of MSOR knowledge generation, as well as reflecting on how delivery or admission practices might adversely impact on certain subgroups within the student cohort. EDI aspects of student engagement and achievement should be monitored and actions formed to ensure equity. Then on p. 7: > the curriculum should present a multicultural and decolonised view of MSOR, informed by the student voice. Where possible, it should present the work of a diverse group of MSOR practitioners. Students should be made aware of problematic issues in the development of the MSOR content they are being taught, for example some pioneers of statistics supported eugenics, or some mathematicians had connections to the slave trade, racism or Nazism. Students should be educated in general EDI matters and also those that are specifically elevant to MSOR, such as the need to consider diversity in data collection and analysis. I sympathise with the idea that this isn't particularly relevant to the content of mathematics. But I see nothing in the above that suggests social constructivism or challenges objective knowledge.
  - proc0 4y ago
    The problem is stemming from undermining the subject of math as a thinking tool, logic and all that. It's being done by talking about things that are not really math, as if it were math. > for example some pioneers of statistics supported eugenics, or some mathematicians had connections to the slave trade, racism or Nazism That's really a form of history, maybe social history or science history. At best it's mixing subject matters and potentially depriving people of learning math, and at worse it's pushing this ideology that has to see everything through the lens of oppressor and oppressed (not saying it's never useful, but the ideology seems to pushing itself into every corner of society and distorting everything it comes across).
dangerface 4y ago
> What appears to be called for is increased acknowledgment that the people who discovered them also, in some cases, held morally reprehensible views Every one in history held morally reprehensible views the Wigs, the Nazis, the Commies every one. If we spent all day reading about all the morally reprehensible things that where done in history we would never do any maths as we would be doing history. Obviously there is more history than can be known so what is the point?
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Let's say for the sake of argument Euclid owned a slave. Does that invalidate any of the derivation of geometric proofs from the 5 postulates in Euclid's elements? No. Ok. Does inserting an acknowledgement that Euclid owned a slave just before the QED of each proof provide any helpful or useful context for geometry? No. Ok. Are we better off if everyone tacitly moves away from ever learning or touching classical geometry in order to not have the connotation of "slaver maths" following them around? No. You seem to have missed the core idea of math and science, and confused it with one of those other human endeavors subject to being in and out of political favor. So allow me to clarify. Science and math, above all else, is an ideological commitment to the premise that truth does not derive from authority. The validity of Euclid's elements does not derive from Euclid carrying a certain clout in a mathematical establishment of prestige. Relativity did not supplant Newtonian physics because Albert reached a certain level of control within the ranks of the Royal Society. Pointing out the views and beliefs of scientists and mathematicians which have since fallen out of favor maybe detracts from their respectability, but their work wasn't built on the authority of their institutional respectability in the first place.
- n4r9 4y ago
  The goal of this part of the guidelines is not about invalidating anything in the body or content of mathematics, but rather adding inclusiveness to the teaching of mathematics. I can appreciate the idea that this could broaden the reach and appeal of mathematics education. I can well imagine that a student with an ethnic minority background is put off from taking a course that appears to have been developed and passed down from people who look a lot like (and in some cases were) the people that oppressed his own family. Reacting by dismissing this feeling and saying "you shouldn't care about that, maths is just cold logic and rationality" will only put them off further. But showing sensitivity to the context and saying "we acknowledge that some of the figures in the history of this subject are problematic, nevertheless the knowledge they discovered is useful" may make them reconsider. Will it actually work out that way? I don't know for sure, but I don't dismiss it as quickly as many people here seem to.
- joxel 4y ago
  I mean I think it helps put things in context. It sort of feels like you’re lied to if you’re told all the good things about Euler and can grow up idolizing him and not know that IRL he was a piece of shit.
flippinburgers 4y ago
Hmmm sounds like a massive waste of time to me.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yucky 4y ago
The goal of this is to be able to act as moral gatekeepers similar to what we see religious leaders do. Anybody who positions themselves as arbiters of morality (past or present) can be discounted immediately. Morality changes across time and cultures, so anybody seeking to impose their morality standards today can be ignored like the loons they are. Nobody cares if the person who invented the chair, tortured puppies in their free time. It doesn't change the history of the invention, nor the utility of it. It's just a way for unimportant, unaccomplished people to farm digital reputation through virtue signaling.
Tainnor 4y ago
> [...] that the people who discovered them also, in some cases, held morally reprehensible views. If people fail to understand that a person who lived 2300 years before our time must have held quite a range of views that we would today consider totally abhorrent, then that's not a failure in the teaching of mathematics but of history - or maybe even a failure to use common sense.

pif 4y ago

> What appears to be called for is increased acknowledgment that the people who discovered them also, in some cases, held morally reprehensible views. And this is irrelevant at best, stupid at core and dangerous at worst. Learning stuff is what matters in an educational institution, not moral judgement of the one who discovered each bit of current knowledge.

maweki 4y ago
> Learning stuff is what matters in an educational institution, not moral judgement But we do hold the discovery process to moral standards. Every study involving humans (and I guess animals as well) goes through an ethics boards. I think it's not too far out there to earmark certain discoveries as "knowledge obtained by methods we would not allow by today's standards".
- lodovic 4y ago
  But that's basically all medical science before the 20th century
  - maweki 4y ago
    First of all, that's no reason to not talk about/teach it. And second of all, there are degrees to it. Not every bit of medical knowledge was obtained by vivisection and Mengele-style experiments on "undesirables".
    - throw0101c 4y ago
      > First of all, that's no reason to not talk about/teach it. There are a finite number of hours in the day and week: what do we spend them on? If you want to learn the history of science/math, take a history course. If you're in a science/math course presumably your goal is to learn those subjects, and not history.
      - n4r9 4y ago
        What if a student wants to learn mathematics, but feels alienated because so many of the results are named after stale old white men, some of whom oppressed their own ancestors, and no one seems to acknowledge this? I'm not saying we should rename the results, but showing a modicum of awareness and sensitivity can do wonders for bolstering students' confidence.
        throw0101c 4y ago
        > What if a student wants to learn mathematics, but feels alienated because so many of the results are named after stale old white men, some of whom oppressed their own ancestors, and no one seems to acknowledge this? Who did Euclid or Pythagoras oppress? Leibniz or Newton? Pascal or Laplace? Euler or Gauss?
        n4r9 4y ago
        Well, Isaac Netwon supported the slave trade by holding the equivalent of millions of pounds in shares in the South Sea Company: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company Liebniz wasn't much better: "Leibniz’s early views were no more savoury; ‘barbarians,’ whom he considered ‘beasts’ (see Perkins, 111), could be destroyed in order to civilize them." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-leibniz/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-leibniz/ Obviously not all mathematicians espoused problematic views, but it's worth demonstrating sensitivity to this aspect if it broadens the appeal of the subject.
        pif 4y ago

proc0 4y ago

I think it's both. There seems to be an effort to change the methods as well because I guess it was made for the wrong target audience. It all seems based on a different epistemology, that reality isn't objective but rather a social construct, therefore it's inherently moral and needs to account for all the injustices of the world. The reason this is sinister is because it's implicitly trying to teach people that objective knowledge does not exist.

n4r9 4y ago
In the linked statement there are exactly two mentions of decolonisation. Firstly on p6: > Values of EDI [Equality, Diversity and Inclusion] should permeate the curriculum and every aspect of the learning experience to ensure the diverse nature of society in all its forms is evident. MSOR providers should reflect on their curricula and processes to ensure that no group is disadvantaged or othered; for example, decolonising the curriculum can involve explicit reflection on the history of MSOR knowledge generation, as well as reflecting on how delivery or admission practices might adversely impact on certain subgroups within the student cohort. EDI aspects of student engagement and achievement should be monitored and actions formed to ensure equity. Then on p. 7: > the curriculum should present a multicultural and decolonised view of MSOR, informed by the student voice. Where possible, it should present the work of a diverse group of MSOR practitioners. Students should be made aware of problematic issues in the development of the MSOR content they are being taught, for example some pioneers of statistics supported eugenics, or some mathematicians had connections to the slave trade, racism or Nazism. Students should be educated in general EDI matters and also those that are specifically elevant to MSOR, such as the need to consider diversity in data collection and analysis. I sympathise with the idea that this isn't particularly relevant to the content of mathematics. But I see nothing in the above that suggests social constructivism or challenges objective knowledge.
- proc0 4y ago
  The problem is stemming from undermining the subject of math as a thinking tool, logic and all that. It's being done by talking about things that are not really math, as if it were math. > for example some pioneers of statistics supported eugenics, or some mathematicians had connections to the slave trade, racism or Nazism That's really a form of history, maybe social history or science history. At best it's mixing subject matters and potentially depriving people of learning math, and at worse it's pushing this ideology that has to see everything through the lens of oppressor and oppressed (not saying it's never useful, but the ideology seems to pushing itself into every corner of society and distorting everything it comes across).

dangerface 4y ago

> What appears to be called for is increased acknowledgment that the people who discovered them also, in some cases, held morally reprehensible views Every one in history held morally reprehensible views the Wigs, the Nazis, the Commies every one. If we spent all day reading about all the morally reprehensible things that where done in history we would never do any maths as we would be doing history. Obviously there is more history than can be known so what is the point?

IIAOPSW 4y ago

Let's say for the sake of argument Euclid owned a slave. Does that invalidate any of the derivation of geometric proofs from the 5 postulates in Euclid's elements? No. Ok. Does inserting an acknowledgement that Euclid owned a slave just before the QED of each proof provide any helpful or useful context for geometry? No. Ok. Are we better off if everyone tacitly moves away from ever learning or touching classical geometry in order to not have the connotation of "slaver maths" following them around? No. You seem to have missed the core idea of math and science, and confused it with one of those other human endeavors subject to being in and out of political favor. So allow me to clarify. Science and math, above all else, is an ideological commitment to the premise that truth does not derive from authority. The validity of Euclid's elements does not derive from Euclid carrying a certain clout in a mathematical establishment of prestige. Relativity did not supplant Newtonian physics because Albert reached a certain level of control within the ranks of the Royal Society. Pointing out the views and beliefs of scientists and mathematicians which have since fallen out of favor maybe detracts from their respectability, but their work wasn't built on the authority of their institutional respectability in the first place.

n4r9 4y ago
The goal of this part of the guidelines is not about invalidating anything in the body or content of mathematics, but rather adding inclusiveness to the teaching of mathematics. I can appreciate the idea that this could broaden the reach and appeal of mathematics education. I can well imagine that a student with an ethnic minority background is put off from taking a course that appears to have been developed and passed down from people who look a lot like (and in some cases were) the people that oppressed his own family. Reacting by dismissing this feeling and saying "you shouldn't care about that, maths is just cold logic and rationality" will only put them off further. But showing sensitivity to the context and saying "we acknowledge that some of the figures in the history of this subject are problematic, nevertheless the knowledge they discovered is useful" may make them reconsider. Will it actually work out that way? I don't know for sure, but I don't dismiss it as quickly as many people here seem to.
joxel 4y ago
I mean I think it helps put things in context. It sort of feels like you’re lied to if you’re told all the good things about Euler and can grow up idolizing him and not know that IRL he was a piece of shit.

flippinburgers 4y ago

Hmmm sounds like a massive waste of time to me.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yucky 4y ago

The goal of this is to be able to act as moral gatekeepers similar to what we see religious leaders do. Anybody who positions themselves as arbiters of morality (past or present) can be discounted immediately. Morality changes across time and cultures, so anybody seeking to impose their morality standards today can be ignored like the loons they are. Nobody cares if the person who invented the chair, tortured puppies in their free time. It doesn't change the history of the invention, nor the utility of it. It's just a way for unimportant, unaccomplished people to farm digital reputation through virtue signaling.

Tainnor 4y ago

> [...] that the people who discovered them also, in some cases, held morally reprehensible views. If people fail to understand that a person who lived 2300 years before our time must have held quite a range of views that we would today consider totally abhorrent, then that's not a failure in the teaching of mathematics but of history - or maybe even a failure to use common sense.