5 ms·
WTF are they even trying to say in this article?
by invig 3y ago
WTF are they even trying to say in this article?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- camdenlock 3y agoRoughly summarized, they’re afraid that these popular models won’t exclusively push their preferred ideology (critical social justice)
- delusional 3y agoWhat is "critical social justice"? Is it the opposite of uncritical social justice? To be honest, it reads like the two spooky terms "race critical" and "social justice" conjoined in some word soup that's supposed to be very scary to people who are easily scared by ideas they don't understand. Race critical social justice is not an ideology and more than set theory (yes, the math one) is. It's a way to view the world that provides you with certain insights. You don't need to believe in any particular solution to those problems in order to identify and examine them.
- Nemrod67 3y agousername checks out
- _Algernon_ 3y ago"Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
- _Algernon_ 3y agoThe idea to compare the certainty of any social science theory with proven mathematical theories is pretty much ridiculous. There is no replication crisis[1] in math. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
- defrost 3y agoThere are issues of verification though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-surveyable_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-surveyable_proof
- _Algernon_ 3y agoAgain, I find that comparing the two is a false equivalence. Non-surveyable proofs seems limited to recent, computer assisted proofs. The replication crisis applies to whole fields of study. Not to mention that the specific example I responded to (set theory) was developed long before computer assisted proofs were a thing.