5 ms·

Incorrect casual assumptions

73 points by diodorus 3y ago

AlpineIvyPhD 3y ago
The one thing missing here imho is skepticism about the sources and their biases. They can be both factually wrong and also biased. I could be wrong about this, but I think the Suda is somewhat questionable, isn't it?
taeric 3y ago
I feel like I just took a peak into some debate that is happening somewhere else? Seems silly to worry about the exact abilities of people so many years ago. What is at stake here? And why do we have to take the position that teachers and editors are not, in general, considered a fine practitioner of what they are teaching/editing? Are they the pinnacle? Almost certainly not, but that will be true of most any particular example. More I'd wager that the editor of the higher performers is better at whatever the topic is than a large enough portion of the rest of the crowd, that folks probably do hold them in some esteem at the topic?
- schoen 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Legacy
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - AlpineIvyPhD 3y ago
    Yup, and that's why the bias of original sources matters too. Bias gets amplified over time. Or reversed at the same intensity, I suppose. And then we end up with crazy, invisible to us bias in the modern sources. You get accustomed to the bias around the idea and you can't see it any more.
    - taeric 3y ago
      What biases am I supposed to be seeing here? Are folks upset that someone said a teacher was a good practitioner? Why should I assume otherwise?
      - AlpineIvyPhD 3y ago
        Was replying to the link to Hypatia's legacy. You have to look at the history of sources and their bias to understand the history of ideas. Historical sources don't necessarily contain facts; and they may also convey more than facts. It's about getting to the spin behind the original sources, then you have a better idea of why the sources tell you what they're telling you. How you read them brings in your own bias (for someone else to examine and weigh up one day). It can be really powerful though, like in the example of Messalina.
        taeric 3y ago
        I mean, sure? There seems an implication that these people were not good at their jobs, though? Why the odd vehemence here? You are giving general advice that feels right. I'm asserting the stakes are basically nothing?
        AlpineIvyPhD 3y ago
        I also don't get the vehemence against Hypatia in the original link. It's tapping into something weird, for sure. I think the stakes are really low too. And I also think the original post is introducing modern values when it comes to people's work. I don't think in the ancient world that academic brilliance was thought of as a great thing in the same way or possibly to the same extent it is today. And if that was true, it'd mean the sources wouldn't have thought it was worth remarking on, so we'd get silence. Even if that isn't true, the whole thing is still an argument from silence. Like, let's bear in mind that most of the population couldn't read, even scribes couldn't read—they just copied. How few people could actually math? This is sort of like crapping on a modern-day rocket engineer because Slate isn't writing about them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ tl;dr I think we agree :)
- aredox 3y ago
  Sayre's law in action...
- skeaker 3y ago
  This is what I felt as well. If a time traveler were to tell me that people hundreds of generations in the future will be arguing that I was not good at higher math, I would be inconsolable (even if it's true).
  - hluska 3y ago
    I’d be happy if I was significant enough for future generations to conclude I was secretly (or not so) an idiot.
- User23 3y ago
  I think it's pretty obvious that there has been a movement to dig up examples of superlative women in STEM, in both recent and ancient history. Unfortunately sometimes their rediscoverer's enthusiasm gets the better of them and they present these fine womens' accomplishments as being considerably greater than they truly were. Does that matter? Well I guess it depends. If you think an accurate historical record matters than sure it does. If you think history is pragmatically just a narrative invention and we should tell it however suits our present desires, like encouraging girls to go for a Fields medal, then one can argue for some inspirational embellishment shall we say.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Is this really folks getting upset that some women have been highlighted in history? I think that makes me more sad. We could use more heroes in life, no need to get upset that there are few comic book level heroes.
seper8 3y ago
Causual?
- rexpop 3y ago
  Casual.
  - gweinberg 3y ago
    Yeah, I first read it as "causal" also.
dr_dshiv 3y ago
I don’t know why the author wants to talk smack on Theon and Hypatia. Gatekeeping mathematics? 1. Theon added theorems to Euclid— by publishing mathematical novelties, he became more than just an editor. [1] 2. Theon’s version of Euclid has been considered the most important textbook ever published. [2] 3. Euclid himself created the elements by compiling theorems from prior mathematicians. So, was Euclid just a textbook editor? [2] 4. Who was a better mathematician in that century? Was Theon top 5? Isn’t that first rate or formidable? Now, as for Hypatia, one of her biggest critics (Damascius) admitted that her “wisdom exceeding all bounds and especially in the things concerning astronomy,” but suggested that she was more of a mathematician than a true philosopher [3]. Her student Synesius wrote many letters to her, which survive [4]. Hypatia, on the other hand, was dragged to death by a Christian mob. SHWEP.net (my fave podcast) just did some episodes [5]. [1] https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Theon/ https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Theon/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Legacy [4] https://www.livius.org/articles/person/synesius-of-cyrene/ https://www.livius.org/articles/person/synesius-of-cyrene/ [5] https://shwep.net/podcast/hypatia-of-alexandria-the-life-and-death-of-a-philosopher-and-her-city/ https://shwep.net/podcast/hypatia-of-alexandria-the-life-and...
- jhp123 3y ago
  As a math major, I would say that editing a textbook or even adding a few theorems or corrections would not make you a first-rate mathematician. The ceiling in math is very very high. If we're calling Theon first-rate then what do we say about Gauss?
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    Gauss, you mean the guy who lived 1500 years later? Yeah, he definitely set a higher bar. But a “first-rate” restaurant does not mean “the best ever of all time.” Theon and Hypatia were probably some of the best mathematicians of their century. That is enough to be both “first rate” and “formidable” — and I’d be surprised if Gauss would talk smack about them.

73 points by diodorus 3y ago

The one thing missing here imho is skepticism about the sources and their biases. They can be both factually wrong and also biased. I could be wrong about this, but I think the Suda is somewhat questionable, isn't it?

taeric 3y ago

I feel like I just took a peak into some debate that is happening somewhere else? Seems silly to worry about the exact abilities of people so many years ago. What is at stake here? And why do we have to take the position that teachers and editors are not, in general, considered a fine practitioner of what they are teaching/editing? Are they the pinnacle? Almost certainly not, but that will be true of most any particular example. More I'd wager that the editor of the higher performers is better at whatever the topic is than a large enough portion of the rest of the crowd, that folks probably do hold them in some esteem at the topic?

schoen 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Legacy
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- AlpineIvyPhD 3y ago
  Yup, and that's why the bias of original sources matters too. Bias gets amplified over time. Or reversed at the same intensity, I suppose. And then we end up with crazy, invisible to us bias in the modern sources. You get accustomed to the bias around the idea and you can't see it any more.
  - taeric 3y ago
    What biases am I supposed to be seeing here? Are folks upset that someone said a teacher was a good practitioner? Why should I assume otherwise?
    - AlpineIvyPhD 3y ago
      Was replying to the link to Hypatia's legacy. You have to look at the history of sources and their bias to understand the history of ideas. Historical sources don't necessarily contain facts; and they may also convey more than facts. It's about getting to the spin behind the original sources, then you have a better idea of why the sources tell you what they're telling you. How you read them brings in your own bias (for someone else to examine and weigh up one day). It can be really powerful though, like in the example of Messalina.
      - taeric 3y ago
        I mean, sure? There seems an implication that these people were not good at their jobs, though? Why the odd vehemence here? You are giving general advice that feels right. I'm asserting the stakes are basically nothing?
        AlpineIvyPhD 3y ago
        I also don't get the vehemence against Hypatia in the original link. It's tapping into something weird, for sure. I think the stakes are really low too. And I also think the original post is introducing modern values when it comes to people's work. I don't think in the ancient world that academic brilliance was thought of as a great thing in the same way or possibly to the same extent it is today. And if that was true, it'd mean the sources wouldn't have thought it was worth remarking on, so we'd get silence. Even if that isn't true, the whole thing is still an argument from silence. Like, let's bear in mind that most of the population couldn't read, even scribes couldn't read—they just copied. How few people could actually math? This is sort of like crapping on a modern-day rocket engineer because Slate isn't writing about them. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ tl;dr I think we agree :)
aredox 3y ago
Sayre's law in action...
skeaker 3y ago
This is what I felt as well. If a time traveler were to tell me that people hundreds of generations in the future will be arguing that I was not good at higher math, I would be inconsolable (even if it's true).
- hluska 3y ago
  I’d be happy if I was significant enough for future generations to conclude I was secretly (or not so) an idiot.
User23 3y ago
I think it's pretty obvious that there has been a movement to dig up examples of superlative women in STEM, in both recent and ancient history. Unfortunately sometimes their rediscoverer's enthusiasm gets the better of them and they present these fine womens' accomplishments as being considerably greater than they truly were. Does that matter? Well I guess it depends. If you think an accurate historical record matters than sure it does. If you think history is pragmatically just a narrative invention and we should tell it however suits our present desires, like encouraging girls to go for a Fields medal, then one can argue for some inspirational embellishment shall we say.
- taeric 3y ago
  Is this really folks getting upset that some women have been highlighted in history? I think that makes me more sad. We could use more heroes in life, no need to get upset that there are few comic book level heroes.

seper8 3y ago

Causual?

rexpop 3y ago
Casual.
- gweinberg 3y ago
  Yeah, I first read it as "causal" also.

dr_dshiv 3y ago

I don’t know why the author wants to talk smack on Theon and Hypatia. Gatekeeping mathematics? 1. Theon added theorems to Euclid— by publishing mathematical novelties, he became more than just an editor. [1] 2. Theon’s version of Euclid has been considered the most important textbook ever published. [2] 3. Euclid himself created the elements by compiling theorems from prior mathematicians. So, was Euclid just a textbook editor? [2] 4. Who was a better mathematician in that century? Was Theon top 5? Isn’t that first rate or formidable? Now, as for Hypatia, one of her biggest critics (Damascius) admitted that her “wisdom exceeding all bounds and especially in the things concerning astronomy,” but suggested that she was more of a mathematician than a true philosopher [3]. Her student Synesius wrote many letters to her, which survive [4]. Hypatia, on the other hand, was dragged to death by a Christian mob. SHWEP.net (my fave podcast) just did some episodes [5]. [1] https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Theon/ https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Theon/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Legacy [4] https://www.livius.org/articles/person/synesius-of-cyrene/ https://www.livius.org/articles/person/synesius-of-cyrene/ [5] https://shwep.net/podcast/hypatia-of-alexandria-the-life-and-death-of-a-philosopher-and-her-city/ https://shwep.net/podcast/hypatia-of-alexandria-the-life-and...

jhp123 3y ago
As a math major, I would say that editing a textbook or even adding a few theorems or corrections would not make you a first-rate mathematician. The ceiling in math is very very high. If we're calling Theon first-rate then what do we say about Gauss?
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  Gauss, you mean the guy who lived 1500 years later? Yeah, he definitely set a higher bar. But a “first-rate” restaurant does not mean “the best ever of all time.” Theon and Hypatia were probably some of the best mathematicians of their century. That is enough to be both “first rate” and “formidable” — and I’d be surprised if Gauss would talk smack about them.