4 ms·

so all of economics, basically. a mitigating argument for mathiness is that we use math to describe shapes and relationships we can't physically see, and how d

so all of economics, basically. a mitigating argument for mathiness is that we use math to describe shapes and relationships we can't physically see, and how do you contruct an analogy for a dynamic between factors (or narrative elements) without using changing quantities? Is the analogy a useful abstraction, or does it provide consistency with lower or higher levels of abstraction, or have external consistency with the rest of maths? Probably not, but as an application that is sufficient for its purposes, some mathiness enables people to separate the things they talk about from just their personal animal interests. Sure, some people want more from the math, and economics is a great gateway to math because it's probably one of the most sophiticated systems of bullshit ouside string theory, and it provokes the desire for rigour. Math isn't evidence, it's the lens, and you can reject mathiness in anything by just declining to accept that lens.

bbor 2y ago
Well put! I’m personally a big Marx fan so I won’t give you all of economics, but let’s say “lots” ;) I feel strongly that math is a set of intellectual tools for dealing with quantities rigorously, so “lens” seems absolutely correct to me. As they say in formal logic: an argument can be sound (well-constructed, uses its tools properly) without being valid (accurate to the actual world) if it employs some bad premises. Which new economics does in spades by constructing inaccurate metrics to do their math with. Which, hey, I don’t blame em. As the other top HackerNews thread rn on Efficiency and Metrics teaches us: when you’re dealing with the actual world, you can basically never have a flawless virtual metric.
- motohagiography 2y ago
  what makes him so evil to me is that where we start with math or geometry and a notion of perfection that we can extrapolate from- one which humans are uniquely imbued to appreciate and emulate, he eschewed the quantiative and replaced it with viral language and sold it as somehow more material and "real." with any contemplation at all the existence of geometry has necessary and unavoidable moral implications about the possible intent of a creator, and it's hard to see how constructing an ideology to dissolve our connection to those is anything other than a poison. he was a snake and a pimp who wrote a mind virus for self-enslavement as a way to separate people from the dignity of their own humanity. math is not a mystery cult either, and I sympathize with professionals seeing their discipline used for bullshit, but gatekeeping its tools only to initiates should be treated as suspect. to scholars i would say either enlighten people or fuck off, as they aren't equipped for what real gatekeeper personalities are capable of, and a little knowledge won't save you from them.

bbor 2y ago

Well put! I’m personally a big Marx fan so I won’t give you all of economics, but let’s say “lots” ;) I feel strongly that math is a set of intellectual tools for dealing with quantities rigorously, so “lens” seems absolutely correct to me. As they say in formal logic: an argument can be sound (well-constructed, uses its tools properly) without being valid (accurate to the actual world) if it employs some bad premises. Which new economics does in spades by constructing inaccurate metrics to do their math with. Which, hey, I don’t blame em. As the other top HackerNews thread rn on Efficiency and Metrics teaches us: when you’re dealing with the actual world, you can basically never have a flawless virtual metric.

motohagiography 2y ago
what makes him so evil to me is that where we start with math or geometry and a notion of perfection that we can extrapolate from- one which humans are uniquely imbued to appreciate and emulate, he eschewed the quantiative and replaced it with viral language and sold it as somehow more material and "real." with any contemplation at all the existence of geometry has necessary and unavoidable moral implications about the possible intent of a creator, and it's hard to see how constructing an ideology to dissolve our connection to those is anything other than a poison. he was a snake and a pimp who wrote a mind virus for self-enslavement as a way to separate people from the dignity of their own humanity. math is not a mystery cult either, and I sympathize with professionals seeing their discipline used for bullshit, but gatekeeping its tools only to initiates should be treated as suspect. to scholars i would say either enlighten people or fuck off, as they aren't equipped for what real gatekeeper personalities are capable of, and a little knowledge won't save you from them.