>Post-Modernism and irrational Critical Theory arguments are infecting every one of the social sciences
How long before STEM fields are next? How long before Engineering departments require "Critical Engineering Theory" and "Postcolonial Engineering" as courses? How long before Mathematics departments require "Gender Theory in the Practice of Mathematics"?
>Are Science and Mathematics socially constructed
Mathematics as we understand it should not be beholden to rigid interpretations such as 2 +2 = 4. This entire argument is a social construct based on an appeal to authority fallacy. Let us move away from the fallacious argument presented by virulent proponents of the status quo that this is the only interpretation for the results of such a formula.
That won't happen. It would be a threat to state capitalism.
Identity politics will continue to be used for fascist goals by academic and bureaucratic functionaries, such as making video games worse and discouraging it as a hobby, so people can be more productive worker ants. Or highlighting wrong-doing by sports stars. All cultural pursuits that aren't seen as being in line with what is best for the state goals (Such as those intended to increase tolerance, like Gone Home the video game) are discouraged. Most don't do it on purpose of course. They're not sophisticated enough to know why they have goals or why they get funding for their inane research projects, just that they do.
Any attacks on science would be to make it more accessible, which would be a state goal, not destroy it.
>Are mathematics and science socially constructed
Yes. Many people are blinded by a faith in science. Science is a modern religion and a very exclusive one. You could call it "scientism". What most believers in scientism don't realize is that science and the unquestioning belief in science has been used to justify atrocities throughout history such as the genocide of racial minorities in Nazi Germany.
What? Have you ever seriously studied constructions of arithmetic? Such preconceptions are explicitly acknowledged and then tossed out in favor of a formal system which does the same things.
Not sure if this counts but I had to do a group project for a class on how recently published Biology textbooks reinforce sexist norms and how Feminist philosophers' arguments can be used to critique the "facts" in Biology textbooks.
>Are science and mathematics socially constructed ?
No. Modern science doesn't rely on any social construction, as evidenced by the fact that sciencists are automaton that never communicate with each other and don't use language.
In fact, mathematics is given straight by God to mathematicians, and they have nothing else to do but writing down what God send them.
It's funny, because I took care to make my sarcasm very obvious, even adding the "don't use language" bit which should have been an instant giveaway, yet there are still people on this board simpleminded enough to take it as face value.
I have to admit I'm surprised.
>In fact, mathematics is given straight by God to mathematicians, and they have nothing else to do but writing down what God send them.
Cool sarcasm. However, many if not most mathematicians except for a small handful who dare to question Mathematics' basic assumptions actually act like this. They act like Mathematics and Mathematical formulas are inviolable fact. Anyone who cares enough to use a post-modern theoretical lens to analyze mathematics knows that nothing could be further from the truth.
I had a classmate who said she wanted to go into Mathematics in order to look at imaginary numbers through a lens of Marxist analysis. She had an elaborate plan for how she'd use Marxism to critique the inequality she said was inherent to Mathematics.
She enrolled in a Mathematics graduate program and was accepted, but got kicked out after a semester.
> However, many if not most mathematicians except for a small handful who dare to question Mathematics' basic assumptions actually act like this.
No. Poll 100 mathematicians, you'll get perhaps a dozen of different opinions including "I don't know", "I don't care", "This is an important problem but not a mathematical one", intuitionism and computationalism (however you call it). Mathematicians have trouble agreeing on what tool they are allowed to use, mostly they use them as long as they need them for what they want, so it's a rather pragmatical (in the common sense) approach to the problem.
>They act like Mathematics and Mathematical formulas are inviolable fact.
You know nothing about history of mathematics or how mathematicians think about their craft. The first thing to know is there have been controversies for more than a century and there still are today. Brouwer and Lebesgue were defiant of the principle of excluded middle term. Contemporary mathematicians are disagreeing on wether a computer provides more trustworthy or less trustworthy than a human.
Finally, and most importantly, my post wasn't about how mathemticians see the "reality" of mathematical facts, so your criticism is pretty much off-point. I was talking about maths being a social practice grounded on social constructs and relying on arbitrary or semi-arbitrary conventions, and any mathematician who ever worked in research is conscious of that.
>However, many if not most mathematicians except for a small handful who dare to question Mathematics' basic assumptions actually act like this
mmyeah. gonna need some citations or evidence to back up that claim
my bad, after consulting the reference I had in mind, I appear to have been thinking of Cohen proving that the Continuum Hypothesis could not be proven with zfc.
Now that I'm warmed up a little I recall the often misunderstood Incompleteness Theorem of Godel, a corollary of which is that we're all idiots for having this discussion.
Just because someone can grasp an explanation doesn't mean that explanation isn't wrong.
Mathematics often serves as intellectual justification for authoritarian measures on both small and large scales. Therefore, even if those Statistics are "correct" according to mathematicians, it is up to social critics to prove the mathematics wrong.
>which isn't possible, because the humanities and mathematics do not share the same methodology.
This is how mathematicians can get away with murder if they want
"I am objectively write because Math can be proven and can't be argued with"
That is the reasoning of a dictator
Not him, but no one literally gives a fuck about the foundations of mathematics within the mathematics community. And nor does anyone care about your ability to prove trivial set-theoretic theorems ITT.
Why don't you stop invoking and babbling about set theory, but speak of mathematics in a more general way.
I see two points where mathematics might be attacked by a student of the humanities. Its axioms and rules of reasoning and the ability of phenomena in the real world to meet the axioms required to apply mathematical theories.
>Mathematics often serves as intellectual justification for authoritarian measures on both small and large scales. Therefore, even if those Statistics are "correct" according to mathematicians
Actually, that justification often relies on a misunderstanding of maths on the part of the authorities. So even the mathematicians have a role to play in dismantling misconceptions about the "truth" of mathematics.
By all means, give us a demonstration.
You'll find the axioms in chapter two, which begins at page 17.
You're being a bit too bold, there are various people working on logic and produced mathematically interesting result, and every mathematician and their mother have their little opinion about what maths are grounded on and what they should be grounded on.
But it's true that mathematicians mostly want to use, contemplate and understand math, not to logically found it.
>Mathematicians argue you can't divide by zero
>In real life, numbers are actually divisible by zero
This proves that mathematics is a social construct. Mathematicians are simply not very open-minded or willing to consider alternatives to their rigid mindset.
>Its axioms and rules of reasoning
as somebody else has said 10 times, this is the foundations of mathematics and most people do not care about them. if you change them, you are simply doing a different form of mathematics
>the ability of phenomena in the real world to meet the axioms required to apply mathematical theories.
this is for natural scientists to decide
They don't say that you can't, they merely say that such an operation has not been defined.
"Mathematicians are simply not very open-minded or willing to consider alternatives to their rigid mindset." They are typically quite open minded, but have spent thousands of hours examining and ruling out alternatives and have made prosperous careers by cultivating their mindset, which I think rather justifies dismissal of your no doubt ill-conceived arguments.
For me, you're actually giving as example as how the discourse of >>6320660 can improve our vision even in the discourse in mathematics. Of course 1+1=2, but that's just an interpretation about the whole part, that is founded in deeper waters than in "it's the only interpretation of the formula". We should understand that when you're 1+1=2 you're implying a whole universe.
And I'm talking about epistemology, not about social activism.
I know that feel bro.
I often feel the urge about make understand to some scientific/mathematicians buddies how this kind of discourse can be also helpful, that can help us to understand even more our reality. But then I come to /lit/ and I see that people who actually question mathematics are stupid fucks who doesn't know a shit about them, and I understand why some people could act as 'sciencetists', because sometimes, you guys who haven't study a fucking single subject about science or math (specially this second one) are fucking annoying.
>this kind of discourse can be also helpful
How? What good does mixing the perspectives actually do?
If we applied the standards and principles of scientific investigation to the humanities we would have to throw most of it out. I don't see how the reverse would be any less destructive.
It's already happening OP.
I don't think anyone took this lady seriously. She was practically crucified over this ridiculousness iirc.
yeah all the wannabe mathematicians end up flushed out whenever they take their first discrete mathematics/intro to higher math/proofs whatever your university offers.
Their self-esteem drops immensely once they figure out calc is for plebians if you're seeing it from the standpoint of an engineer (plug in shit into the equation and feel like a big man because your answer took a whole page).
I'm just saying that if you can understand their methods of reasoning and why they can say that, maybe that can be helpful to understand any method of reasoning at all, and in last instance to your research, way to address problems. In the same way they should understand science, but no apply it to their method of analysis.
Of course I'm not saying that mathematical research as anything to do with social activism.
They don't need to understand, DONT YOU UNDERSTAND!
they just say things over and over. They never did sociology or philosophy, they never did history. they never did anything!
you think STEM is safe, you are litterally the last person in the
'when they came for X i did not speak because i was not X' line.
When its Stem's turn there will be nobody left.
Enjoy your mandatory sensitivity training in math.
What do you expect people to actually do? The strength of STEM is that it emphasizes objective results over personal interpretation (the word is emphasize), whereas the arts tend to deny that objective reality even exists, if it did exist you couldn't know it, and if you try knowing it wrong you're literally Hitler. Any time scientiff thinking seems to cross boundaries people scream bloody murder. How then should the community speak out in any effective way?
Literally no one in my family, even my younger cousins, nephews and nieces who are the age demographic most video games are marketed to, and almost none of the people I am friends with have ever played a console video game
>Authorial intent matters.
Death of the Author. Intent only matters in that I can claim that an author's intent matches whatever thesis I decide, or whatever pet theory the professor wants to push.
Playing video games is an act of capitalism that is seen as having a detriment to the rest of state capitalism. Like gambling.
If you think video games is bad because its a waste of time or not morally edifying enough, you're supporting fascist culture and probably don't even realize it.
To anyone seriously interested in learning about the socially constructed foundations of mathematics, check out this video series:
This man is the foremost researcher in foundational mathematics active today.
>You know nothing about history of mathematics or how mathematicians think about their craft. The first thing to know is there have been controversies for more than a century and there still are today. Brouwer and Lebesgue were defiant of the principle of excluded middle term. Contemporary mathematicians are disagreeing on wether a computer provides more trustworthy or less trustworthy than a human.
the thing is that this is not really taught, not even in math class
also, you can clearly see strong positions, just a century ago, about the famous excluded middle. The dispute is over, but most of the work is really still in classical maths. I think that those using maths as a tool, once the theories are passed won to physics and so on, forget a bit about those questions
Depends on the mode of construction. The technoscience thesis, for example, is fundamentally historically materialist. So a critique which was social and abolished science would demonstrate that science is socially constructed. Such a critique might look like the discovery of man's real freedom in history as the pursuit of self-actualisation.
Go home little man and look after your wife.
>They act like Mathematics and Mathematical formulas are inviolable fact.
Hey you cant blame people for assuming this because this is hows its taught in American high school. Hell, I got put down by the teachers more than once because I wanted to understand the theory behind why we were supposed to solve problems certain ways. I mean fuck I learn better that way.
From what I've read existing forms of logic such as lambda calculus can already compute all of what he is talking about using fewer axioms.
It's also interesting that in lamda calc (and the system that guy uses) numbers and if statements etc are all expressed using indertiminates that are left up to the user to interpret.
>Taking an Anthropology of Science class
>Also taking some Physics courses for a minor at the same time
>Find out from my Physics prof that all of the science departments at my uni think the Humanities classes on science or math (History of Mathematics, etc.) are a joke
>Eh? Even if that were true, what definition of 'socially constructed' does it match? I are confus.
I think the first flavour in the definition of some social construction is the notice that there are trends. And there are trends in mathematics and physics, logic ; everybody knows this. Concerning some prejudices, they are minimal I think, expect that the students are not really told that there are other logics than classical logic for instance, which leads to different mathematics, typically in topology.
The question of what is a number, like the autralian teacher publishes about, is not dealt with at all.
Amongst the mathematicians, I do not think the majority believes that the finitary numbers are interesting since they found it sterile. (the question is what is the number 10^10^10, does it even exist ?)
Going back the the teaching, not many students reflect on the quantifiers for instance, and what is an admissible quantification, how to apprehend a number, how to furnish an adequate proof and so on.
All of these matters are left out and it is up to the student to look at them, once he hears about them. The thing is that they must not be prejudiced once they look at less trendy fields than classical maths. But ofc, it is hard to change your believes once you have been trained for years to actually love the axioms you have always used.
>Implying the arbitrary divide between Stem and humanities isn't benefiting the status quo by keeping either side from knowing enough to change something.
>Implying this antagonism and fear mongeringdoesn't play straight into their hands.
"Let none ignorant of geometry enter." was the inscription on the entrance to Plato's academy. It used to be that to be a true patrician you had to study both. The way things are STEMfags are too ignorant to question the system they live under, while humanities fags are too superficial to change the system even though they oppose it. Meanwhile the rich and powerful (who don't really study either because they are don't need a college education to inherit daddies business) are too dumb to keep things under control.
If we don't re-unite science and humanities, our civilization will be in grave danger.
Damn, dude, agree so hard.
I mean, biggest explosion of knowledge and freedom in last 500 years (...arguably) was the Renaissance.
When we say Renaissance man, what do we mean? Google says: "a person with many talents or areas of knowledge."
People who made the most impact were very well rounded in the arts AND sciences.
In Sweden we are editing our physics text book to become more gender inclusive, mainly by questioning patriarchy in physics. With the sciences of poststructuralism and postmodernism we problematize the use of certain words and terms that could be negative towards women or minorities, some we change and others we scrap all together.
There is also talks about removing some white cis males from the history books and adding PoC and women to make it more diverse, even though it would only harm actual history.
how could you possibly rewrite physics to remove patriarchy?
>ball rolls down hill and converts gravitational energy to kinetic energy
is that the big bad evil gravity working against the strong independent ball?
As you should have known from the first post that made unreferenced claims, claims that are so unlikely to be untrue, and that should be known to be untrue by anyone with the least HASS knowledge.
Oh no, lets >169 replies and 5 images emitted.
Oh - hahaha, so you claim I am just not familiar enough with the jargon - that is, I have not yet ascended the Mystery sufficiently so that I might glimpse on the Truth (or whatever word may be fashionable to capitalize among the bleeding edge of Continental thinkers)! Well, that loftiness of Mystery is an immensely convenient position in which to place yourself, but you know you can only be in it if you've actually attained it! So let's see, what terms of the Mystery might elude me in your post? Perhaps you claim I misunderstand the meaning of "hegemonic subject," but I assure you I have not - and indeed, a great deal of its meaning can be told from the context of your post, you dummy! I thought the point of these Mystery terms was that only the initiated could understand them! The point is defeated if you allude to its meaning actually in the post - you make a mockery of your Postmodern peerage, thou vulgar pleb! So it is quite clear we hear basically mean "sovereign subject," but with a certain added phenomenological sovereignty, so that we now feel urged to replace the milder "sovereign" with the overblown, Grecian "HEGEMON". So I guess we are here to understand that this is a bit of a solipsistic entity here, with a certain amount of control (or HEGEMONIA, as we may prefer) - or at least a feeling of control - over its own phenomenology. What a concept! Perhaps you think I misunderstand "psyche." But so do you, because "psyche" approaches the vaguest term in the English language. In fact, nobody understands it. So what is it? Where is the Mystery? How might I ascend? You direct me towards academia, but how will the doctors actually help me? Where am I to go?! What am I to do?! Am I forever to wallow in the swampy putridness, looking up with envy and longing at the lofty heights of the Postmodern Mystery? Derrida in adjutorium meum!
>makes false assertions to support his point
>bitches when called on it
What about them? You have a problem with freedom to give your money to anyone you wish to give it to? What, you propose we re-distribute the wealth instead, you commiefag? Do you bitch at people inheriting houses and small amounts of wealth too?
If they're incapable of taking care of their wealth they'll lose it like many have, if they're capable of taking care of it then they deserve to keep it.
>/pol/ the post
Obviously has no clue as to what he's talking about. If they're not inheriting a business they're inheriting a network or something. Do you honestly think transitions between social classes is really that fluid?
>math major going postgrad
>cry at night because there is no reactionary perspective of math
>math professors are generally inclined to physics & sciences
>no one understands it as the purest form of self-overcoming
>no one believes we are continuing an universal, eternal tradition
>G-grothedieck, I promise to make you proud ;_;
Yes, since most millioners are self made, according to your train of logic most would be inheritence millioners if transition between social classes would not be that fluid.
Is there a system in place that prevents transition to different social classes? Do you need a noble title to own land or operate a buissness? My older borther went form living in a 40sq meter apartment in a family of 3 brothers to owning his own buissnes and living in a 400k house with nothing but elementary education in a span of 10 years.
Keep blaiming the rich and "social immobility" meanwhile 2nd generation asian immgirants in the US outperform whites. Talk about social classes and fluidity, faggot.
>Most millionares in the US today are selfmade and did not inherit their wealth.
the inheritance of wealth through the company was a butthurting thing the liberals and yet when it is no longer exists, they still manage to whine
Oh, yeah, that's exclusive to rich people.
>Sixty-seven percent of high-net-worth Americans are self-made millionaires, according to the survey. Only 8 percent inherited their wealth. One third of the millionaires surveyed were women and half of them made their own fortunes.
>One third of the wealthy respondents were born outside the U.S. or were first-generation U.S. citizens.
There are many like it, use google. I also like how you bitch about "anecdotes", which are completely relevant here since you're bitching about social immobility, and then counter with an anecdote.
I only have a superficial understanding of stack scheme and motive, so I haven't read that. I swear you were the one who posted the grad books the other day? I am starting grad now.
I am too pleb to do algebraic geometry, what do you think about graph theory?
Historically the discipline was indistinguishable from physics up to the works of Gauss, and I'd consider Frege, Principia and that post-1900 development of foundational logic to be a math-philosophy interaction. So they provide tremendous benefits for sure.
But physics, philosophy and even CS don't have the cute quirks that comes with rigorous proving and being raped by the slightest misinterpretation of a statement, ya know? Their value to math has always been as a source of mathematical intuition (von Neumann wrote quite explicitly about this), not the actual deduction.
Then I consider the separations necessary, on the grounds that mathematical rigor should remain 'uncontaminated' (so to speak).
right the mathematical method should remain the same, but the inspiration should really come from other fields.
For instance, in CS/ CS-maths/theoretical CS (choose the term) you have good work on lambda calculus enlightening so parts of maths, or Homotopy Type Theory and so on.
today those people constitute a minority and are put in the CS departments where they remain a minority; even though they do something that approaches far more maths than the majority of those in CS composed of computer geeks building robots and what not.
In private institutes, these borders are suppressed physically and the works of one group can influence the work another group, typically by attending conferences about a subject that is not yours.
To keep also a strong cleavage (physically) does not favour the improvement of the other discipline in rigour. The physicist in public universities could benefit from the rigour of the math guys if they meet more often. It becomes the problem of the chicken and the egg.
But he is right.
In fact, maths appeals to our most 'inner' knowledge. We don't observe the universe to make math. You just sit on your desk and try to come out with the solution.
I'm talking about pure math, not physics or any other science. It's quite similar to meditation, in fact...
Are there really people here who believe that mathematics are a tool of authority and are a rigid social construct that perpetuates the ideologies of the elites? I don't understand what the hell is going on in this thread.
The most ridiculous thing about self-proclaimed communists on the internet is how furiously they try to strawman anyone who doesn't agree with them as a brainwashed right winger and/or fascist
It's a bit ridiculous and pathetic to watch
Has nothing to do with what is generally understood by "in reality". An in most cases that "dividing by zero" is a sloppy name for a convention or a bijective relationship between two sets that have an infinite and a zero.
But late Grothendieck would call you an idiot for thinking mathematics in themselves are important at all. Go meditate, homebrew some alcohol, sell homegrown vegetables, and set fire on your house to distract the firemen every once in a while.