On places like 4chan it is not rare to have people talking about tulpas, creating realities through concentrated thought — thinking something is true makes it so — although this generally partially ironic (like everything in the Alt-Right) — Count Timothy von Icarus
When Mark Brahmin lays out his plan for a new religion based on worship of Apollo — Count Timothy von Icarus
The audience isn't supposed to see it as objective truth, the point is precisely that it is ridiculous, as this gets it into the mainstream media which in turn makes it real in a way, because once something is in mass media then people need to take a side based on their identity allegiances. It's trolling, which is at the heart of the Alt-Right. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The whole point of the "9/11 didn't happen," meme popular on places like 4chan isn't that people actually think that the government falsified the construction of the Twin Towers in some objective sense, and then faked an attack on non-existent buildings. That would be too ridiculous even for those circles. The point is that history is whatever people in power say it is (and that Alt-Right activists possess this same power to change history). Objective history is inaccessible, a myth. The history we live with is malleable. It's a joke, but a joke aimed at an in-crowd who has come to see the past as socially constructed.. The subtext behind declaring every mass shooting a "hoax" is that "you can never be sure what is happening in current events." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Another main route for anti-realism to enter the far-right has been through esoterica, particularly Julius Evola and Rene Guenon. On places like 4chan it is not rare to have people talking about tulpas, creating realities through concentrated thought — thinking something is true makes it so — although this generally partially ironic (like everything in the Alt-Right). Hence, their God who was created from memetic energy or whatever. Everything is ironic and unreal, a sort of trolling of the "real" to show its total groundlessness — Count Timothy von Icarus
Anti-realists endorse the possibility of understanding what scientific claims purport to say about the world, while denying the kind of access to what the world is "really" like needed to determine whether those claims are "literally" true. We can supposedly only discern whether claims are empirically adequate, instrumentally reliable, paradigmatically fruitful, rationally warranted, theoretically coherent, or the like.
Daniel Friberg doesn't urge "rebutting" or "debunking" leftist "lies" but "deconstructing their narratives" in "metapolitical warfare." — Count Timothy von Icarus
I will consider this a joke until further notice.It's Critical Theory... not 'Critical Race Theory'. You should read it. — creativesoul
Both exist and one is derived from the other. — Lionino
So, it appears to me that PM mathematics is mostly a factor in mathematics education. I have never known or even met a research mathematician who considered themselves post modern. Guess I'm not either. — jgill
I'm tempted to say this supports my notion that science and philosophy are distinct.
But I'm uncertain. If I missed something I'd appreciate a clue. — Moliere
a productive logic, in the sense that it leaps ahead, so to speak, into a particular region of being, discloses it for the first time in the constitution of its being, and makes the
structures it arrives at available to the positive sciences as guidelines for their inquiry.
Where? An WSJ article? So someone really has the problem with actual arithmetic? If you provide "plain proof", the just give the reference...even if this is just five pages, it's hard to find.I don't understand what you are getting at. I provided plain proof that there are indeed people who deny mathematics for political (leftist) reasons. — Lionino
Remember to give the actual quotes, not someone referring to something.Maybe she (whoever) didn't, but many did. — Lionino
This is an important point here. It's just like talking about leftist thought in general where words that have specific definitions are used as vague adjectives and called "marxist", "maoist" or "woke". Well, in this forum there are a lot of leftist members and usually their views and comments have nothing to do with what is portrayed by Shapiro and JBP (Jordan Peterson?).Actors such as JBP and Shapiro are doing a disservice to their own cause when they bring up Derrida and Foucault, all the while the people they want to fight are seldom named — some might say they are poisoning the swamp, but realistically they are just ignorant. — Lionino
I find the following laughable, so I must be misunderstanding it:
Mathematics is not more exact than historiographical, but only narrower with regard to the scope of the existential foundations relevant to it.
This seems to be saying that maths is only about maths; the "existential foundations" of maths are applicable in applied maths, or physics, or engineering.
Maths has a far, far greater reach and explanatory power than 'historiography'. — Banno
Within the stance of 'science is social relations', only historians can speak; mere natural scientists with their commitment to reality are reduced to objects of historical study,... — Hilary Rose (a feminist sociologist of science), in Love, power and knowledge
I might be wrong. I find your style quite obtuse. To be candid, it seems intended to be clever rather than clear. — Banno
Perhaps what is required is some kind of neutral, formal, metalanguage so that natural languages can be deconstructed more precisely. Instead of postmodernising mathematics, we should mathematise postmodernism. :smile: — GrahamJ
I will consider this a joke until further notice. — L'éléphant
Indeed, the organizers coined the term 'Critical Race Theory' to make it clear that our work locates itself in intersection of critical theory and race, racism and the law. — Crenshaw Kimberlé 1995
In its critique of liberalism and its pessimism vis-à-vis incremental approaches to racial reform, CRT draws broadly from older currents of thought borrowed from Antonio Gramsci, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and W. E. B. Du Bois, as well as newer ways of thinking linked to the Black Power, Chicano, and radical feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s. — Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society (2008), p. 344
Where? An WSJ article? So someone really has the problem with actual arithmetic? If you provide "plain proof", the just give the reference...even if this is just five pages, it's hard to find. — ssu
I too failed to find plain proof of anyone advocating dodgy arithmetic. — GrahamJ
but would you agree with me that Laurie Rubel’s comment about math and data being non-objective was likely not referring to the logic of calculating in itself but the contested subject matter it is attached to — Joshs
That many facts in the social sphere are contestable doesn’t in itself seem to be an unreasonable assumption — Joshs
AND THIS IS MY POINT!It says in the article "a proposed mathematics curriculum framework, which would guide K-12 instruction in the Golden State’s public schools". Another manual says that addressing students’ mistakes forthrightly is a form of white supremacy. — Lionino
It's not about mathematics itself, or math being racist or about 2+2=5 — ssu
Your next move is to deny the evidence that I provided by whatever way you can — Lionino
And it simply doesn't mean that mathematics is culturally relative. It's about education of mathematics, not about math itself.No, that is wrong and you either did not read the rest of the post or ignored it, that much I expected many posts ago. — Lionino
A lot of mathematicians involved feel that these will be true statements about the real sets. But clearly that is a subjective choice based on values about what axioms should do, and there is a cultural aspect to that. — Gary Venter
You could make an argument from some basic results of model theory that mathematical formalism in most cases can`t be specific about the objects it`s supposed to speak about. When a set of axioms "uniquely" (up to the isomorphism) specifies a model we say that the theory is categorical. Hilbert and earlier Peano achieved a categorical axiomatization of Euclid`s geometry, Tarski proved this version of "Euclidean" geometry is consistent, complete and decidable. The "unique" model of it is the Cartesian plane. Beside Godel incompleteness features (undecidability and either consistency or completeness) any set theory pretending to be an axiomatization of mathematics can't hope to be categorical. There are weaker notions of the classes of models but I don't think it's possible to define a class of models zfc does specify. Isn't isomorphism weak enough to say a theory doesn't specify a mathematical object? Well an ignorant mathematical nominalist could make such an argument. There's nuance to it, you could step back and not even pretend that what mathematicians study are classes of models. — Johnnie
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.