Is anti-racist math a valid approach to teaching mathematics?

[Almeisan]

I have discovered a very strange thing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racist_math
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003450.html

I don't think I want to have a discussion about math teaching pedagogy.

But what about the whole social relativistic and postmodern ideas that science is just as much a social construction as anything else.

I have a friend that studies literature and he loves to read stuff with strange postmodern theories. He has no real grasp of science and is always aware or afraid of discrimination, the role of males and christianity in western culture and other things like that. He claims his ideas mainly come from foucault and/or Derrida.

I believe science does not equal to reality but that scientific models and theories describe reality. And I also believe science is the most objective and effective method we could wish for. My friend keept talking about 'social construction' and 'cultural influence'. I have problems making an argument that is 'true' from his relativistic perspective

And now we have feminists trying to blame differences in math scores in the US regarding ethnicity and male 'superiority' on (the nature of) math?

Any ideas about this form of 'scientific relativism'?

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Well, I'll tell you something I learned very little time ago:

Relativity is not valid in human reality. I mean, here, that if five million people say that it was x who killed n and only one person says that it was y who killed n, then, in reality, we have to decide on x. because, without generalisation, which I hate, but need, we can't make rules.This is not detailñed about math cluture er etz...but on general relativistic aplication of reality.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think science is the exact opposite of society. Society is a group collaborating and deciding on usually 2 or more ways of doing something and both having merit. With science though, no matter what society your in, african, american, european, asian, etc, your always going to come to pretty much the same experimental results. This is in open conflict with the idea of "social" construction as social construction is inevitably, a case by case basis.

 

[bombadillo]

Read Foucalut for yourself: he has interesting things to say about the nature of power in human society, e.g. books like 'Madness and Civilisation." His basic insight is that what counts as knowledge, what counts as "reality" is determined by the powerful. Thus "reality" and "knowledge" are always skewed against the powerless: they're in a no-win bind. For example, the development of the science of mechanics was propelled by mercantile interests: mechanics became "real knowledge"; other ways of knowing the world fell by the wayside; likewise for chemistry and biology: the chemistry and biology of paramount importance today is determined by, e.g. large chemical and pharmaceutical companies. Thus, knowledge is never value-free.

Science portrays itself as being objective, but actually rests on the authority of senior figures who have a vested interest in the status quo. That's why radically new ideas often face such a hostile reception.

My advice would be to read more of the history, philosophy, and sociology of science, to see how it is enmeshed with current patterns of social and political power. Off the top of my head, I'd recommend Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method" and "Science in a Free Society", but there is a large literature on these topics.

Foucault is insightful but avoid Derrida: he will confuse you. Also stay away from the other so-called "post-modernists" at this stage, unless you already have a strong background in classical philosophy.

For a fun site, go to the "post-modern generator" site:

http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

This site generates post-modern rubbish at random. Also do a google search for Alan Sokal, the Sokal Affair, and the spoof paper he published in the journal Social Text in 1996.

 

[arildno]

Those who propound these "theories" are completely ignorant of what science and maths is about.
It is that simple.

 

[cragwolf]

Those who propound these "theories" are completely ignorant of what science and maths is about.
It is that simple.

It is never that simple.

 

[arildno]

It is never that simple.

All right, then: Educated crackpots..
lucie Irigaray and Jacques Lacan are good examples of that.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

BTW,

Tell your anti-racist-math friend if he knows about something called "algebra". It's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) themes stdueed in math, and it was obviously (by its name: AL-gebra) invented and created by muslims. is this racist?

 

[arildno]

I agree completely with Guille here:
The strict adherence to logic in maths is, of course, in itself a "value judgment" , i.e logically coherent ideas are seen as more worthwhile developing than incoherent ideas, but I am unable to see how this can be seen as a racist judgment.
As long as an idea is "good" in a mathematical sense, most mathematicians couldn't care less who developed it, other than justifying respect and admiration towards the developer.
This isn't just fine words, we have in fact historical evidence,
for example, take the case of female mathematicians.

Maths has been one of those fields of human endeavour most accepting of females through history:
Hypatia, Maria Agnesi, Sophie Germain, Sonya Kowalewsky and Emmy Noether all lived in times in which women were kept down, but from their contemporary mathematical environment, they were greeted with a level of respect for their abilities quite different than the contemporary attitudes in general.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

in adition to arildno's post, this is a website with all (atleast all the one's you may know of, and more) the mathematicians in history, and there is place with the biographies of all the wemen mathematicians, which are: 78.:
http://turnbull.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Indexes/Women.html

 

[arildno]

Without any evidence, I am quite convinced that the highest percentage for African-Americans in tenured positions is to be found within the natural sciences.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Without any evidence, I am quite convinced that the highest percentage for African-Americans in tenured positions is to be found within the natural sciences.

I also think this is true.

My biology teacher is from Ghana. Whiles my Chemistry teacher from UK and Physics teacher from USA.

In actuall math, or sciences, there is no racism. Another very different thing, is the racism caused by others things, that happens around science/math topics. For example, there have been racist scientists (although it is a fact that the smallest percentage of discrimination and racism are found, between all jobs, in scientific ones) and one of this was Spencer (can't remember his first name). He was a biologist who claimed that black (I don't know or care about the word used in english in USA or UK, I am going to use this word because I don't see any real racist problem with it.) people were less developed and a sort of retardation compared to white people.

But science and math in their essence, aren't racist: for the simple reason because the very root of science and math is logic and racionalism. And racism or descrimination aren't logic or/and racional. I think this is a good conclusion.

 

[BicycleTree]

I agree completely with Guille here:
The strict adherence to logic in maths is, of course, in itself a "value judgment" , i.e logically coherent ideas are seen as more worthwhile developing than incoherent ideas, but I am unable to see how this can be seen as a racist judgment.

This idea of "racist math" is very perplexing to me. How could anyone even imagine that it is a tenable view? I think it's a form of denial--since some cultural groups and women tend to do less well at math, some try to deny it is a real failing to be corrected.

 

[honestrosewater]

Maybe they have only read math books like this (you just have to see these exercises).

 

[kleinwolf]

It depend's on how you [apply] maths...

But most of the time it's just stastical analysis on datas that have in fact nothing to do with reality...see The Bell Curve.

 

[M Model]

With all the respect but i never agreed with the western view of about physics. When Newton invented calculus and vectors in 1665, he forgot that these are abstract mathematical constructs. Seems like today abstract mathematics is confused with physics. Nature is not about math, it's about logic.

If we want a scientific revolution (in this century) we'll have to change our view about nature.

 

[Almeisan]

Well, I was puzzled too. My friend hasn't anything to do with math. He doesn't even know what it is :)

But I was browsing through wikipedia and I hit on that article, which puzzled me also.

I don't think we really have to discuss math itself, but rather in how far science is a social construction. Because the last is supposted by quite a lot of people.

I can see that science of a whole isn't detached from reality. But I do not see how culture can affect the way we create our scientific theories. Surely the cultural influence and the social constructions must be the least strong in an area like science. I don't see how anyone would gain from having another type of standard model. So why would culture influence that?

The only influence I can see is the nature of the human brain.

My friend always claims that we western people can't claim that primitive people who believe in magic and supernatural things are wrong in their theories.

This is the point the extreme things like 'racist math' come from. And this is what we need to adress.

M Model, I fail to see how nature is about logic, since things like relativity and quantum physics are so non-intuitive. Are they logical? I doubt it. They are mathematical.

 

[honestrosewater]

With all the respect but i never agreed with the western view of about physics. When Newton invented calculus and vectors in 1665, he forgot that these are abstract mathematical constructs. Seems like today abstract mathematics is confused with physics. Nature is not about math, it's about logic.

Logic is also an abstract construct. How do you distinguish logic from math?

 

[honestrosewater]

My friend always claims that we western people can't claim that primitive people who believe in magic and supernatural things are wrong in their theories.

Why should your friend's claim bear any more weight than anyone else's claim? Your friend can't use logic or science to justify his claim, so what does he use?

 

[BicycleTree]

Why should your friend's claim bear any more weight than anyone else's claim? Your friend can't use logic or science to justify his claim, so what does he use?

I would guess he uses patriarchical and western-centered oppression.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Logic is also an abstract construct. How do you distinguish logic from math?

exacly.

nature=logic=math.

the only problem with math and nature is that math is nature in theory, whiles the other sciences (physics, chemistry, biology..) are the reality or practice of nature.

And for up their,

quantum mechanics and relativity are indeed logical. they don't need to be intuitive, justto make sense (=be logical).

I don't think we really have to discuss math itself, but rather in how far science is a social construction. Because the last is supposted by quite a lot of people..

science is one thing and society another. there is society of science, but it is a minority: most people don't care much about science; thus, society dones't care about science.

Secondly, one thing is racist-amth or racist-science, which is the racism of it's branches, studies, tools...which actually doesn't exist in science. Another very different thing is the racism of the humans that interact with scinece (scientists, or pseudoscientists). These, some, may be racist. But again, and this is a fact, the jobs were less discrimination is found to wemen and other culture/religion/colour...people, is in jobs that have to do with the sciences.

 

[kleinwolf]

If western people are not allowed to say "other" people are wrong, are they allowed to say western people are wrong ?

This has to do with social and verbal construction.

Let's take an example : a physicist says "time travel is possible"

Is this magic ? Of course yes, because then 1665 never happened yet...
every western person agree with this since the majority of western people agree that Newton was wrong (except Newton himself of course)...
But what if happens that Newton travels forward in time to tell us he was right ?

But what wanted the physicist say ?

That now we can travel with a watch, hence since the watch is indicating time, that time travels...
But what about the watch indicating a time that does not travel (see here the verbal construction)

Let's look why time dilatation due to motion is explained by social reality :

If a person can convince the boss 1h of his work is worth 2h of his colleague's work due to the time dilatation because he runs from place to place for his work to go faster...then he will get double salary and hence a social domination.

So clearly the fundamental answer to the question "why time dilates when traveling ?" is social domination via money..??

On the other hand there are the fictional quantum physicists who say : "no, when I don't measure the time, the clock is in a superposition of all possible times. when I measure, for example by writing it on a sheet of paper, i get into one possible time...the process giving which time it is is unknown to me and hence totally random"

So what happens here ?

If reality was quantum would the boss pay the employee with respect to time ?

That's why physical reality is the fundamental explanation of how social reality works ??

 

[honestrosewater]

exacly.

nature=logic=math.

I wasn't agreeing that nature was about logic or that logic was about nature. I happen to think they are fundamentally different, but arguing that logic and math are fundamentally the same is easier since it doesn't involve the hairy branches of philosophy.

I can't find what exactly is at issue here. What do they think is racist about conventional math and science education? It seems what some want is actually for math and science teachers to teach more than math and science.
One book claimed math was intentionally taught in a certain way to keep certain people from learning it. And I found out that some schools have single-sex math and science classes.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

I wasn't agreeing that nature was about logic or that logic was about nature. I happen to think they are fundamentally different, but arguing that logic and math are fundamentally the same is easier since it doesn't involve the hairy branches of philosophy.

I can't find what exactly is at issue here. What do they think is racist about conventional math and science education? It seems what some want is actually for math and science teachers to teach more than math and science.
One book claimed math was intentionally taught in a certain way to keep certain people from learning it. And I found out that some schools have single-sex math and science classes.

thanks for explaining the first part.

But, if there ARE schools with single-sex math and science classes, I can nearly tell you for sure, that those schools are mostly religious (or convents) schools. So it's again religion that's ionterfearing in science and math (atleast in the learn of those).

Science and math by themselves aren't racist or discriminatory. this has to be the first widelly agreed in this discussion.

 

[M Model]

Science can be racist. It's human and it's also cultural. In every science there is bias but much more in the social sciences.

 

[kleinwolf]

No it's the application you do of science in order to be aggressive...

Or people use scientific language to communicate racist or other discriminating ideas :

for example

p(IQ(x)&gt;120|x\in USA)&gt;0

however p(IQ(x)&gt;120|x\notin USA)=0

translated in common language : "You can have an IQ bigger than 120 only if you are a US citizen"

Is this racist ?
Is this scientific ?

 

[honestrosewater]

But, if there ARE schools with single-sex math and science classes, I can nearly tell you for sure, that those schools are mostly religious (or convents) schools. So it's again religion that's ionterfearing in science and math (atleast in the learn of those).

There's no 'if'- there are schools with single-sex math and science classes. And what are you basing your claim on? According to the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-classrooms.htm I think there do happen to be more such private schools, because private schools are not subject to the same discrimination laws as public schools. I haven't seen anything about religion in any of this. So what percentage of schools offering single-sex classes are religious schools?

Science can be racist. It's human and it's also cultural. In every science there is bias but much more in the social sciences.

It doesn't follow that something is racist just because it can be. (And I'm not agreeing that science or math can be racist.) Can you give some examples of racism in science?

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

No it's the application you do of science in order to be aggressive...

Or people use scientific language to communicate racist or other discriminating ideas :

for example

p(IQ(x)&gt;120|x\in USA)&gt;0

however p(IQ(x)&gt;120|x\notin USA)=0

translated in common language : "You can have an IQ bigger than 120 only if you are a US citizen"

Is this racist ?
Is this scientific ?

its racist and scinetific (mathematical), but, you are forgetting something:

you are demostrating that humans can use maths or science to be racist but science and math in essence, aren't racist.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

There's no 'if'- there are schools with single-sex math and science classes. And what are you basing your claim on? According to the National Association for Single Sex Public Education, http://www.singlesexschools.org/schools-classrooms.htm I think there do happen to be more such private schools, because private schools are not subject to the same discrimination laws as public schools. I haven't seen anything about religion in any of this. So what percentage of schools offering single-sex classes are religious schools?

I don't have exact facts that these schools are eligious schools, but if you don't want to accept the obvious-that religion IS racist, classist, descriminational...and it affects other things to be like this-then do it, but you will be neglecting the truth. This is getting off the topic, so please don't comment on this in this thread.

 

[kleinwolf]

Well...of course it can be racist...just interprete it as racist and it is :

look basic algebra : what is the definition of a group G..take two element in G. x,y...let them interact x*y=z then z is again in G...

Why is this racist ? Just replace G by "germans", the operation * by "reproduce"...so that when german reproduce among them, this again give germans...

This is why algebra is racist...however reality is not racist, since you can change your nationality...

So clearly all racists ideas comes from the defintion of a group in Algebra...that's why we have to burn all algebra books and kill algebra teachers...

 

[kleinwolf]

its racist and scinetific (mathematical), but, you are forgetting something:

ok..let say it's racist...

Is it scientific ?...no...because let P=\{p(IQ(x)&gt;120|x\notin USA)=0\}

Who told you the statement P was true ?

By looking at some numbers written on biased tests which were then falsified in order to make some ideas transmitted ?

So now I can just say p(P is true)=.5...hence this is not racist anymore.

But you have the same problem the reverse way :

P="Are anti-racists racists ?"

Is P true ?

Well a set of people A is called "racist towards B" if every member of A admit it's better than any member of the set of people B.

let A=set of anti-racist people.
B=set of some racist people.

Clearly the anti-racist people admit their view is better than racist people..hence A "is racist towards B"...so that an anti-racist person is racist towards racists.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

Kleinwolf,

regarding post 30,

you are just using some strange unlogical logic, and using this logic wrong.

in post 31,

your proof is a good one, but it uses the same sort as Russell's paradox: it's been soled and proven wrong.

 

[kleinwolf]

Well...of course post 30 is a stupidity, I could just have put G=humans...

About post 31...i just showed that the set of anti-racists is a subset of racists...Because being "not racist" is not equivalent to being "anti-racist". However Russell's proof is based on a notion Q, and it's contrary !Q...(being element of itself)
But you could also use quantum logic, in the sense that the value of a proposition P is a qubit...not just true or false...


The message I wanted to explain here is : Mathematics is just a language, a language expresses ideas, but you cannot extrapolate the characteristics of the semantic to the syntaxic.

In other words : it's not because the image your TV is showing is red, that the surface of the screen is red...just switch the channel on a green image.

 

[owl3951]

Sort of Proved Friend's Point Here

BTW,

Tell your anti-racist-math friend if he knows about something called "algebra". It's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) themes stdueed in math, and it was obviously (by its name: AL-gebra) invented and created by muslims. is this racist?

In point of fact, algebra was NOT invented by Moslems. The Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese and, most specifically, the Hindus, for examples, had algebra long before the Moslems. In fact, Moslem development of algebra is mostly based upon the work of the Hindu mathematician, Brahmagupta.

In fact, this whole idea of Moslems inventing algebra is a proof of Daevran's friend's point. Hindu historians are quite bitter about the whole thing. The idea that we have Hindu-Arabic numerals, because the Moslems created the zero place holder, is an especially sore topic. Hindu historians can demonstrate that it is nothing BUT racism that let's you believe today that Hindus did not have the zero and that Moslems invented algebra. Western society went way out of its way to create a history of math and algebra specifically to deny credit to Hindus for our numeric system and our algebra. Europeans could not permit the "colored peoples" to have had any brilliance, because that would invalidate the inherent superiority of whites over coloreds. You propogate this racism with your statement. I do not mean to impute racist intent, but I do mean to show how racism continues to distort and corrupt reality. As scientists, we must abhor anything that portrays fictitious reality as truth.

So it does matter where ideas come from.

Moslems never claimed to have invented algebra. The fact that we use "0" now, instead of "." (the Hindu place-holder) is because Moslems wanted to use the "." for the decimal designation. "0" is just a big dot.

As for the essential equality in math and science being touted herein, if it were really true, white males would not make so much more money in equivalent positions for equivalent work that they, in fact, do. The bias against non-white males is a strong reality still in the maths and sciences. It rears up in tenure considerations, salary, available clerical support, funding, availability of research assistants, assistance getting published, and on and on. Googling (+sexism +racism "in the sciences") will reveal sufficient studies already done about sexism and racism in the sciences. The fact that this thread can declare that sexism and racism are more minimal in scientific academe and research goes a long way to ensure the survival of sexism and racism therein.

Indeed, in my view, and without trying to be insulting, most of this thread smacks of racism and sexism to me, because of the propagation of racist histories and because of the "it's already solved, so we can bury our heads" attitudes.

As for lower scores in math and sciences for other cultures, there are a slew of reasons why these scores exist. Some of them, are indeed, because of the way math and science are taught. However, much of this teaching is not a deliberate attempt to prevent peoples from attaining competence. It is because we are new to multicultural teaching. I have been guilty of it myself, when teaching college algebra at a D.C. university, which had students from around the world.

For instance, in may American Indian cultures, the concept of "cut" means "cut in half." So, if you ask me how many pieces of an apple I will have if I cut it in half, I would say two. Many American Indians would say four. "Cut" in the question already gives two halves. If you halve halves, you get quarters. There is a limit to how many cultural concepts I, as a teacher, can know about before I walk into a classroom and teach algebra.

Another example: many African cultures have no concept of negative numbers, and, in fact, intellectually rebel against the concept. I struggled more with this as a teacher than any other barrier. NONE of the concepts used initially to teach negative numbers to students in the USA aid African students in comprehension. Temperature? How many African countries have temperatures below zero? And temperature is an arbitrary scale, anyway. Kelvin has no negative temperatures. Debt (negative money due to borrowing)? If I have two dollars and I owe my uncle five dollars, than I have minus three dollars, right? No! I have two dollars. I just said I have two dollars. If I pay my uncle those two dollars, than I really have zero dollars, not minus three dollars.

These are just trivial examples of how the manner in which math and science are taught can prevent a broad understanding across many cultures. No evil intent need be implied. Yet, if I were to try to teach people of a specific culture math and science, and make no effort to learn anything about these people so that I could speak in terms they understood, rather than blithely assuming they will understand how I think, that becomes bigotry.

 

[sd01g]

Foucault is insightful but avoid Derrida: he will confuse you. Also stay away from the other so-called "post-modernists" at this stage, unless you already have a strong background in classical philosophy.

.

'When the INTELLECTUAL IMPOSTERS published in France at the end of 1997, It sent shock waves through the Left Bank establishment. Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont showed how some of Frances's Most renowned contemporary thinkers have repeatedly abused scientific concepts in their work'. (From the back cover of the 'Intellectual Impostures' by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont 1997)

INTELLECTUAL IMPOSTURES should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand Post-modernism and why it is so absurd.

 

[kleinwolf]

This remembers me on how I got scold at during a religion class :

we got told about the multiplication of bread by Jesus :

I asked : "So he did multiply the bread by dividing it into smaller breads ?"

I got no answer but the teacher scold me : "You have to respect Jesus and what he did"...so that now I'm really doubting some physical laws about conservation...

See how other topics can really influence science ?

Another thing is : Scientist always laugh at alchemists trying to transform Lead in Gold ? Note that both are matter.

But how about your boss ? He is in fact transforming time (the one you work) in money, which is most of the time paper or some metal...So your boss is infact transforming an abstract physical reality into matter...

Isn't that a miracle ?

 

[arildno]

owl:
You are confusing math pedagogics with maths.
Learn the difference.

Secondly, no one can deny that scientists can be racists, and thus, by their personal feelings make the study/practice of science obnoxious to the targets of the scientist's prejudices.

This however, doesn't make statements like "math is racist" correct.

 

[bombadillo]

In point of fact, algebra was NOT invented by Moslems. The Babylonians, Greeks, Chinese and, most specifically, the Hindus, for examples, had algebra long before the Moslems. In fact, Moslem development of algebra is mostly based upon the work of the Hindu mathematician, Brahmagupta.

True. And as far as I know, the moslems didn't do much with developing the subject anyway. I think Omar Khayyam worked a bit with cubic equations, maybe one or two other moslem mathematicians did some small pieces of original work. Nothing like the colossal European legacy. We have to remember the moslems primarily as transmitters rather than originators. Hindus, on the other hand, were more prolific.

As for the essential equality in math and science being touted herein, if it were really true, white males would not make so much more money in equivalent positions for equivalent work that they, in fact, do. The bias against non-white males is a strong reality still in the maths and sciences. It rears up in tenure considerations, salary, available clerical support, funding, availability of research assistants, assistance getting published, and on and on.

True.

As for lower scores in math and sciences for other cultures, there are a slew of reasons why these scores exist. Some of them, are indeed, because of the way math and science are taught. However, much of this teaching is not a deliberate attempt to prevent peoples from attaining competence. It is because we are new to multicultural teaching. I have been guilty of it myself, when teaching college algebra at a D.C. university, which had students from around the world.

What about differences between the races in aptitude and inclination?

 

[cragwolf]

'When the INTELLECTUAL IMPOSTERS published in France at the end of 1997, It sent shock waves through the Left Bank establishment. Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont showed how some of Frances's Most renowned contemporary thinkers have repeatedly abused scientific concepts in their work'. (From the back cover of the 'Intellectual Impostures' by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont 1997)

INTELLECTUAL IMPOSTURES should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand Post-modernism and why it is so absurd.

Yes and this sort of thing can't happen in Physics. I mean, there's no way physicists could be so "absurd". *cough* *cough*

 

[sd01g]

Yes and this sort of thing can't happen in Physics. I mean, there's no way physicists could be so "absurd". *cough* *cough*

Are you sure you read the right book? You did read it-right?

 

[honestrosewater]

I don't have exact facts that these schools are eligious schools,

So what were you basing your claim on?

but if you don't want to accept the obvious-that religion IS racist, classist, descriminational...and it affects other things to be like this-then do it, but you will be neglecting the truth. This is getting off the topic, so please don't comment on this in this thread.

You're the one getting off topic with this irrelevant slander. You claimed that most schools offering same-sex classes were religious schools, but you haven't produced any facts or reasoning to support your claim.

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

So what were you basing your claim on?
You're the one getting off topic with this irrelevant slander. You claimed that most schools offering same-sex classes were religious schools, but you haven't produced any facts or reasoning to support your claim.

The post you have quoted me explained:

I don't have facts, but it is obvious, just because religious school ahave ussually same-sex classes. When I postd it I based in:
1) I was going to a religious school a few years ago, and it was same-sex completeley.
2) religion has always separated same-sex. Religion has always descriminated.

But thi shas nothing to do with the original topic, so please don't carry-on with this.

Back to those posts up their, by someone I don't remember the username,

I didn't know that algebra wasn't muslim, but you see, it's hindu! So imy defend still works with this: there is no racism or descrimination of any type inside science and math, because they are based on logic and nature. The only possible racism in science is the racism of scientists.

 

[cragwolf]

Are you sure you read the right book? You did read it-right?

Yes, and I did more than read the back cover. There are two things that are absurd about what you wrote:

1. The idea that Sokal and Bricmont set out to prove that postmodernism is absurd. They attempt no such thing. In their own words, "what we intend to show" is:

The goal of this book is to make a limited but original contribution toward the critique of the admittedly nebulous Zeitgeist that we have called "postmodernism". We make no claim to analyze postmodernist thought in general; rather, our aim is to draw attention to a relatively little-known aspect, namely the repeated abuse of concepts and terminology coming from mathematics and physics. We shall also analyze certain confusions of thought that are frequent in postmodernist writings and that bear on either the content or the philosophy of the natural sciences.

2. The idea that Sokal and Bricmont actually do prove that postmodernism is absurd, even if this wasn't their original intention. This is something that narrow-minded people have extracted from the book and the affair that started it all. Fortunately, not every physicist, mathematician and http://www.mathematik.uni-muenchen.de/~bohmmech/BohmHome/sokalhoax.html bought the narrow-minded view.

3. The implied idea that physicists and practitioners from other fields of knowledge (scientific or otherwise) do not also engage in these sorts of "abuse of concepts" when they attempt to cross over into fields well outside their expertise. This is a truly laughable idea when you realize that physicists are at least equal to postmodernists in this regard. The amount of philosophical fallacies and nonsense that has spewed from the pens of such legends as Einstein, Bohr, and Heisenberg ... and later, Penrose, Weinberg, and Hawking, rivals anything that the postmodernists have written about science.

The lesson of the Sokal affair is not the infantile idea that postmodernism is absurd. Every field has problems with the peer review process. The lesson you should learn can be found, unsurprisingly, in a quote by the no-nonsense Richard Feynman:

I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.

Replace "scientist" and "scientific" by their equivalents from any other field of knowledge you like and the quote would still ring true.

 

[honestrosewater]

I don't have facts, but it is obvious, just because religious school ahave ussually same-sex classes. When I postd it I based in:
1) I was going to a religious school a few years ago, and it was same-sex completeley.
2) religion has always separated same-sex. Religion has always descriminated.

You can google coed religious schools to see that this is false. The rest are non sequiturs. One religious school is same-sex, therefore most religious schools are same-sex - Invalid. Most religious schools are same-sex schools, therefore most same-sex schools are religious schools - Invalid. Besides, in this case, the reason for separating sexes is to avoid discrimination.
Also, you're arguing that people must distinguish between the tenets of science and the practice of science, so are you basing your claims on the tenets of religions or on the practice of religions? Do you know the tenets of every religion?

I'm not sure what is being proposed here. That truth and proof are defined with respect to each theory? That theories have a definite scope, i.e., apply to a certain set of objects or phenomena? That different theories with the same scope can be compatible or incompatible?

 

[sd01g]

Good work cragwolf. You did read at least to page 3 of the introduction. When you get to pages 193 and 194 you will find:

'Postmodernism has three principal negative effects: a waste of time in human sciences, a cultural confusion that favors obscurantism, and a weakening of the political left.' 'What is worse, in our opinion is the adverse effect that abandoning clear thinking and clear writing has on teaching and culture'.

The goal is not to tell anyone what to think or believe, but to encourage obtaining enough information so one can determine the absurdity of postmodernism for oneself.

 

[cragwolf]

Good work cragwolf. You did read at least to page 3 of the introduction. When you get to pages 193 and 194 you will find:

Sarcasm is only effective when you are sure about the truth of the topic in question. If you are sure that I haven't read the book then you're being an idiot and the subsequent sarcasm only makes it worse.

'Postmodernism has three principal negative effects: a waste of time in human sciences, a cultural confusion that favors obscurantism, and a weakening of the political left.' 'What is worse, in our opinion is the adverse effect that abandoning clear thinking and clear writing has on teaching and culture'.

Which in no way contradicts what I wrote. This paragraph (and the rest of the book for that matter) does not show that Sokal and Bricmont set out to prove that postmodernism is absurd. It also, for that matter, does not show that postmodernism is absurd.

The goal is not to tell anyone what to think or believe, but to encourage obtaining enough information so one can determine the absurdity of postmodernism for oneself.

Which would make your following words...

...Post-modernism and why it is so absurd.

...a clear-cut example of hypocrisy. If you simply had said, "read this book and make up your mind about postmodernism", then perhaps you would have been on reasonably steady ground. But on second thought, the idea that one book, whose authors clearly admit is only a "limited ... critique", will be sufficient to make one's mind up about an entire field of knowledge is ... absurd.

So, here's an idea. If you're actually interested in learning about postmodernism, why not read some more books on the subject? Get more than one viewpoint, perhaps? First, a nice essay on the subject:

http://www.galilean-library.org/int12.html

Second, an excellent textbook:

"Continental Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction" by Andrew Cutrofello

And third, a web page full of links to sites of varying quality:

http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/continental/

 

[arildno]

I think there is a lot of talking beside each other here:

If there are anyone here who thinks:
Maths is racist in itself (which was the issue in this thread), "Principia Mathematica" is a manual for rape (from L. Irigaray) or who holds that the imaginary unit is a phallic symbol (from J. Lacan), please do speak up.

For others, please distance yourselves from such idiotic and absurd utterances.

 

[sd01g]

If only one persons reads and understands INTELLECTUAL IMPOSTURES, after learning about it in this thread, then this thread will have provided enlightenment to at least one.

Note to cragwolf: I really liked your statement--'Sarcasm is only effective when you are sure about the truth of the topic in question.' Does this mean you believe TRUTH actually exists?

 

[<<<GUILLE>>>]

I think there is a lot of talking beside each other here:

If there are anyone here who thinks:
Maths is racist in itself (which was the issue in this thread), "Principia Mathematica" is a manual for rape (from L. Irigaray) or who holds that the imaginary unit is a phallic symbol (from J. Lacan), please do speak up.

For others, please distance yourselves from such idiotic and absurd utterances.

what's meant with imaginary unit and phalic symbol?

And, no: math itself is not racist. this is impossible.

 

[houserichichi]

I'm very sorry but I don't understand HOW math can be 'racist'. Perhaps professions therein as one poster had mentioned, but the actual subject itself has no preference to anyone; it's just abstract thought applied to abstract concepts. Perhaps those who claim so are using a bastardized definition of the word 'racist' in the first place.

Maybe I'm just confused by the whole thing.

Maybe I'm right