How utterly irrelevant Ayn Rand is here, and your discussion of educators/ education is a continued deflection. You’re still deflecting. Why?
-
-
Replying to @Aya62335284 @perdricof
I'm not deflecting, this is the topic at hand You are arguing against a ridiculous strawman and acting like the people who want to advance human understanding are somehow the ones delaying it
3 replies 1 retweet 68 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
Become a street vendor and start arguing for that degree of rounding. See how it goes.
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Aya62335284 @perdricof
If I do not have access to a measurement tool with the degree of precision I want, and I am forced to compromise based on estimates (a common outcome in street vending, depending on the street), there are many situations where the 2+2 = 5 result is the fairer one
34 replies 2 retweets 67 likes -
You get that, right Do you understand I'm talking about a completely commonsense, real-life problem here That there are plenty of situations where dogmatically saying 2+2 = 4 is a way for me to cheat you
5 replies 2 retweets 67 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
If an architect and a construction worker have different understandings of 2 and 4 that leads inevitably to bad things.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Aya62335284 @perdricof
Yes, which is why it's important to actually discuss these things and think about them rather than blithely assuming them!
4 replies 2 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
And it’s important to begin with shared definitions rather than oscillate between exaggerated hypotheticals of excessive rounding and semiotics to continue to resist in various ways the still very basic point that it’s good that we’re on the same page as to what 2 and 4 mean.
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Aya62335284 @perdricof
You're using the word "semiotics" incorrectly, and "excessive rounding" is a silly thing to say It's not some kind of personal aesthetic decision, you understand, you MUST round based on how many significant digits of precision you have (which often isn't in your control)
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
Buddy. Define semiotics. “Excessive rounding” is an odd phrase. It’s meant to suggest that when rounding starts to become obvious in real world situations it becomes dishonest. Like rounding 2.2 pounds and 2.4 pounds to 5 pounds in a market. That’s not reasonable, objectively.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
It is completely reasonable if that is the limit of my method of measurement You do not CHOOSE the number of significant figures you have in a measurement, they are an outcome of the limitations of your tools for measuring
-
-
Christ this is exactly like being back in high school trying to tutor kids in chemistry Look do you get that there's no objective definition of a "large" or "small" number? 5 grams is 0.005 kilos and is 5000 mg
2 replies 1 retweet 21 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
Yes. In fact I do *share that understanding!* We’re talking about common understandings of 2 in a real world context. Round .0000002 on a bill and it essentially affects no one. Say half a pizza in one box and a whole pizza in another are 2 pizzas and it’s obvious.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.