Definitions can be regarded as knowledge and we have a shared definition. It’s funny to see you play with definitions when (and I’m not conservative) you declare absolutely that “all terrorists are conservative.” Or do you admit that’s an (ill-founded) assumption?
-
-
Replying to @Aya62335284 @BetaDecayPlus and
You really are Dunning-Krugering your way through this thread. You are particularly resistant to the observation that shared knowledge of a concept can be incomplete, can evolve, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @eunarthabossamy @BetaDecayPlus and
Asserting D-K is another way to argue. I guess we should seek to evolve a basic, general (and quite universal) understanding of what 2 means in an *everyday context of communication* (my point) then? 2 + 2 = 4 = Dunning Krueger 2 + 2 = 5 = shared knowledge is incomplete.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Aya62335284 @BetaDecayPlus and
If you really dont understand the circumstances under which 2+2=5 is a true statement, circumstances that have been thoroughly explained, then you are not cut out for this conversation. Do you or do you not understand?
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @eunarthabossamy @BetaDecayPlus and
Are these arguments (mostly focused on rounding) evidence for an evolution of how we fundamentally understand what 2 means? If so, please do cut me out of your conversation.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Aya62335284 @BetaDecayPlus and
So that's a NO, you don't understand. Its okay to SAY so. But do understand what youre arguing against is mathematicians' ability to define the terms of a mathematical statement outside of YOUR personal level of understanding.
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @eunarthabossamy @Aya62335284 and
For example, this is exactly how Transphobes with 8th grade science educations demand Sex only ever be defined in the terms outlined during Introduction to Biology 101, no matter how inappropriate to a more complex discussion of biology it may be.
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @eunarthabossamy @BetaDecayPlus and
You’re not, by chance, trying to wield mathematical concepts in order to advance a political argument, are you?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Aya62335284 @BetaDecayPlus and
I'm referring outright to the political argument Lindsay was subtweeting about in the first place.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @eunarthabossamy @BetaDecayPlus and
Hmm. My point is simply that a standard, essentially universal knowledge is a good thing, and that it’s better to reduce rather than increase subjectivity in math. Arguing for specific contexts when 2 means something else so ppl have “their” meaning is a push for subjectivity.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Aya62335284 and
You genuinely do not seem to understand what math is for or what numbers are for It is not to give you the aesthetic pleasure of uttering simple statements that are universally true
2 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @eunarthabossamy and
I’m talking about basic communication to have meaningful exchanges about real things with mutual understanding & universality. Your use of math promotes an argument for “ways of knowing” a different discourse which has the precise goal of pushing subjectivities causing confusion.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
End of conversation
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.