It is therefore of GREAT SOCIAL VALUE for educators to talk about circumstances in which "2 + 2 = 5" might be true, and of NO SOCIAL VALUE to go on angry Ayn Rand rants about how people who deny eternal verities like "2 + 2 = 4" are heretics and anathema
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @perdricof
How utterly irrelevant Ayn Rand is here, and your discussion of educators/ education is a continued deflection. You’re still deflecting. Why?
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
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 -
The more general way to phrase what I'm talking about is "Weigh them all together" If the scale has a fudge factor then adding up separate results from it will make it worse But the "2+2=5" idea is absolutely an accurate way of describing it
8 replies 1 retweet 56 likes -
1)This whole conversation has grown wildly out of control. The original point of 2+2=5 was to draw attention to subjectivism being introduced into mathematics.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GhostMantis @arthur_affect and
2)Meaning that - in the particular context in which we commonly understand math (the axioms, scales, etc that are used in everyday math) 2+2 does not equal 5. Objectively speaking, in that particular context, 2+2 does not equal 5.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GhostMantis @arthur_affect and
To bring up other scales or axioms in which 2+2=5 is disregarding the original context -the wildly obvious context- intended. Within this particular context it is objectively true that 2+2=4. There is no room for subjectivity of any kind.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
The use of the term "subjectivism" here is culture war bullshit that's beating on a strawman, that's my whole point
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @GhostMantis and
There is no such thing as a "subjectivist" or its opposite, an "objectivist", in reality If you think that's what the two sides are here you're being an asshole
3 replies 2 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @GhostMantis and
My own example of why 2+2=5 sometimes is very much about this asshole definition of "objectivity" You can prove that arithmetic as a closed system is logically consistent, you can't prove that any particular application of such a system to the real world is objectively correct
3 replies 2 retweets 18 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.