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
-
-
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
1 reply 1 retweet 26 likes -
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 -
Replying to @arthur_affect @GhostMantis and
(Actually you CAN'T prove that arithmetic is consistent using arithmetic itself, that's Gödel's second incompleteness theorem, but we don't need to get into that) Whether 2+2=4 in real life is entirely dependent on how you count and measure the four things, whatever they are
5 replies 3 retweets 19 likes
Of course that process is subjective, it's carried out by a subject Your friend even brought up the example of a crooked street vendor, which is the *perfect example* of how using the same "rules of math" gets you different results if you measure a different way
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @GhostMantis and
That's not just ivory tower PoMo talk, that's basic common sense If you don't understand this idea you're not qualified to evaluate any scientific or social scientific paper (on the basis of "Numbers don't lie", a ridiculous thing to say) or even to go shopping
0 replies 1 retweet 7 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.