Hmm well to pop back up to the root node, we're just disagreeing about a definition, not any of the consequences of the definitions
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
I agree w Eric that this looks like a motte/bailey, esp looking at the replies to Matt (a mix of reply-to-motte, reply-to-bailey). We can talk about useful maths conventions, the research environment, etc. but we can't pretend these are all the same convohttps://twitter.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1126156211970138112 …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It's a sleight-of-hand trick permitted by clumsy language. "We have a variety of useful conventions in math that make the ground truths more workable but are themselves not ground truth" is a useful motte, but you never open with the motte.https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ …
- Show replies
-
-
-
I'm glad to have a name for that conversation pattern now (I'd never heard the term before)
-
Definitely worth a read:https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/03/all-in-all-another-brick-in-the-motte/ …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't know why Eric thinks it's a good faith argument to suggest that people want to ban Jordan Peterson books (legally? mechanism not proposed) and that math is a social construct, tbh.
-
Or rather, math being a social construct is absurd in the same way banning books is? Or that they have any logical connection?
- 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.