Neither! I think definitions are very important and definitions as social constructs are serious and important, and have large consequences on how we structure society, philosophy, politics, and law
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It depends on what you mean by "social construct," which is why it's fertile ground for an effective motte/bailey. All of reality is and its contents are "socially constructed," given a particular definition for "social construct." You'd have to ask Uri what he meant
For my part (being non-mathsy), David Deutsch has gotten me interested in Popper & I like Popper's take (what we call math can be logical *or* descriptive claims). A layer up, I think relabeling "useful math conventions" as "social constructs" isn't helpful for understanding them
-
-
You can go another layer up and talk about whether any society (necessarily biased & systemically ignorant, as they all are) that funds maths research for its own purposes will output distorted math. I'm certain this does output some amount of bad work and less useful conventions
-
I'm not a mathematician and have low confidence in all of these positions, and tbh at each layer I don't think "Is this socially constructed?" is a particularly useful question — though I think it's a more useful question at the top of the stack (re: institutions).
- 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.