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.
-
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).
But I wouldn't bemoan anyone asking or answering it at any layer **as long as they're clear about the layer they're working on.** When Matt relies on a "philosophy of math" motte & then follows up by tweeting about trans athletes, I feel very 
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1126228807273336833 …
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Why is that? I don't see the Motte and Bailey here. Both are socially constructed, neither of which confers a moral value on the construction. Indeed, in the case of both gender and math, it invites criticism that long held beliefs that are held to be may not be true
-
Math and gender are frameworks on entirely different layers. Even "sex" isn't near the layer where ground truths in math reside, bc despite being highly bimodal, phenotype + genotype do not consistently cut cleanly. If you think logic behaves similarly, I do think you're confused
- 38 more 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.