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
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @davis_yoshida
Mathematics has become vastly more rigorous over the past century, but perhaps this is where your "not being a mathematician" weakness is showing? What form of logic are you talking about? Which topos? Which set of axioms do you adopt?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AaronFriel @davis_yoshida
Possibly, I really can't claim a lot of content knowledge re: maths. But I don't think that a field becoming more rigorous over time indicates that the content it has always concerned itself with is itself socially constructed (if that's what you're suggesting)
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @webdevMason @davis_yoshida
I don't think that's what Matt was saying, but you'd have to ask him. I think the field of math, and the definitions it uses and the consensus of say, using ZFC are all social constructions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AaronFriel @davis_yoshida
I think this is roughly pointing to what I'm calling the layer for "useful maths conventions," and I agree that they're socially constructed, but don't find that a helpful lens to understand them much like I don't find that helpful for understanding e.g. typing or data structures
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
When we discuss gender, we have layers for things like culture-informed self-identification & the interpersonal norms that cause us to assume something that correlates w/ sex with very limited information about genotype + phenotype. "Social construct" seems a very diff term there
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Like I said, I think there are not-necessarily-wrong ways to understand virtually everything as "socially constructed." But I think we need to either maintain careful conversational hygiene or use new terms if we're going to be talking about cultural stuff in the same breath
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @webdevMason @davis_yoshida
I think I disagree because one underlying aspect and strength of referring to it as a social construct is that it dispels the magic or alure of "facts don't care about your feelings, logic proves me right" belief structures.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Counterpoint: math is True with a capital T is the Motte to the facts don't care about your feelings, there are two genders, SJWs care too much about "fee-fees" Bailey.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AaronFriel @davis_yoshida
I mean... it seems like you're choosing a factual claim — or at least, a lens on an area of epistemology — because it undermines the opinions of people you disagree with?
FWIW I just don't think one's understanding of what math is has to imply anything about social ideology2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Personally: I think it's silly to deny that there are ground mathematical truths, I think using the phrase "social construct" is v misleading on many of these layers, I don't think that facts care about your feelings, but I do think gender is complex & feelings matter a whole lot
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason @davis_yoshida
I think ground mathematical truths are so buried in erudite axiomatic theories as to be useless to talk about! The ground truths are boring and even things like "not not P implies P" are serious contentious issues in modern math!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And I think the average person would have an extremely difficult time discerning between things that are the former - boring erudite truths - and the latter - simple statements a large chunk of mathematicians disagree with!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 26 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.