Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Can we have an honest discussion about science and God?

Categories
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
theism
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Many of us are sick of poisoned wells. Anyway, here’s this:


That was their argument because, until recent years, there was not, in the strictest sense, the kind of evidence science requires. To be sure, there were claims of such evidence, but however sincere those claims may have been, they were not persuasive enough to convince an honest skeptic. The gold standard of science, stated informally, is that a new paradigm is accepted when the evidence is solid enough to convince an objective, unbiased, and qualified person.

It turns out that scientists are as biased as anyone else. Their biases are being exposed by an increasing number of younger, more open-minded scientists. These newcomers are breaking free of the unscientific philosophy, the doctrine of physicalism, that presently dominates their disciplines. They are willing to challenge the notion that nothing exists except the physical. The old guard is resisting. The entrenched establishment is making ever less credible excuses for holding on to its resolute belief that only the physical exists.

Robert Arvay, “Old-guard scientists reveal their biases as new scientists suggest evidence for God” at American Thinker

Even if you don’t believe in God, can you at least believe that 2+2=4? That puts you on one side of a growing cultural divide.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

and

Hat tip: Ken Francis, co-author with Theodore Dalrymple of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

Comments
JVL @17 and Viola Lee @18, You missed the point. As AaronS1978 referenced in Orwell’s 1984, the assertion that 2+2 = 4 is racist has nothing do with “transcendent truth,” but rather it’s about what the Woke mob says is truth. If a Woke person holds up four fingers and tells you that it’s five, you had better agree that it’s five and make yourself truly believe it, or you will be cancelled! “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” - George Orwell, 1984 “Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert A. Heinlein “We don't need doctors, we need communist doctors.” - Mao Tse-Tung “Power diminishes unless it’s exercised both frequently and, of necessity, arbitrarily.” - Q -QQuerius
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
https://neurosciencenews.com/delusion-religion-neurotheology-17510/?fbclid=IwAR0EvEErs-IxFJck5nT6j5HZG8_wOvY1Z6RsVPJRmcyYgeDeY2f7n7a40N8 All right peeps this just in directly pertains to this articleAaronS1978
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
There are many beliefs about who, what, or how god might be. I don't think that the truth of 2 + 2 = 4 depends on one's particular religious beliefs.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
Well Viola Lee, whatever you think you are, you did claim that, "The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with with God." That sure smells like a claim that an atheist would make to me. Further too what I have written this far as post 53, via Godel's incompleteness theorem(s) we know that mathematics has a 'contingent' existence. i.e. Math cannot explain its own existence therefore we must appeal to a 'necessary' existence in order to explain the existence of mathematics, i.e. we must refer to the Mind God to explain why mathematics exists in the first place.
Taking God Out of the Equation - Biblical Worldview - by Ron Tagliapietra - January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity ... all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency ... no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness ... all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He (Godel) summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#
bornagain77
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
@JVL With the cake store owner that’s a little bit different from what happened to my sister they forced her to quit after they hired her Her employee rights that were violated If they chose to turn her application down I could understand that however they hired her she developed characters for a movie called ParaNorman and then after a few things were divulge it was a couple months later when they kind of forced her to quit A similar situation happened to me when I was accused of something that I was definitely not and force to Resign JVL do you live in America? Because LGBTQ rights are blasted every single day especially on Facebook The whole incident like with Chick-fil-A was huge and on the news for a very long period of time, months The same with the cake shop incident Which is fueled an entire controversy surrounding religious rights Then there’s the entire problem with being doxxed and other forms of social media bullying I mean do you get on Facebook or any other form of social media because you just get bombarded with that stuff ? In this case none of my questions are being sarcasticAaronS1978
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
BA writes, "The problem for Viola Lee is that Materialists/Physicalists and/or Darwinian atheists, or whatever you want to call them, simply have no place for free will within their worldview." Just FYI: I am none of those things.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
Vividbleau: BTW is 2+ 2=4 objectively true? We'll it's certainly not just an opinion. If we agree upon a few certain starting points then it can be demonstrated that it is in fact, without a doubt, true.Viola Lee
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT
JVL
Who cares if someone is gay or lesbian or whatever. If you let them be then why would they feel the need to try and impose their standards on you?
You've asked this several times and now you're claiming that "since we don't let them be, that's why they want to impose their standards on us". So, it's our fault that they attack and impose? If we "leave them alone" everything will be fine. They can change society to suit themselves and nobody should say anything about it. But there's your double-standard. You wonder why people oppose gay-lesbian-transgender activism, but then you expect that that group should have all the privileges to change things without any opposition. The LGBT position attacks moral and cultural norms. Children are expected to learn certain things on their behalf. So, why can we not be free to oppose that attack? Why is my opinion of less value than theirs?Silver Asiatic
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT
AaronS1978: Sorry you’ve never had that experience that usually indicates you don’t live in the real world and you’re not watching the media I watch the BBC News almost every day and listen to their morning news programme on the radio, it's three hours long. I've had lots of gay and lesbian friends and students and no one has ever tried to impose their standards on me. I live in a country which has lots of openly gay and lesbian entertainers and news reporters and athletes and there are few arguments or problems with such things. Mostly it's just not an issue. You're much more likely to hear a heated argument regarding Brexit or climate change. Most of Europe is the same way. Who cares if someone is gay or lesbian or whatever. If you let them be then why would they feel the need to try and impose their standards on you? Sounds like your sister was treated appallingly. I don't understand why anyone would actually care about her sexual orientation or political leaning or faith as long as she was doing her job well and not annoying other people with her personal standards. I'd have sued 'em. But that does bring up a previous point: if a cake store owner can refuse to serve a lesbian customer then can a company fire an employee who's religious views are contrary to the company owners? Is it the company owner's right to decide who they want to hire and fire like it's the shop owner's right to decide who to serve? The real world is messy.JVL
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
By the way my sister who is a lesbian found out that she was also religious and conservative her very liberal job with Liaka Forced her to resign I watched as they chastised the hell out of her and did attack her like I said there’s reasons why I don’t support it and I’m sorry you haven’t experience the Darkside of the people you supportAaronS1978
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
I’m glad that we could at least agree on one thing though when it comes to the cake shopAaronS1978
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
Sorry you’ve never had that experience that usually indicates you don’t live in the real world and you’re not watching the mediaAaronS1978
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT
AaronS1978: LGBTQ make it a personal goal to tell people how to live their lives that they must celebrate their sexuality being THEIR sexuality I've never had that experience and I wouldn't let them boss me around. Do you remember that little cake shop that got sued over refusing business to a gay couple that wanted to have them bake a cake for their wedding Yup. In this case, I agree with you; the shop can refuse serving anyone they don't like. The only time I can see that NOT applying is if you're providing a service like filling prescriptions or supplying water or electricity. IF there's no reasonable competition then I think the situation is different. Who wants to eat at Chick-fil-A anyway? Pretty sure that’s an exact example of what you said about not telling people how to live their lives That's right, I don't agree with those actions. Just like I don't agree with abortion protestors who stand outside doctor's offices trying to convince women to not have an abortion. I'm not a hypocrite; I do not support anyone imposing their standards on others. Which is why I think it's wrong to deny them the right to marry; that's imposing a standard on them which is wrong. But I guess it’s OK to watch them on TV (“Botched” is a good example) butcher themselves with plastic surgery for your personal entertainment because they can’t get comfortable with who they are I've never even heard of that show and have zero interest in watching it. Sounds like you know all about it though. Why is that?JVL
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Vividbleau: BTW is 2+ 2=4 objectively true? Obviously.JVL
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Oh and JVL you’re a hypocrite LGBTQ make it a personal goal to tell people how to live their lives that they must celebrate their sexuality being THEIR sexuality Do you remember that little cake shop that got sued over refusing business to a gay couple that wanted to have them bake a cake for their wedding How about Chick-fil-A Pretty sure they all got real pissed off and did some pretty shoddy things to Chick-fil-A and Chick-fil-A didn’t even directly say they did not support LGBTQ Just turned out that Chick-fil-A supported the Salvation Army Oh and what’s that they got boycotted until Chick-fil-A stopped supporting the Salvation Army Pretty sure that’s an exact example of what you said about not telling people how to live their lives No I’m a bit of a libertarian and if a business decided to tell me that they refuse service for any reason such as my hair color being blonde they had every damn right to do so It’s their business If you want to be gay go for it it’s your business but don’t tell me I have to support you and absolutely agree with everything you do So you are hypocrite I used to support them For many years because my sister is a lesbian both my sister and I stopped supporting them Because they became a bunch of woke crybaby you have to except me or I’ll punish you Liberal trash I have no problem with them until they literally start punishing me for not celebrating their sexuality then I have a problem and yes they do tell you how to live your life! liberals have a tendency to do exactly that, like you. So why do you care about my opinion because it doesn’t fit your opinion and you have to tell me how to live my life and you have to be right Move along hypocriteAaronS1978
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT
JVL “Yup, being prejudiced against a group of people is usually a stupid thing” Welcome to Critical Race and Social Justice Theory. BTW is 2+ 2=4 objectively true? Vivid.vividbleau
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
@ JVL More snide remark’s You are laughable And why do you care because you seem to be imposing your beliefs on me as well You are quite literally ignorable By the way I’m still a disease just because you choose to ignore that doesn’t make it go away lolololololololololololol By the way it’s your failed ignorance that actually allows these people to NOT get the proper help they need It’s OK to chop your genitals off even though you were probably molested as a child and you have a chemical in balance in your brain, but you be you. But I guess it’s OK to watch them on TV (“Botched” is a good example) butcher themselves with plastic surgery for your personal entertainment because they can’t get comfortable with who they are https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/12/lgbt-mental-health-sexuality-gender-identityAaronS1978
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Viola Lee claims that,,,
The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with with God.
That's a pretty audacious claim. Viola Lee must have some pretty powerful proof for that claim. So what does Viola Lee offer as proof for that claim?
It is based on definitions and axioms that form the basis of our number system, and is absolutely true within that system.
What is interesting about Viola Lee's supposed proof that "2 + 2 = 4 has nothing to do with with God" is that axioms themselves are a matter choice, i.e. are a matter of free will, i.e. A person, via his free will, chooses which axioms he will define his mathematical system with.
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson?Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information.?http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf?
The problem for Viola Lee is that Materialists/Physicalists and/or Darwinian atheists, or whatever you want to call them, simply have no place for free will within their worldview. In fact, free will is one of the foundational defining attributes of the immaterial mind,
The Mind and Materialist Superstition – Michael Egnor – 2008 Six “conditions of mind” that are irreconcilable with materialism: – Excerpt: Intentionality,,, Qualia,,, Persistence of Self-Identity,,, Restricted Access,,, Incorrigibility,,, Free Will,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/11/the_mind_and_materialist_super013961.html
Thus, since Viola Lee himself stated that 2+2+4 is "based on definitions and axioms", and since whatever axioms we choose to employ is a matter of our free will choices, and since free will is a defining property of the immaterial mind, then, contrary to what Viola Lee believes, The truth of 2 + 2 = 4 has "EVERYTHING" to do with with God. To go a bit further, our unique ability, (among all creatures on earth), to ‘do mathematics’ is proof, in and of itself, that we must possess a immaterial mind/soul to our bodies that is not reducible to the material constituents of our temporal bodies,, The existence of Mathematics itself is simply devastating to any materialistic and/or naturalistic worldview since mathematics itself exists in a immaterial, beyond space and time, realm. A “Platonic Realm” that simply is not reducible to any possible materialistic explanation.
Platonic mathematical world – image http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/platonic_physical.gif
As David Berlinski, (who has taught mathematics at several prestigious universities), explains, “Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time….”
An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time…. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html
Simply put, Mathematics itself, directly contrary to the materialistic/naturalistic philosophies, (philosophies which dominate much of our American Universities, and American science, today), mathematics itself simply does not need the physical world in order for it to exist. As Dr. Michael Egnor put it, “Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,,”
Naturalism and Self-Refutation – Michael Egnor – January 31, 2018 Excerpt: Mathematics is certainly something we do. Is mathematics “included in the space-time continuum [with] basic elements … described by physics”?,,, What is the physics behind the Pythagorean theorem? After all, no actual triangle is perfect, and thus no actual triangle in nature has sides such that the Pythagorean theorem holds. There is no real triangle in which the sum of the squares of the sides exactly equals the square of the hypotenuse. That holds true for all of geometry. Geometry is about concepts, not about anything in the natural world or about anything that can be described by physics. What is the “physics” of the fact that the area of a circle is pi multiplied by the square of the radius? And of course what is natural and physical about imaginary numbers, infinite series, irrational numbers, and the mathematics of more than three spatial dimensions? Mathematics is entirely about concepts, which have no precise instantiation in nature,,, Furthermore, the very framework of Clark’s argument — logic — is neither material nor natural. Logic, after all, doesn’t exist “in the space-time continuum” and isn’t described by physics. What is the location of modus ponens? How much does Gödel’s incompleteness theorem weigh? What is the physics of non-contradiction? How many millimeters long is Clark’s argument for naturalism? Ironically the very logic that Clark employs to argue for naturalism is outside of any naturalistic frame. The strength of Clark’s defense of naturalism is that it is an attempt to present naturalism’s tenets clearly and logically. That is its weakness as well, because it exposes naturalism to scrutiny, and naturalism cannot withstand even minimal scrutiny. Even to define naturalism is to refute it. https://evolutionnews.org/2018/01/naturalism-and-self-refutation/
And yet atheistic materialists and/or naturalists, although they deny that anything beyond the material/physical/natural realm exists, need this immaterial, beyond space and time, “Platonic realm” of mathematics in order to even do science in the first place. As M. Anthony Mills explains, “And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract (mathematical) objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities.”
What Does It Mean to Say That Science & Religion Conflict? – M. Anthony Mills – April 16, 2018 Excerpt: Barr rightly observes that scientific atheists often unwittingly assume not just metaphysical naturalism but an even more controversial philosophical position: reductive materialism, which says all that exists is or is reducible to the material constituents postulated by our most fundamental physical theories. As Barr points out, this implies not only that God does not exist — because God is not material — but that you do not exist. For you are not a material constituent postulated by any of our most fundamental physical theories; at best, you are an aggregate of those constituents, arranged in a particular way. Not just you, but tables, chairs, countries, countrymen, symphonies, jokes, legal contracts, moral judgments, and acts of courage or cowardice — all of these must be fully explicable in terms of those more fundamental, material constituents. In fact, more problematic for the materialist than the non-existence of persons is the existence of mathematics. Why? Although a committed materialist might be perfectly willing to accept that you do not really exist, he will have a harder time accepting that numbers do not exist. The trouble is that numbers — along with other mathematical entities such as classes, sets, and functions — are indispensable for modern science. And yet — here’s the rub — these “abstract objects” are not material. Thus, one cannot take science as the only sure guide to reality and at the same time discount disbelief in all immaterial realities. https://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2018/04/16/what_does_it_mean_to_say_that_science_and_religion_conflict.html
Thus our ability to even ‘do science in the first place’, (since science itself is crucially dependent on the objective existence and truthfulness of mathematics), is proof, in and of itself, that the Theistic worldview must necessarily be true,,, To drive this point further home, as should be obvious by now, the fact that man himself has access to, and can use, this transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial world of mathematics, offers fairly compelling evidence that man in not a purely material being but that man must also possess a transcendent, beyond space and time, immaterial mind and/or soul. We simply could never discover these ‘eternal’ truths about mathematics unless we ourselves first possessed a transcendent component to our being,, i.e. a immaterial soul and/or mind that is not reducible to the material constituents of our material bodies. As Charles Darwin’s contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace himself stated, “Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.”
“Nothing in evolution can account for the soul of man. The difference between man and the other animals is unbridgeable. Mathematics is alone sufficient to prove in man the possession of a faculty unexistent in other creatures. Then you have music and the artistic faculty. No, the soul was a separate creation.” Alfred Russel Wallace – 1910
Moreover, since our own immaterial minds came into being and are therefore contingent, and are not eternally existent, and yet we can discover eternal mathematical truths with our immaterial minds, then it necessarily follows that “there must exist an eternal mind in which these eternal (mathematical) truths reside.”
11. The Argument from Truth This argument is closely related to the argument from consciousness. It comes mainly from Augustine. 1. Our limited minds can discover eternal truths about being. 2. Truth properly resides in a mind. 3. But the human mind is not eternal. 4. Therefore there must exist an eternal mind in which these truths reside. https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm#11
And please note that this argument for our immaterial minds, and for God, from the existence of mathematics is perfectly consistent with what we know to be true about mathematics from Godel’s incompleteness theorem.
Kurt Gödel halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Thus, based on the position that an equation cannot prove itself, the constructs are based on assumptions some of which will be unprovable.” Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010)
Thus, mathematics itself offers us compelling proof that we must possess immaterial minds and/or souls, and also offers us compelling proof that God must exist. And despite to how badly atheists may want God, (and our eternal souls), to not exist (for whatever severely misguided reason), the fact the matter is that, since we are all destined to die here on this earth, the undeniable fact that we do indeed have eternal minds/souls that are not reducible to the material constituents of our temporal bodies, i.e. transcendent souls that can live beyond the death of our temporal bodies, is extremely good news for us the hear personally,,, I know that I myself am personally very happy to know it to be undeniably true, and that death does not have the final say in regards to my own life, and in regards to the lives of loved ones, and that I, and my loved ones, i.e. our eternal souls and minds, will continue to live, even though our material, temporal, bodies will perish,, Verses:
1 Corinthians 15:54-55 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come to pass: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O Death, is your victory? Where, O Death, is your sting?” Mark 8:37 Is anything worth more than your soul? John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
bornagain77
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Ok, you may be right. However, the way I see it, people with racial grievances are deeply committed to “fixing” society and will not just stop after ten minutes of fame. I think the revolutionary movements have only just started. But we’re just trying to predict the future and we don’t know. Well, those aren't the people who decide the mathematical curriculum; that driven primarily by its use to other disciplines and then later by its own goals and boundaries. When I was a kid there was 'new math'. it didn't really work and while a few ideas stuck mostly it was abandoned within 10 or 15 years. In some places it never caught on at all. In the 90s there was a 'revolution' in the way Calculus was taught. Again, some of the good new ideas stuck but mostly things are back to normal. In the hard sciences and mathematics that's the way it goes: radical 'reforms' die out leaving a few good notions that get incorporated. Those disciplines are not like the social sciences, they have to deliver the goods which can be tested and scrutinised much more quickly than in something like sociology or psychology. Mathematics stays the same; what was true 1000 years ago is still true. The notation changes, the terminology changes but the math stays the same. And the best way to learn it, as has always been the case, is by practicing. No matter how hard some folks try and force the train off the tracks it just keeps chugging along because that what works. No physicist, no chemist, no accountant, no statistician, no actuary and certainly no mathematician is going to buy some dopey math is oppressive nonsense. Because that doesn't work. It can't. It's stupid. Ok, I misinterpreted that. I think you would agree then that our society faced radical changes ( statues were being torn down) due to a fringe movement. So small groups can have a big effect. It's no different than the Taliban destroying statues from ancient cultures. It's vandalism. And I hate it. Plus it doesn't address the underlying problem; in fact it might make it worse. Dumb and misguided. When transgender activists demand changes to social norms, marriage, education, language and perhaps even math and science – we should all quietly accept it because otherwise it would be to persecute them? You can't change math and science, they are what they are. You can change the way they are taught and I'm happy to consider any reasonable ideas but saying math is oppressive is just stupid. That sounds like someone who hated having to take it so they PERSONALLY found it oppressive. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Aside from that I firmly support them having the same legal rights as anyone else. They should be able to marry certainly. Who cares anyway? And if 'normal' women can have nose jobs and liposuction and breast implants then what do I care if someone wants gender reassignment surgery? Who cares? It doesn't affect me at all. The real question (in the UK anyway) is: should it be paid for by the national health service? That IS a societal issue and one that should be discussed. I think treating LGBTQ (did I get that right . . . not sure) people nicely is just applying the Golden Rule. I don't want them to tell me how to live my life so I'm certainly not going to tell them how to live theirs as long as it's not affecting me negatively. And I will argue to the death for NOT tearing down statues or saying math is oppressive.JVL
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT
JVL
Yup, being prejudiced against a group of people is usually a stupid thing. Like being prejudiced against gays and lesbians and transgender people . . . Alan Turing was a genius of the first order and was viscously prosecuted for his sexual orientation and that’s AFTER he helped the Allies win the war.
I acknowledge your passion on this issue, which is tangential at best and which you are turning around into some sort of moral statement. When transgender activists demand changes to social norms, marriage, education, language and perhaps even math and science - we should all quietly accept it because otherwise it would be to persecute them?Silver Asiatic
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
JVL
I don’t believe destroying history is a way to learn from it; my point was that some people do feel that way AND I disagree with them.
Ok, I misinterpreted that. I think you would agree then that our society faced radical changes ( statues were being torn down) due to a fringe movement. So small groups can have a big effect.
Math cannot be oppressive, it is what it is and would be that way no matter who ‘discovered’ it.
Yes, I fully agree! But you're conflicting head-on with the people who disagree with that.Silver Asiatic
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: Nazis destroyed German expertise in mathematics (at least regionally) in order to redress a racial situation. Yup, being prejudiced against a group of people is usually a stupid thing. Like being prejudiced against gays and lesbians and transgender people . . . Alan Turing was a genius of the first order and was viscously prosecuted for his sexual orientation and that's AFTER he helped the Allies win the war.JVL
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
SA “Fascinating topic which I was not familiar with – just reading quickly a story. Nazis destroyed German expertise in mathematics (at least regionally) in order to redress a racial situation.” Yeppers, ideas have consequences. But don’t worry to quote JVL “ It’s just a fad” Vividvividbleau
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
JVL
If some people are trying to do that then after their ten minutes of fame is over things will chug along much the same way they always have. It ain’t gonna last.
Ok, you may be right. However, the way I see it, people with racial grievances are deeply committed to "fixing" society and will not just stop after ten minutes of fame. I think the revolutionary movements have only just started. But we're just trying to predict the future and we don't know. As for transgenderism, I used it as an example of radical social change emerging out of a fringe movement - one which does not have a logical foundation, just as 2+2=5 is not logical.Silver Asiatic
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
vividbleau
I am sure there were many in Germany that said the same thing about Hitlers “ Jew Math”
Fascinating topic which I was not familiar with - just reading quickly a story. Nazis destroyed German expertise in mathematics (at least regionally) in order to redress a racial situation.Silver Asiatic
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: The problem is that if you attach the fad to a concern for racial equality, you can’t just go around saying “all of that’s a fad”. It’s like saying transgenderism is a fad. I'm not tying the true quest for racial equality to a fad for trying to say mathematics is oppressive. If some people are trying to do that then after their ten minutes of fame is over things will chug along much the same way they always have. It ain't gonna last. Why don't you stop worrying about transgenderism? What difference does it make to you? Just leave them alone as you would prefer to be left along, that's simple isn't it? That's the golden rule isn't it?JVL
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: Since the 1970s, critical theory has been immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences. But not the sciences or mathematics. And it's not going to 'cause it doesn't work there. It doesn't deliver the goods. You can't use it to get a PhD in physics or mathematics. Maybe the history of physics or mathematics but history is a social science.JVL
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic: In your view, knocking down a statue of Abraham Lincoln is an appropriate (needed?) response to “very long term, systemic racism in the US” (your words). I do not support the destruction of any statues, period. They're part of history and should be preserved. If you want to move them I guess I'll concede but destroying history is losing your culture, the good and the bad, and it's wrong. The fact that people in the southern US were still naming their schools after Confederate soldiers should tell you something about them. Instead of shouting them down maybe you should talk to them. Besides, the whole movement is hypocritical; George Washington owned slaves and no one is removing his statues or taking him off the money. I don't believe destroying history is a way to learn from it; my point was that some people do feel that way AND I disagree with them. So, teachers who want to redress racism and then say that math is oppressive … Two completely different things. Math cannot be oppressive, it is what it is and would be that way no matter who 'discovered' it. They can teach it badly. They can discourage students from taking math. They can spread racial hatred through math, thus damaging the field. Much more can happen. They would be bad teachers and should not be hired. And all the parents who want their children to have the option to be an engineer or a physicist or a doctor or a mathematician will send their kids to another teacher who will teach the subject they're paid to teach. This hurts engineers, physicists and chemists – among many others who use math. It hurts our society if less people are interested in math enough to learn it. I agree but a) I doubt it's going to get that bad and b) even if the US becomes that stupid Europe and China and Japan won't. The Russians are no slouches either.JVL
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
Vivid, Yup. VL & JVL: I note from Britannica:
Critical theory, Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed. Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression, they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress, arguing that scientific knowledge must not be pursued as an end in itself without reference to the goal of human emancipation. Since the 1970s, critical theory has been immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences.
Fads are short-term, 40+ years is a generation. This is Marxism 2.0, demanding power to control our civilisation. KFkairosfocus
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
JVL
Fads come, they go. This will pass just like the ‘new math’ of the 60s.
The problem is that if you attach the fad to a concern for racial equality, you can't just go around saying "all of that's a fad". It's like saying transgenderism is a fad.Silver Asiatic
December 30, 2020
December
12
Dec
30
30
2020
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply