'ello!

Hey, thanks for popping in!

Anyway, I wanted to apologize if I seemed overly critical. It's just your answer largely seemed well-reasoned, but then it went in an odd direction that I didn't quite get. And things that I don't understand fascinate me. =P

Okay. Here's a thought experiment: pretend that an eastern religion with a weird fixation on automata began sweeping the world at the tail end of the iron age, and became a dominant religion for

about half the world over the next 2000 years. How would that affect the history of math?

@philosodad Chaotically. The complexity of that scenario would vastly supersede, say, exactly predicting the path of a hurricane.

Take the word 'weird' out of that, because my actual brain finds it odd that people are not fixated on automata.

@Nat undoubtably true. It would change a lot. What is interesting to study, what gets funded, what is pursued... it's all bound together with culture. So that's one point.

So math, the development of it, what we know, what we focus on, what we teach, what order we teach in... these are all culturally determined. And the people doing the cultural determination are the people with power.

Therefore, what gets taught, how it gets taught, etc... these are the things that are seen as beneficial to the people in power, by the people in power.

Well... I dunno if I'd use the term "culturally determined". By analogy, say that we start with a single bit -- set to zero, but it could also be one -- and everyone on Earth could flip that bit once (like a huge, multi-party one-time-pad, where everyone can apply their own XOR). Then, would it be fair to say that any one person "determined" the ciphertext?

So I mean.. I agree that racism/etc. affected the future, including math.. but the word "determined" seems weird to me, because it was chaotically mixed with infinitely many other things.

No, but that analogy doesn't account for the fact that a quite small number of people have had the power to determine the history of math.

School boards literally design curricula. They determine what is taught. Grant givers determine what is researched by choosing what proposals have value.

The cultural impact on research topics and math education is both direct and explicit.

Okay, I guess that's the difference in our perspectives, then. I mean, I agree that racism and factors related to it could've easily changed history; however, I perceive that same quality as applying to infinitely many other things, too.

Fun fact: peer review is rarely blind. When I was in grad school, I could see the institution and the names of the authors on every paper I reviewed. Institutional prejudice directly affects what gets published.

For example, if we're talking culture.. then math could've been different if capitalism, communism, tribalism, theocracy, feudalism, republicanism, liberalism, democracy, etc., etc. were different.

Sure. Which is why math is not culturally independent.

And even those are just random words I'm throwing out... there're a lot more words that could be listed, and beyond those, so many more concepts without labels.

So I guess that, if someone says that something influenced math, I'd have expected a point about some sort of special relationship, beyond the automatic relationships that just about everything already have with math.

Why? If the question had been about capitalism and its impact on the direction of mathematical research, I could have pointed that out. But it wasn't. It was about racism, and racism has had a huge impact on our culture, and therefore on math.

BTW, regarding relatively few people having affected math history -- that may be how the story's told, but I'd have to disagree. I think history's too prone to such oversimplifications. Plus.. I imagine many people could've influenced math if they just cared to be interested in it; it's not that they all lacked the power, so much as so many just did other things -- but presumably could've changed, if we're talking revisionism.

And racism influences math education directly right now.

"Relatively few" as in those with the education and wealth to have an impact.

Which, compared to the entire population, is a very small number.

Eh.. people may've needed wealth and access if they want to do something like be an astronaut. But math is so accessible; it's so very open. I tend to perceive the main prerequisite as being obsessed with it.

Here's an example: the Florida Board of Education objected to a math book which had a problem that included the concept of racial prejudice, because they didn't want white students to feel bad about the existence of structural inequity.

That seems like an agreeable evaluation to me. Math seems like a simple, straightforward subject; polluting it with political junk seems wrong.

To pursue math, you need good teachers early, you need support, space, food, quiet... it helps a lot if you don't live on a superfund site, etc.

And to me, that looks like straight up racism.

I can't fathom why you'd think that, though I'd be very interested if you could somehow explain it?

Because the example problem describes a true situation in the real world. It's only political if you view acknowledging that racial prejudice exists to be a political act.

I mean.. math seems lie folks should learn the logic. Inserting other stuff, like politics, would seem like a disservice to everyone -- even those who'd agree with the political assertions.

It isn't any more political than any other description of a real phenomena.

For example, I'd be deeply annoyed if I were reading a scientific paper and the author brought up political junk, even if they wrote about things I'd agree with.

You're the one bringing politics into the question. As an example, it is apolitical.

Because it's describing a thing that objectively really happens in the real world.

I'm not familiar with apolitical, objective discussions of racism in the public domain.

I mean.. the sciences kinda get fuzzy around Psychology, at which point we start getting into pseudo-science (which Phycology's heavily infected with). By the time we get to the social-sciences, it's almost all pseudo-science.

Well, it is an objective fact that, for example, resumes that have the same exact words on them, but have a "black sounding" name, are less likely to result in calls then resumes with white sounding names.

That's just true.

(Well, it's true that researchers have run that experiment and gotten that result)

Replications of studies like that don't seem to go well.. and the statistical models social-scientists use tend to be heavily flawed. It's like they literally don't know how math works and just screw with the numbers until they get something that they like.

I mean, don't get me wrong -- that particular claim sounds plausible to me. I just mean that the actual claimants don't tend to be reliable.

I mean... how would you know? Why are you making that assumption? Who did the study? What field were they in? How did they do their analysis?

Which is why it seems politically affected -- because a large part of their process is screwing with the analysis until it looks right to them, which tends to be when it matches their preconceptions. And so pseudo-science.

@philosodad I've read.. at least dozens, but probably hundreds of such papers? I've studied a lot. =P

Again: how could you possibly know that about this paper when you don't know who the authors were, what field of study it comes from, or anything else about it.

I've also talked with the authors to figure out what they were thinking, much like I asked you about your answer. Investigating stuff is a hobby.

I've also gone over their math. (And I'm a PhD, among other things, btw.)

None of which addresses this particular paper.

Which one? I could look at it if you'd like.

Exactly. I mentioned a result, and you immediately began to judge the methodology.

And put it in a bucket of unreliable research.

Although you have no information about it.

AND you made the claim that culture skews results to get the "right" results, although you appear to only apply that to papers that show that prejudice exists.

I do have information about it.. I've studied this stuff for years, in thorough detail. ..that said, if you feel I'm wrong, on what basis? For example, do you know what methods they used, and have you verified them? Do you have experience running such models?

You don't know what field the paper was in. You don't know who the authors were. You don't know if it has been replicated. You don't know how they factored in their results. You have zero information.

Otherwise.. I feel like you're basically saying that there was some study -- which you vaguely alluded to, but I'm still not sure which one you meant -- that might, possibly, be correct. And.. okay, sure, one of them out there that I haven't seen might have some merit. And I'd happily examine it!

You didn't even ask me to reference the study before you started judging the study. And that is basically my point.

My comment was:

> Replications of studies like that don't seem to go well.. and the statistical models social-scientists use tend to be heavily flawed.

Is economics a social science?

I spoke to what I've seen, based on direct observation. I didn't comment on that exact study, as it was unspecified. And I did ask you to reference it before I commented on that exact study.

Sorta. It's kinda like Psychology where it straddles the border. Having hard numbers and metrics helps it a lot.

I mean, a lot of Economics-claims aren't reliable, but it's definitely not as bad as some other stuff.

"I mean, don't get me wrong -- that particular claim sounds plausible to me. I just mean that the actual claimants don't tend to be reliable."

You don't know who the claimants are or what field the paper is in, but you made that statement.

@philosodad Yup, I said "tend to be"; I was speaking generally of the field.

That's a weird question.. a particular topic occurs in multiple fields, not just one. Do you have a research background?

What field were you speaking generally of?

The field of the claim that.. what was it.. black-names on resumes lead to different results.

Okay, let's explain fields real quick. Which field do you think a study about water-ethanol solutions would be in?

And what field was that claim made in?

I don't know. It could be chemistry, environmental science, ets.

That's not a real question; that's not how fields work. Trying to explain this, if you'd bear with me.

Yes, you're right -- chemistry, environmental science, chemical engineering, physics, biochemistry, biomedical engineering, medicine, pharmacy, etc.. it could be in any of those fields, and more.

Yeah. Sure. Go ahead.

It's not like I have an advanced degree or anything.

If someone did such a study, then they'd tend to pick a journal to submit it to, generally related to one of those fields, and often based on their career aspirations and preferences.

Explain fields of study to me.

So that said.. if I asked you to tell me which field such a study was in, what would you say?

I would say that I don't know.

Eh, okay. Well, a scientist would reject the question itself, because it's like asking what color the number 4 is.

Likewise, the claim you're asking about is its own sub-field, if you like -- it is what it is. But it might be published in many different venues.

This is, it doesn't belong to a field. There's no right answer.

Hey man, you're the one who was claiming that there was a field of study that was generally unreliable.

Yes, that general region, with respect to topics related to race, tends to be generally unreliable. It's just that there's not a more specific field name for it, beyond just describing what it is.

Sorry if I misunderstood; I thought you were looking for a particular name, like "diversity studies" or "socioeconomics" or something, to which there wouldn't be a right answer. (Or there'd be many right answers, or however we'd want to say it.)

So what your saying is that any paper (and you've read less than 1% of them) in the general area of studying race is suspect.

Yeah.. it's really that bad. This is common knowledge in research.

Gonna grab a link here...

Well, specifically, the area of studying how race affects economic opportunity in the US.

It better be a damn good one.

I mean, I take it as a given that all papers in macro-economics are vapid bullshit, but that's because I learned that at my mother's knee. I don't think it's necessarily true as such.

"Replication crisis", Wikipedia, has some intro stuff.

Replication Crisis, IIRC, is mostly an issue in Social Psychology.

Not econ.

That's just not correct, nor am I sure why someone might think that.

Because that's the context it is most often brought up in.

In my experience.

Anyway.. macro-economics has a huge saving-grace: people can measure it, and there's lots of widely agreed upon data to test with. Most social sciences lack that safety-net and it's horrible.

Not to say that macro-economics doesn't have a lot of problems, just, if you recognize that that's bad, seriously, the social-sciences are so much worse. It's a dumpster fire.

Like I said, I've been hearing about why Macro is garbage since I was about 5, so I have deep prejudices.

You probably weren't significantly misled.. a lot of people grossly overestimate academic publications.

Heck, folks even put out joke publications to make that point. ...one sec for an example...

Regardless, this is not relevant. The author is Steven Levitt, for what it's worth.

Looks like Wikipedia's got a partial list. (Probably just a small fraction, though.)

I recall one about the biology of Pokemon that seemed pretty funny. xD

But my point is: you see a math problem that includes any mention of racial discrimination as political. But you think that some other word problem would magically not be political. But that's clearly bullshit, because politics is in the eye of the beholder.

(Off-topic, but I still don't get how pharmacies make money on homeopathic remedies.)

I don't see acknowledging the existence of racial discrimination or historical inequity as political any more than I think that acknowledging the existence of airplanes is politial.

@philosodad Yes, because it's like exactly predicting the path of hurricane -- it's too complex for the stupidly simplistic linear-regressions that they do.

Or for that matter, pollution.

Oh.. yes, you can acknowledge various things, in broad, vague terms. It's exactly describing them, or making specific claims about them, that's an entirely different matter.

For example, yeah, there's racism. And yeah, it affects things. But people who claim junk like exact numeric predictions about how racism affects things seem to be making junk up.

Except that we have an actual effect that is going on.

Well, not really.. lemme give an analogy...

Black generational wealth is in fact lower than white generational wealth. Black people are in fact more likely to live in heavily polluted areas than white people, even accounting for income.

One of the better-studied topics, in terms of data from many places and groups over the years, might be climate-science.. measuring temperatures, etc., all over the world.

Oh dear god.

If you go climate denial I'm done.

Like, seriously, climate-scientist have gathered stupid amounts of data.

Just. Done.

...erm, dude, I'm a scientist, trying to explain science. Enough condescending, okay? =P

Anyway, since we've got the data, we can say stuff like what's been happening -- in great detail, in terms of actual numbers.

Um, dude. What is my highest level of education?

Because you've pointed out that you're more qualified than I am twice now.

So I might argue that you are condescending to me.

Still, despite having so much data and studying it so thoroughly, we're still trying to figure a lot of stuff out -- like what' actually happening and the affects of various things. Even how much CO2 affects things!

Well, sort of.

So in broad terms, we can say that climate-change exists. And we've got a lot of numbers that seem to paint a picture broadly consistent with it. But.. exactly what's happening is more a matter of research.

Anyway, human-level stuff is similar -- it's a hugely complex system, like climate.

I mean, we have a fairly good grip on albedo and CO2, at least in terms of trending affects.

Yeah, I know

But it lacks the same sorts of data; it lacks consistency. And even terms are constantly redefined between authors.

I understand about complex systems.

So, when it comes to stuff like "racism", folks who make precise claims about it are sorta like folks who make precise claims about the future of weather based on particular things -- just with vastly less data and science, on a system that may be vastly more complex.

This predisposes the field itself toward just not working out.

That said.. people have TONS of feelings about race, racism, etc..

And so they'll still fund it, and read junk about it, regardless.

Erm. Actually, now that I've explained that.. feel like this kinda got away from the original topic.

Anyway. I guess you've answered my question -- you perceive there to be relatively few thing that affected the history of math, such that race would seem more significant, right? Whereas I perceive many more things affecting the history of math, such that race wouldn't seem but less-than-a-drop in an ocean. And.. I guess that'd explain it.

It's just like climate science, I agree. We know, and have known for over 100 years, that increasing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere will increase the average global temperature, and we've known for several centuries that darker objects absorb more light than lighter objects. We know that climate change is happening, we've predicted it forever, but the system is complicated and how precisely that all works out over time is difficult to predict.

ATM, it looks like our climate models have been fabulously optimistic.

Similarly, we know that taking a section of the population and systematically destroying their wealth, their ability to gain wealth, their access to education, etc. is going to lead to inequities, but how precisely that plays out and what exactly to do about it is difficult to predict and understand.

"Race" doesn't affect math.

So apparently I haven't explained it.

Look. Whiteness is an invention of our culture, and it is not an insignificant one.

It's foundational to the largest economy in the world, in fact.

Well, "whiteness" is an invention of some culture, at any rate. People who care for it seem to be sorta.. off.

Um, no.

Do you understand what people mean when they say someone is white?

Not without more precision, no; it's defined in many different ways.

Not academically, do YOU have an understanding of that word as applied to people?

I'm aware of multiple notions of it.. there's not a single correct answer. Sorry if that seems pedantic, but it's just not that simple.

It seems dishonest.

I guess you have strong feelings about a notion you'd call "whiteness"?

I'm pretty sure if someone says "Most golfers are white" you understand what they mean from cultural context.

No, I don't.

Not really.

Yes, I can generally infer what someone means in particular contexts, at least with greater precision than without any context.

GREAT.

Of course, someone might be talking about golfers usually having white skin, or "white" behaviors, or being of a "white" social-class, etc.. Can generally get more precision based on further context.

Whiteness is a legal construction. It did not exist 1000 years ago, although all the skin pigments did.

It's a creation. People made it up, largely to justify the Atlantic slave trade.

We live with the legacy of that construction. We can pretend that it doesn't affect us, but that's largely bullshit.

It has massive historical ramifications that affect people today. Including yourself, because you see the inclusion of a math question that uses implicit bias in a statistical example as offensively politcal.

Is it fair to infer that you don't think anti-African racism would've existed in a fashion like it does today if not for the Atlantic slave-trade?

I don't know.

I think that, given the history of how whiteness was constructed, there needed to be some motivation for the construction.

May I ask where you developed these perspectives? For example, does this come from some academic course, book, etc.?

Well, if you look at legal history, you can actually find the laws that define whiteness.

How would you imagine a white European may've regarded a black African, should they have encountered, around 1500?

Don't know. Othello isn't exactly a stellar portrayal, but interestingly, no one is worried about the legality of his marriage.

Or it's sanctity under God. Or his right to be a member of the military

It's not that people can't see different skin colors.

Of course they can.

But the average northern european would also have a huge list of prejudices against southern europeans and vice versa.

And a European from Spain circa 1500 didn't have a lot in common, culturally, with an Eastern European.

The very fact that you talk about "Europeans" in 1500 is exactly what I mean. No one in Europe in 1500 would identify themselves as European.

Thanks for this discussion; I think I get how you see things, and so the reasoning behind the answer, and it's helped address my curiosity.

I really don't think you do.

By which I mean, based on your responses, if I asked you to tell me how you think I see things, you would be very wrong.

Hah, that could be a fun experiment! But.. the main thing I sense is that you might be less skeptical, or more inclined to take stock in particular narratives than I am. And that helps me to understand what I was asking about with regard to the question. Specifically, I think you take more stock in narratives based around racism, whereas I see such descriptions as more chaotic and inconsistent.

Before this discussion, another hypothesis I was wondering about is if you believe in retrocausality, which could've also explained the argument made in that answer. However, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Actually, if I could ask.. suppose someone argued that the universe has underlying causal equilibrium, such that events occurring in the future can, say, reinforce events in the past. For example, remembering a historical event might help keep it as having occurred. How would you feel about that argument?

That it had no substance?

I mean, there's no mechanism there.

Awesome, it fits together then. =)

Unless we just mean culturally.

By which I mean, I figured you didn't believe that, just wanted to confirm.

Anyway, thanks again. It's been a good discussion and I appreciate your insight.

Interestingly, I have the exact same sense of you in terms of relative skeptecism.

And narratives.

Do you mean that you agree with my perception, or that you see it as being the other way around?

The other way around.

You don't strike me as particularly skeptical. Like, after talking to you, I would not identify you as a skeptic.

That' slightly unfair, you might, but in a sort of more surface level Michael Shermer kind of way

Food for thought. Later.

Huh.. that's both confusing to me and kinda nice. I feel like I always run a risk of stressing people with excessive skepticism; that it didn't hit you that way seems like a good thing.

Good chatting with you!

May I know what is Phaneron and what is its connection with the matix defense?

I am having a hard time to understand Phenomenology

Is it taken for granted that realism is the final truth?