It's dangerous because of post colonialism and earlier post structuralism is in its basis.
That philosophical school sees truth as being a fantasy and subservient to power.
Therefore it is common for an adherent of post-colonialism to believe a statement is true if it was made by a person arbitrarily considered oppressed, while the same logic might be false if made by an 'oppressor'.
As this approach makes all science to be political effort before a discovery effort, it was highly successful in the highly political environment of the academics, as it also has highly favorable economical results for its followers. (New departments, ability to religiously outcast the old, new postions)
The problem as it reaches the hard sciences, for example the religious sacrifice each ML paper needs to make to the gods of ethics, is that it assaults the very notion of truth by its very essence. It is easy to see why this is highly problematic for mathematics
> *At least read the Nature one, damn.* ~ @thrance
> *I read the article. It's dangerous nonsense.* ~ @ConspiracyFact
> *Where's the danger? Where's the nonsense in acknowledging the origins of algebra?* ~ @myself
Do you have _ any _ meaningful critique of the contents of, say, maths historian George Joseph’s book The Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics (1991) ?
This appears to be old established material that I read in the ANU library back in the early 1980s.
I read the Nature article, and I read the seminal work on the subject Orientalism by Said. The context of the article is post-colonialism, a very established philosophical movement. This is shown when they mention whether mathematics is socially constructed and in the actual title "decolonization". I then proceeded to criticize that movement and explain why it is a problem for mathematics.
You and the other poster responded with anger, I do not agree I am the one who is not meaningfully contributing
I could give your own post as an example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43685383 , where you judged a statement as false due to the presumed location of the author in the power/knowledge spectrum.
But sorry, it's hard to discuss when you quote a single sentence from the few paragraphs i've written and say it's wrong, with nothing added. When adding to it your replies in previous discussions we had such as this:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43705166
I feel you are overly emotionally attached to the subject and this is approaching troll/flame territory. It's not that I don't want to discuss with you, but I feel in our engagements a lot of aggression and very little actual passing of information except for short sentences, so let's end it right here
What? Have you really read the Nature article? You're talking absolute nonsense here. No one is out to redefine mathematics, fuck!
You want real politicization of science? Check out the GOP's pomicies. They're the one cutting funding to organization that won't bow to their ideological lines. They're the ones barring access to foreign scientists for having criticized the dear leader online. They're the ones appointing political commissars to overview what's fine or not to work on in labs.
75% of scientists that ever published in Nature are now considering leaving the US [1] from fear of the administration. Is that not a concern to you?
Talk to any academic, ask them wether they fear more from blue haired teens or the looming fascist threat that is Trump and his cabinet. You may be surprised by the answer.
Fair enough, I am simply baffled that some people can still believe the threat to science comes from the left in the face of an overwhelming and unprecendented anti-science crusade from the right. Now I wonder what the current administration would need to do for you to change your mind. Behead scientists? They're already detaining them, so that's the next logical step.
You're beyond saving then, if basic historical research is "dangerous nonsense". What's the risk there? Discovering a theorem was known at an earlier point in history? Big whoop.
Seriously, what's the danger? Be clear. It feels like you peolple are unable to articulate anything more than "thouhtcrime!!".
Also, what do you think of the actual threats Trump made to academics? Is it dangerous too or not?
