Observe.
Someone with grad training in math manages to explain, in the length of one tweet, a set of believable conditions under which 2+2=5. It’s a feat of #publicpedagogy, really.
James Lindsay’s response: “You can’t be this stupid, which means you’re completely dishonest.”
Someone with grad training in math manages to explain, in the length of one tweet, a set of believable conditions under which 2+2=5. It’s a feat of #publicpedagogy, really.
James Lindsay’s response: “You can’t be this stupid, which means you’re completely dishonest.”
We should thank the heavens he’s no longer invited to teach in institutions of higher learning.
In Orwell, 2+2=5 is not about conceptual daring of mathematical thinking, it's about the potential of authoritarian power to force people to repeat, without any questions, and then to eventually believe something that goes against established knowledge.
On Twitter, 2+2=5 is about playfully demonstrating that mathematical operations can look different depending on their axioms or cultural anchors. James Lindsay wants to curtail that. He's not about expanding public knowledge of math. #publicpedagogy
You've got to ask yourself, whose Twitter output in this discussion looks more like engaging public questions about how thinking in math works and whose looks more like trying to make others accept his views without asking questions.
@threadreaderapp unroll
