Just found this. Not sure if @michaelshermer is confusing @nhannahjones with me or somebody else because I never said most of that stuff either. What I will say is I learned from my (mostly white) grad school professors how to construct mathematical systems where 2+2 isn't 4.
If that seems contrary to reason to you then I humbly suggest that maybe you don't understand reason as well as you think you do. I know many of us probably learned in grade school that 2+2=4 but the relevant context is it's basic math that they teach to kids.
My race seems to suggest to people that this is a race thing somehow. It's not. Check out the link for a PhD who's not black and who also agrees that 2+2 is not always 4. As Dr. Hossenfelder puts it, "It's not woke. It's math."
I get that people want to add credibility to their political arguments by linking them to stuff that seems more solid and objective like the nature of math, science, etc. but that's risky if you don't have much knowledge in these areas. It might be best to just stick to politics.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For a lot of people, mathematics is true in the same way that "Kermit The Frog and Miss Piggy are a couple" is true. It's true in an imaginary world where we have agreed upon rules. If that's how you think about math then it's pretty obvious that "2+2=4".
To me, "2+2=4" means that "2 things + 2 things will always be 4 things no matter what the things are". Turns out this is not technically true. You can create all kinds of mathematical systems and physical situations where 2 things + 2 things is not 4 things.
Are you frustrated with how organizations like the CDC and the WHO are handling the pandemic? Do you wish they did a better job of following the data?
If so, read on... 👇
One of the earliest lessons of the pandemic was covid outbreaks can get really bad really quickly. While the costs of over-responding are easy to predict like unnecessary financial losses and physical discomfort, the costs of under-responding are harder.
Some areas got away with relatively small outbreaks. Others experienced tremendous disruptions to their healthcare system and significant losses of life.
Lets clear up some things about:
- race
- social constructs
- biological constructs
- sociological causation
- biological causation
- predictive accuracy
A thread. 1/n
Let's say X predicts Y. This doesn't mean X is in any way causally related to Y. Therefore, if I say "X predicts Y", it doesn't mean I'm saying "X causes Y". So in particular, if I say race predicts a health outcome, this doesn't mean race caused that outcome. 2/n
The next thing we should talk about is causation. Sociological causation involves entities from a sociological framing of the world. Biological causation involves constructs that originate out of a biological framework. 3/n
Speaking as a black statistician, I don't think we can completely eliminate using race in medical decisions if we want to make the best decisions for each patient given our current state of technology. Gene testing for specific ancestry would be better but we aren't there yet.
Leaving out race can have a lot of unintended consequences. Algorithms might default to the standard of care for the largest group. This means treating everybody as if they are white which would be problematic in many cases.
Alternatively, algorithms may relearn race from the data. They will use family history, geography and other demographic variables to guess the race. This can be tricky to detect if you aren't looking for it. "Racist" algorithms get released to the public all the time.
As a response to the rightwing, some academics are pushing for a world where scientists are above social criticism.
Critiquing the motivations and behaviors of scientists isn't anti-science. It's democracy.
A thread.
I frequently see academics imply it's morally wrong or anti-science to tweet negative things about them and their field. This is somewhat understandable. Who wouldn't want to live in a world where it was morally wrong to criticize us and our work?
I guess it's possible a mean tweet could hurt a field's reputation but so what? Tweeting mean things about Pepsi could cause Pepsi to be less popular and Pepsi employees to lose their jobs. That doesn't mean tweeting mean stuff about Pepsi is morally wrong.
Folks have been bashing this mentorship program because of Google’s recent track record of what some might call “anti-blackness” but it doesn’t seem like most folks read the materials. I did and I have concerns. 🧵👇🏾
Look at this. They say they will “desk reject”, as in not even READ your application, if it’s not max 2 pages, 8.5” by 11”, Times New Roman font, 1” margins, single spaced, in PDF format. This is more stringent than a grad school application and probably quite a few term papers.
What else will they desk reject for? Including your contact information. That’s right. They will not even consider your application if it has your name in it.