Math Journals Bullied into depublishing math models on gender differences.

[NoDak]

It goes beyond science merely not ruling out the possibility of intelligent design. There are scientific hypothesis that posit the idea of intelligent design, in that reality could be a simulation.

On another note, what's up with all the rage over Newtonian vs Darwinian "truth" these days?

It feels inappropriately extrapolated and goes to show how correct Richard Feynman was when he once said, "scientists are explorers, philosophers are tourists". They aren't different forms of 'truth', they're different sciences which require the central bridge of chemistry to be properly understood with respect to one another.

How convenient that the Newtonian view of truth is universal with fixed interactions; Darwinian on loose causality and subject to change. That's down to no more than the respective framework and fundamental differences between the physical and biological sciences.

It's just really bizarre seeing their work debated in this sort of philosophical manner as the basis for a worldview in the quest for defining ultimate 'truth' but I'm not particularly surprised considering they're very arguably the two most important individuals in the history of modern western civilization.

Karl Marx was particularly inspired by On The Origin of Species, writing "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle" and even reached out for direct correspondence with him, which was friendly although Darwin politely made the point of how different their studies were.

 

[K1levelgrappler]

Beta math nerds BTFO by powerful feminist queens

 

[Tiny]

I'm not surprised. Every fucking day is another god damn low bar with feminists and libtards.

 

[Madmick]

The exploration of human knowledge is being suppressed for political gain. That is disturbing. Basically a mathematician made a mathematical model arguing for why one gender might have more variation due to evolutionary pressure and due to a feminist backlash the paper was unpublished. Anyone want to defend the journal. I think they are cowards.




The first article I read about this is here
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/09/08/a-mathematics-paper-two-math-journals-w



Long article by the math professor here.
https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/

Yeah, saw this earlier. This is why I read Reason. One of best out there right now.

 

[NoDak]

I am glad the left has given us a similar anti science position so the right can take the high ground now.

No offense intended at all, but It would be much preferable if you both stayed well the fuck out of it altogether, tbh.

Nobody is changing the fact 2+2=4 or demonstrating proofs that numbers and equations somehow serve white racial interests, but the heavy injection of politics has the potential to influence mathematics and natural science policy, how it is and isn't carried out, is or isn't instructed, how it does or doesn't inform government policy. That's a problem.

 

[The ScorpioN]

I'm sure they would gladly be all over that if it didn't come with the additional result of including more males on the other end of the spectrum as well.

Maybe they could publish half.

This is a good compromise.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

It feels inappropriately extrapolated and goes to show how correct Richard Feynman was when he once said, "scientists are explorers, philosophers are tourists". They aren't different forms of 'truth', they're different sciences which require the central bridge of chemistry to be properly understood with respect to one another.

The different "truths" as they're proposed don't refer directly to the sciences you're talking about.

Check out Not a Theist's thread on the topic, which is yet another branch of the (fading?) Jordan Peterson phenomenon.

 

[franklinstower]

I've always felt the climate denial among the right is a real black mark on the conservative movement. I think that there is a lot of room to debate how MUCH the climate is being changed but to deny pumping millions of tons of pollution into the system is causing a change is crazy

I am glad the left has given us a similar anti science position so the right can take the high ground now.

There is similarity on both sides here for sure and the motives of both sides are consistent accross time too.

The left doesn't deny the gender differences having to do with math -- they just dont want to give ammo to asshole men that will use it to bash women. Their motive is compassion.

The right wants to deny climate science and disrupt the lives and living conditions of basically the whole fucking world. Their motive-- greed and an I can do whatever the fuck I want attitude.

 

[IDL]

There is similarity on both sides here for sure and the motives of both sides are consistent accross time too.

The left doesn't deny the gender differences having to do with math -- they just dont want to give ammo to asshole men that will use it to bash women. Their motive is compassion.

The right wants to deny climate science and disrupt the lives and living conditions of basically the whole fucking world. There motive-- greed and an I can do whatever the fuck I want attitude.

It isn't compassion it is the equality doctrines. I'm sure you could find some acolyte that is motivated by compassion, just the same as you could find some motivated by resentment. Ultimately though it's ideology.

There is nothing compassionate about denying gender differences and bullying people into sharing in the delusion.

 

[franklinstower]

I've always felt the climate denial among the right is a real black mark on the conservative movement. I think that there is a lot of room to debate how MUCH the climate is being changed but to deny pumping millions of tons of pollution into the system is causing a change is crazy

I am glad the left has given us a similar anti science position so the right can take the high ground now.

There is similarity on both sides here for sure and the motives of both sides are consistent accross time too.

The left doesnt deny the gender dirrefences having to do with math -- they just dont want to give ammor to asshole men that will use it to bash women. Their motive is compassion.

The right wants to deny clomate science and sisrupt the lives and living conditions of basicaa

It isn't compassion it is the equality doctrines. Ideologically driven. I'm sure you could find some acolyte that is motivated by compassion, just the same as you could find some motivated by resentment. Ultimately though it's ideology.

There is nothing compassionate about denying gender differences.

I disagree. I think it is motivated by compassion poorly enacted.

 

[IDL]

I disagree. I think it is motivated by compassion poorly enacted.

Well, I couldn't disagree more when traced to its roots. But ok.

 

[IDL]

On another note, what's up with all the rage over Newtonian vs Darwinian "truth" these days?

It feels inappropriately extrapolated and goes to show how correct Richard Feynman was when he once said, "scientists are explorers, philosophers are tourists". They aren't different forms of 'truth', they're different sciences which require the central bridge of chemistry to be properly understood with respect to one another.

How convenient that the Newtonian view of truth is universal with fixed interactions; Darwinian on loose causality and subject to change. That's down to no more than the respective framework and fundamental differences between the physical and biological sciences.

It's just really bizarre seeing their work debated in this sort of philosophical manner as the basis for a worldview in the quest for defining ultimate 'truth' but I'm not particularly surprised considering they're very arguably the two most important individuals in the history of modern western civilization.

Karl Marx was particularly inspired by On The Origin of Species, writing "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle" and even reached out for direct correspondence with him, which was friendly although Darwin politely made the point of how different their studies were.

Seems like the debate on the two different types of truths is fairly localized stemming from Peterson and Harris. Kinda took on a life of its own but probably only on the internet sphere. I find it interesting. People getting into a little philosophy and think about things they may not normally think about.

Funny that Marx would talk about a Darwinian underpinning to perpetual class struggle (I don't know the details behind that). I mean, I agree it is relevant due to human nature and competition, but it also provides a pretty fatal blow to communism since it would really require intense authoritarian systems to keep everyone in check under such a system. I've long figured that the enemy of such a system is human nature itself so it would become a perpetual war against humanity, in essence.

 

[alexdlrg]

alanb, I saw this post on quillette about a possible legal case against NYJM. What's your opinion on that?

Professor Hill may have a legal cause of action against the New York Journal of Mathematics (NYJM) for breach of contract if Hill gave NYJM copyrights to the article in exchange solely for NYJM publishing the article. By making the Article disappear, NYJM may have breached an implied warranty. Professor Hill may also have a cause of action against Benson Farb for tortious interference with a contract.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I've always felt the climate denial among the right is a real black mark on the conservative movement. I think that there is a lot of room to debate how MUCH the climate is being changed but to deny pumping millions of tons of pollution into the system is causing a change is crazy

I am glad the left has given us a similar anti science position so the right can take the high ground now.

You are glad that there is more science denial just so your side can say "Y-You do it too!"...

How about less science denial on "all sides"?

 

[Lord Coke]

alanb, I saw this post on quillette about a possible legal case against NYJM. What's your opinion on that?

Let me think about that. My gut is telling me there is a possible claim against the journal but not against the Professor. My gut also has had some whiskey so let me think about this tomorrow and I'll try and give you a better answer.

 

[Lord Coke]

You are glad that there is more science denial just so your side can say "Y-You do it too!"...

How about less science denial on "all sides"?

I think we both know that is not realistic.

 

[NoDak]

The different "truths" as they're proposed don't refer directly to sciences you're talking about.

Check out Not a Theist's thread on the topic, which is yet another branch of the (fading?) Jordan Peterson phenomenon.

Do I have to? I respect philosophy (mostly) but nothing short of holding my feet to fire could get me to delve into or invest any time towards it.

You are glad that there is more science denial just so your side can say "Y-You do it too!"...

How about less science denial on "all sides"?

I love you.

Seems like the debate on the two different types of truths is fairly localized stemming from Peterson and Harris. Kinda took on a life of its own but probably only on the internet sphere. I find it interesting. People getting into a little philosophy and think about things they may not normally think about.

Yea, I'm not opposed to it really and any kind of light that can be shined on Newton and Darwin is probably a good thing even if the references aren't particularly direct to their insight and achievements.

The point about the differences between the physical and biological is based on the former having a certain consistency across space and time, e.g. any hydrogen atom is identical to any other in existence and they are the same now as they were billions of years ago; one molecule of water has two hydrogen atoms covalently bonded to a single oxygen atom, etc.

On the whole, the life sciences simply don't work like that to say the absolute least. They are also historical with innumerable factors to take into consideration, natural selection obviously being a major one.

Funny that Marx would talk about a Darwinian underpinning to perpetual class struggle (I don't know the details behind that). I mean, I agree it is relevant due to human nature and competition, but it also provides a pretty fatal blow to communism since it would really require intense authoritarian systems to keep everyone in check under such a system. I've long figured that the enemy of such a system is human nature itself so it would become a perpetual war against humanity, in essence.

https://isreview.org/issue/65/marx-and-engelsand-darwin

(Little Excerpt)

Only 1,250 copies of the first edition of 'On the Origin of Species' were printed, and they all sold in one day. One of those who obtained a copy was Friedrich Engels, then living in Manchester. Three weeks later, he wrote to Karl Marx:

"Darwin, by the way, whom I’m reading just now, is absolutely splendid. There was one aspect of teleology that had yet to be demolished, and that has now been done. Never before has so grandiose an attempt been made to demonstrate historical evolution in nature, and certainly never to such good effect."

When Marx read Origin a year later, he was just as enthusiastic, calling it “the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” In a letter to the German socialist Ferdinand Lasalle, he wrote:

"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle… Despite all shortcomings, it is here that, for the first time, “teleology” in natural science is not only dealt a mortal blow but its rational meaning is empirically explained."

In 1862 Marx made a point of attending the public lectures on evolution given by Darwin’s supporter Thomas Huxley, and encouraged his political associates to join him. Wilhelm Liebknecht, a friend and comrade who often visited the Marx family in London, later recalled, “when Darwin drew the conclusions from his research work and brought them to the knowledge of the public, we spoke of nothing else for months but Darwin and the enormous significance of his scientific discoveries.”

Although Marx and Engels criticized various aspects of his “clumsy English style of argument,” they retained the highest regard for Darwin’s scientific work for the rest of their lives. In his own masterwork, Marx described 'On the Origin of Species' as an “epoch-making work.” In 1872 Marx sent a copy of 'Capital' to Darwin, inscribing it “on the part of his sincere admirer, Karl Marx.”

 

[NoDak]

I'm not surprised. Every fucking day is another god damn low bar with feminists and libtards.

@Son of Jamin could probably show you some amazing things coming out of Sverige as it relates to this sort of nonsense.

 

[Lord Coke]

There is similarity on both sides here for sure and the motives of both sides are consistent accross time too.

The left doesn't deny the gender differences having to do with math -- they just dont want to give ammo to asshole men that will use it to bash women. Their motive is compassion.

The right wants to deny climate science and disrupt the lives and living conditions of basically the whole fucking world. Their motive-- greed and an I can do whatever the fuck I want attitude.

The net result is the same regardless of the motivation. A person that locks a child up in a box for fear that he will be hurt is still a jailor.

 

[kpt018]

I've always felt the climate denial among the right is a real black mark on the conservative movement. I think that there is a lot of room to debate how MUCH the climate is being changed but to deny pumping millions of tons of pollution into the system is causing a change is crazy

I am glad the left has given us a similar anti science position so the right can take the high ground now.

I think your OP is good (and is concerning) but your take here is pure tribalism.

My reaction is that I’m concerned about anti-science thinking on all fronts, regardless of party, and I hope we can get passed it (both parties rely on sound science to produce better policy).