That's linked to Critical Race Theory
CRT proponents see group identity as more important than individual identity
.
Their reasoning is something like this: more white people have traditionally been mathematicians than black people, therefore the "structure" of the mathematics world is biased towards white people, even if the white mathematicians themselves are not consciously and deliberately racist
There's more:
Postmodernists see rules as arbitrary - all rules are ultimately arbitrary
.
Thus "2+2=4" is, in their minds, not a universal self evident truth
It's an expression of "power" by the "dominant group" (white people, apparently)
If another "group" came to "power" then that group could decide that "2+2=5"
I meam excluding all of the racial stuff. Technically all rules are arbitrary. Who's to say 2+2 wouldn't have been accepted as 5 if it was agreed upon thousands of years ago.
.
Hell you can still prove that 2+2=5 if you fuck around with Maths enough. Rules are arbitrary.
The symbol "5" has a set connotation that society as a whole agrees upon being one more than the symbol "4". If you want to say that "2+2=5" then you first need to make society adjust to learning the symbol "5" means one less then the symbol "4" and thusly the order would be "1 2 3 5 4".
It is possible for words and the symbols that represent them to change over time, but math symbols would be the hardest to change since math is considered a universal constant.
"2+2=4" is, in their minds, not a universal self evident truth" yeah and they're right. "1+1=2" and "2+2=4" is something you have to demonstrate when you study maths at a higher level, because mathematicians know and obviously agree that it is by definition arbitrary. (and you demonstrate it in terms of values, not numbers, since these are as arbitrary as the alphabetic order)
So I've looked it up and the instances of "math is racist" I've seen are 1. clickbait that stemmed from someone saying algorithms reinforce inequalities and 2. people who criticise CRT, while CRT things I've looked up say the contrary (I'm not a specialist, far from it, I've looked up google scholar, normal search engines typing "maths is racist" which led me only to criticism against crt, and some big CRT websites such as equitablemath). So the meme looks like an exageration of CRT, people don't seem to actually think that. Which is hella reassuring, that was a concerning take.
As for 2+2=5, *apparently* it stems from a Twitter user who said it could work under certain circumstances -and that's a bit tongue in cheek, but not wrong: there was this car with 2 engines having 2 horsepower each belonging to the 5 hp category, because 2.4 (rounded out to 2) + 2.4 = 4.8 (rounded out to 5). Can't tell about how it's used though.
1
·
Edited 2 years ago
deleted
· 2 years ago
It's just too easy these day for people to trigger young, uhm, let's call them conservatives, and make them believe seventeen idiots and three trolls on Twitter are a relevant movement they need to resist and fight. And as to CRT: not one single "critic" who has ever spoken out in public against it has the smallest idea of what it actually is. It's one of those major triggers the members of the Hannity/Carlson/O'Reilly cult of eternal idiocy & ignorance love to react on.
I swear I'm not trying to hijack this post, but the concept of "universal self-evident truth" has no room in maths, things have to be proven. And yet, to demonstrate that 2+2=4 you rely on another arbitrary axiom. It all boils down to Gödel's theorem of incompleteness, who proved in 1931 that "mathematics can't demonstrate their coherence". There is always an arbitrary part that has to be taken for granted. There is however an ongoing debate since then in the mathematicians community to decide wether or not this limit concerns the thought processes or just means the mathematical language is devoid of meaning, but it really cannot be decided this bluntly.
I know it wasn't the original point but it's a crazily interesting yet complex concept, the most accessible article I've found is in French, if anyone's interested, but not very in depth. https://www.science-et-vie.com/archives/2-une-limite-logique-on-ne-saura-jamais-si-1-1-2-40830?uid=NDI4ODAw
CRT proponents see group identity as more important than individual identity
.
Their reasoning is something like this: more white people have traditionally been mathematicians than black people, therefore the "structure" of the mathematics world is biased towards white people, even if the white mathematicians themselves are not consciously and deliberately racist
Postmodernists see rules as arbitrary - all rules are ultimately arbitrary
.
Thus "2+2=4" is, in their minds, not a universal self evident truth
It's an expression of "power" by the "dominant group" (white people, apparently)
If another "group" came to "power" then that group could decide that "2+2=5"
.
Hell you can still prove that 2+2=5 if you fuck around with Maths enough. Rules are arbitrary.
It is possible for words and the symbols that represent them to change over time, but math symbols would be the hardest to change since math is considered a universal constant.
As for 2+2=5, *apparently* it stems from a Twitter user who said it could work under certain circumstances -and that's a bit tongue in cheek, but not wrong: there was this car with 2 engines having 2 horsepower each belonging to the 5 hp category, because 2.4 (rounded out to 2) + 2.4 = 4.8 (rounded out to 5). Can't tell about how it's used though.
I know it wasn't the original point but it's a crazily interesting yet complex concept, the most accessible article I've found is in French, if anyone's interested, but not very in depth. https://www.science-et-vie.com/archives/2-une-limite-logique-on-ne-saura-jamais-si-1-1-2-40830?uid=NDI4ODAw