Comment by defrost
5 days ago
No part of your comment addresses any "nonsense" or "danger" in the Nature article ( https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00240-9 )
The context was:
> *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
Do you think there may have been developments in this space since 1978, when Said published Orientalism?
I don't mean to be rude, but do you think it's possible that your understanding of the situation is a bit out of date?
Maybe, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Which part of my critique of post-colonialism do you think had become obsolete?
3 replies →