/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12637805
>wildberger
He's a respectable mathematician, and some of his work is actually connected to mainstream work in numerical analysis and computable analysis. In more conventional math terms, his denial of the real numbers basically just amounts to demanding and decidable algorithm for any claim in real analysis.

>poltards
You seem like one of the people who calls anyone who isn't an SJW a poltard. Yes, there are actual schizos and crazy conspiracy theorists on pol, but they constitute probably <1% of the human population. Just because someone is asking questions about big tech, or big pharma, or racial and gender differences in psychology, doesn't automatically entail that they're some evil, low IQ, white nationalist Trump supporter.
People are allowed to ask questions about things they don't understand. People are allowed to question the political and scientific establishment. I myself a democratic socialist, and I have a BS in math, but I have no problem if conservatives or people who don't have a formal scientific education want to ask questions about the safety, efficacy, and cultural benefit of science and technology. In fact, a "low IQ racist Repbulican" who is asking questions and willing to listen and engage in debate and intellectual growth has a far better understanding that some low T, corporate democrat like yourself who has pink hair, eats Starbucks everyday, "trusts the experts", and supports social media censorship.

>>12510016
Yes, of course there is anon. There are unironically paid shills on social media and the internet. People have a hard time believing this, and yet they openly talk about disinformation and bots and troll farms. Of course their are paid and organized trolls on the internet. What company or government organization could resist the temptation to engage in propaganda and social engineering on the internet? Actually, one of the professors at my CS department has been doing research on this sort of stuff. Normies probably think that sounds like a "schizo" conspiracy theory, but paid troll exist, and of course, a lot of them are volunteers from discord groups that do this kind of stuff for free.

>>12480633
You are misunderstanding the point of my post. I agree that black people have been mistreated and oppressed in America. I am not denying that. All I'm saying is that you have to be consistent. A lot of leftists will literally say things like race is a social construct, race doesn't exist, if you try to take credit for the achievements of your race then you are a racist, etc. But they don't apply this standard consistently and they are actually willing to talk about race when it suits their ideological values.

For example, leftists will literally say stuff like all white people are racist or that black people can't be racist towards white people, e.g. here is an article by the same writer in OP claiming that whites are inherently racist, and that it is impossible to be racist towards white people https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/yes-all-white-people-are-racist-eefa97cc5605.. This is objectively false and conflicts with basic psychology, biology, and neuroscience. White people are not inherently racist. In fact studies suggest that white people and western countries are the least racist and most progressive in the world.

In other words, radical leftists are often willing to collectively blame white people for the bad things they've done, but they're not willing to collectively praise them for the good things they've done. I agree that the black community in America has been oppressed, and I am willing to acknowledge and respect that. However, I also think we should be willing to acknowledge the fact that white people have also made significant contribution to human civilization. The idea that white people are uniquely evil or somehow more racist than any other group is objectively and scientifically wrong, and is itself a form of racism. The idea that one race is inherently racist is complete pseudoscience, and it's no different from saying that blacks are inherently more prone to crime or something like that.

>>12396376
>>12396410
>Really edgy bro, thanks for the contribution.

Thanks, anon. I was going for edgy, actually, so mission accomplished. That being said, in all seriousness I am concerned about the replication crisis. I think a lot of factor contribute, and a lot of them are probably unintentional and relatively minor, but I think a big portion of it is the institutional structure of academia and the incentive structure at large universities which is based around grants and publications.

I had the opportunity to go to a fairly well known and well respected state university with like 30,000 students as well as a tiny obscure liberal arts college (where I majored in math). I will say the classical liberal arts university model seems better than the big research university, but even the liberal arts college had basically the same problems. There was definitely more academic freedom and more real interaction, debates, discussions, etc., and each department had a much better sense of community. But like I said, even the liberal arts schools are fucked, I just think they're doing a little better than big state universities or private research universities.

I think part of it, at least from my perspective, is that graduate students are no longer treated like actual scholars. They are expected to precisely and meticulously follow the lead of their advisors. Instead of treating grad students (and even professors) like actual scholars and teaching them how to develop and communicate new ideas in a rigorous manner, it seems like the goal of graduate education is largely to teach student how to be members of the scientific community. Instead of fostering creativity, depth, breadth, and logical rigor, contemporary graduate education is more so centered around teaching a student how to work within the framework of a particular research program, and how to articulate and approach more general topics using the methodology of your particular framework.