Time to flood this community with educational memes! We have to meet the people where they are, and memes are the true art form of the people.
Time to flood this community with educational memes! We have to meet the people where they are, and memes are the true art form of the people.
So what's the context of 1+1=2 and how does it exclusively empower the ruling class?
deleted by creator
1+1=2 is a manifestation of algebra, which itself is a subset of mathematics. The point I'm trying to make here is that even if particular mathematical (or physics, or chemistry, or...) discoveries were made by individuals with their own particular ideologies and agendas the distilled discoveries themselves hold no bias or ideological preference besides just turning out to be factually wrong later on at times. The knowledge that the earth orbits the sun is a free for all and divorced from its application.
deleted by creator
The operation is the knowledge. There is no esoteric or metaphysical "knowledge" - what you see is what you get. In order to be knowledge it needs to have explanatory power. In order to be practical knowledge it needs to have predictive power. That's it, that's the requirement. Whatever navel gazing you may engage in about whether it is "true" or what is "the nature of truth" (hint, there is no nature, only what is observed and verified, and itself can be overturned by new observations and so on) is both irrelevant and impotent in terms of conscious existence.
deleted by creator
The only thing I ignored was the piling up of words on top of other words. If you retrace the steps you will see that the discussion was about whether any specific item of knowledge can be divorced from the context it was first discovered in. My contention is that not all knowledge automatically assumes ideological character. One could even argue that all ideological knowledge is possibly not knowledge at all but rather a creed, though the discussion never even went that far, nor am I going to push it there (others might). If anyone it's the person in question who can be more credibly accused of side-stepping the discussion as they went at length about colonialist book-keeping, ancient Greek grasp of mathematics, property relations etc, but no matter how far down the philosophical or philosophy of science rabbit hole you've sunk the fact remains that when you add two items together you get the sum of those two items. Trivial but true and true in any context. To imply the opposite is to engage in magical thinking (you see actually 1 + 1 is not 2 but...). The same goes for the earth orbiting the sun. It was worked out in its modern elliptical form by a deeply religious man trying to better understand god's plan and safeguard the sanctity of the divine. That was the context of Kepler's discoveries. Yet it has zero bearing on a communist society using the calculations standing on the shoulders of that knowledge to launch rockets into space and have them land where they want to. The same goes for pretty much all knowledge.
deleted by creator
I'm reading and re-reading your last sentence but can't make heads nor tails of it, can you please expand on what you mean there?
As to the 1+1 thing - reads like pure sophistry to me. It doesn't matter if the chairs are part of the room or not, it doesn't even matter if there are any chairs at all, the fact remains that if you take an item, a purely abstract item, a totally shapeless and formless item that has the completely arbitrary assigned value of one and add to it another item that has the same arbitrary value you get the sum of those values when you group them together. Yes, this is predicated on an axiom but the axiom is for us, in our general reality in this universe undeniably true. Until it maybe isn't in some hypothetical future but until such a time we have no reason to assume so and thus such a hypothetical overturning of the axiom is completely irrelevant, a navel gazing exercise. The example of adding items is a very apt one because it demonstrably applies to non-human species as well. Many kinds of birds can count, apes can too, as well as elephants and highly probably many many other animals throughout the animal kingdom. This operation transcends not only any ideological stance both geographically and historically but even entire species. What more reasonable proof of universality do you want that knowledge is not tethered to its historical origins?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2016.0513 https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/fulltext/S0169-5347(20)30055-0 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/science/animals-count-numbers.html https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-animals-have-the-ability-to-count/ https://www.friendsofanimals.org/counting-capabilities-in-nonhuman-animals/
deleted by creator
We certainly are and I never implied that the gathering and application of knowledge is an exclusively human practice or ability, quite the contrary.
deleted by creator
Q.E.D.
I honestly can't believe our newest struggle session is over whether or not the sum of one and one is two. Smh my damn head.
1+1=2 includes a lot of assumptions, that a binary operation in a ring produces this algebra (we could easily define "+" to mean "s+r+2" in our regular parlance, and thatd met all the requirements for it to be an algebra along with regular mutliplication). It includes definitions of what "1" and "2" are along with this rather mysterious thing called "=" is. If you read through principia mathematica, they dont get to "1+1=2" until well into the book, and even then it ultimately failed. Classical Greek mathematicians would have no idea what "1+1=2" is supposed to mean, but would show you how to add 2 measures instead. Mathematics is a wondefully mysterious subject that isnt encaspulated in equations, even the simplest equations belie some shaky ground we all take for granted. For instance, looking into something as simple as the interval between (0, 1) tells us something about the supremum of the set and we must introduce a new axiom of completeness to deal with it.
The fact that your base idea of knowledge without context is a simple equation shows how your education has led you to be automaton-like or calculator-like, you have been reduced to instead of a fully formed free thinking, creative, curious human into a creature that can recite simple mathematical observations without deeper reflection.
I read this and it really just looks like pedantic wankery for the purpose of showing off knowledge of modular arithmetic and set theory. I don't disagree that even in mathematics, context matters and there are nuances that usually aren't known or appreciated by people who haven't studied it in depth, but to imply that the sum of one and one is two is some kind of nebulous idea that is only true within a certain framework of biases is flat wrong and imo disingenuous of you. That is some hardcore "well akshualy" style pedantry.
Nonsense. Obviously they wouldn't have any idea what that specific set of symbols means because language. But the concept would absolutely make immediate sense to them. The fact that their mathematics was based on physical geometric relationships doesn't change this.
Making these kinds of claims doesn't help people understand how extremely context-dependent anthropological "knowledge" is. It does the opposite by implying that such knowledge is on a similar footing as mathematical knowledge.
Also, good job insulting Rev as being an incurious, shallow, uncreative "creature" for making a perfectly valid and reasonable point. Ugh.
Thank you for the history lesson (I mean it).
That said, it is quite laughably presumptuous of you to pontificate on my creativity and curiosity without knowing anything about me save for the participation in this forum. For someone seemingly valuing a holistic approach to knowledge this is awfully inconsistent.
The main thing that bugs me here though is what you mean exactly by "deeper reflection"? What is being reflected, what is the reflecting medium and where is the reflection re-directed? How can you tell the depth from the surface, is there a quantifiable axis and how is it subdivided so you know where "shallowness" ends and "depth" begins? Or is it just poetical speech aiming to manipulate emotions rather than explain? (The manipulation itself, or more precisely the ability to do so itself being the fruit of some specific knowledge)
doesnt 1+1=2 in any
non-emptygroup