[HN Gopher] Incorrect casual assumptions
___________________________________________________________________
Incorrect casual assumptions
Author : diodorus
Score : 60 points
Date : 2023-09-26 18:53 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (thonyc.wordpress.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (thonyc.wordpress.com)
| taeric wrote:
| I feel like I just took a peak into some debate that is happening
| somewhere else? Seems silly to worry about the exact abilities of
| people so many years ago. What is at stake here? And why do we
| have to take the position that teachers and editors are not, in
| general, considered a fine practitioner of what they are
| teaching/editing? Are they the pinnacle? Almost certainly not,
| but that will be true of most any particular example.
|
| More I'd wager that the editor of the higher performers is better
| at whatever the topic is than a large enough portion of the rest
| of the crowd, that folks probably do hold them in some esteem at
| the topic?
| skeaker wrote:
| This is what I felt as well. If a time traveler were to tell me
| that people hundreds of generations in the future will be
| arguing that I was not good at higher math, I would be
| inconsolable (even if it's true).
| hluska wrote:
| I'd be happy if I was significant enough for future
| generations to conclude I was secretly (or not so) an idiot.
| User23 wrote:
| I think it's pretty obvious that there has been a movement to
| dig up examples of superlative women in STEM, in both recent
| and ancient history. Unfortunately sometimes their
| rediscoverer's enthusiasm gets the better of them and they
| present these fine womens' accomplishments as being
| considerably greater than they truly were. Does that matter?
| Well I guess it depends. If you think an accurate historical
| record matters than sure it does. If you think history is
| pragmatically just a narrative invention and we should tell it
| however suits our present desires, like encouraging girls to go
| for a Fields medal, then one can argue for some inspirational
| embellishment shall we say.
| aredox wrote:
| Sayre's law in action...
| schoen wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Legacy
| [deleted]
| AlpineIvyPhD wrote:
| Yup, and that's why the bias of original sources matters too.
| Bias gets amplified over time. Or reversed at the same
| intensity, I suppose.
|
| And then we end up with crazy, invisible to us bias in the
| modern sources. You get accustomed to the bias around the
| idea and you can't see it any more.
| taeric wrote:
| What biases am I supposed to be seeing here? Are folks
| upset that someone said a teacher was a good practitioner?
| Why should I assume otherwise?
| AlpineIvyPhD wrote:
| Was replying to the link to Hypatia's legacy.
|
| You have to look at the history of sources and their bias
| to understand the history of ideas. Historical sources
| don't necessarily contain facts; and they may also convey
| more than facts.
|
| It's about getting to the spin behind the original
| sources, then you have a better idea of why the sources
| tell you what they're telling you. How you read them
| brings in your own bias (for someone else to examine and
| weigh up one day). It can be really powerful though, like
| in the example of Messalina.
| taeric wrote:
| I mean, sure? There seems an implication that these
| people were not good at their jobs, though? Why the odd
| vehemence here?
|
| You are giving general advice that feels right. I'm
| asserting the stakes are basically nothing?
| seper8 wrote:
| Causual?
| rexpop wrote:
| Casual.
| gweinberg wrote:
| Yeah, I first read it as "causal" also.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I don't know why the author wants to talk smack on Theon and
| Hypatia. Gatekeeping mathematics?
|
| 1. Theon added theorems to Euclid-- by publishing mathematical
| novelties, he became more than just an editor. [1]
|
| 2. Theon's version of Euclid has been considered the most
| important textbook ever published. [2]
|
| 3. Euclid himself created the elements by compiling theorems from
| prior mathematicians. So, was Euclid just a textbook editor? [2]
|
| 4. Who was a better mathematician in that century? Was Theon top
| 5? Isn't that first rate or formidable?
|
| Now, as for Hypatia, one of her biggest critics (Damascius)
| admitted that her "wisdom exceeding all bounds and especially in
| the things concerning astronomy," but suggested that she was more
| of a mathematician than a true philosopher [3]. Her student
| Synesius wrote many letters to her, which survive [4]. Hypatia,
| on the other hand, was dragged to death by a Christian mob.
| SHWEP.net (my fave podcast) just did some episodes [5].
|
| [1] https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Theon/
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_Elements
|
| [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia#Legacy
|
| [4] https://www.livius.org/articles/person/synesius-of-cyrene/
|
| [5] https://shwep.net/podcast/hypatia-of-alexandria-the-life-
| and...
| jhp123 wrote:
| As a math major, I would say that editing a textbook or even
| adding a few theorems or corrections would not make you a
| first-rate mathematician.
|
| The ceiling in math is very very high. If we're calling Theon
| first-rate then what do we say about Gauss?
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Gauss, you mean the guy who lived 1500 years later? Yeah, he
| definitely set a higher bar. But a "first-rate" restaurant
| does not mean "the best ever of all time." Theon and Hypatia
| were probably some of the best mathematicians of their
| century. That is enough to be both "first rate" and
| "formidable" -- and I'd be surprised if Gauss would talk
| smack about them.
| jhp123 wrote:
| You're talking about two people who don't seem to have
| contributed a single new theorem, proof, conjecture, or
| formula to mathematics. That bar is cleared by their
| contemporaries Pappus and Diophantus.
|
| I don't think your idea that being "one of the best of the
| age" makes you "first-rate" holds any water. A reenactor at
| a local Renaissance Faire who has never worn a suit of
| plate armor or ridden a war horse is probably one of the
| best jousters of the current age, because it's not really
| pursued any more, but I would never call them a "first-
| rate, formidable jouster". The medieval scribes who wrote
| dry annals of what happened each year were among the best
| writers of their age, because writing was rare, but I
| wouldn't call them "first-rate, formidable writers". There
| is an objective component to this kind of language.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| Is "first-rate" the top few mathematicians of all time or the
| top few mathematicians of their age? Or how many total
| "first-rate" mathematicians have their been? That ambiguity
| alone can explain this entire argument.
| yakubin wrote:
| Nit: if it were top mathematicians of their age, then there
| wouldn't be any ages without first-rate mathematicians,
| which is obviously wrong.
|
| That said, the "of all time" version also doesn't sound
| right.
| rcoveson wrote:
| "First rank" is the phrase from OP's link, not "first-
| rate", but in both cases it is _not_ obvious to me that
| it is wrong for there to be mathematicians with that
| descriptor in every age. They sound like relative
| adjectives; "first rank" undoubtedly so, "first-rate" to
| a lesser extent.
|
| "Who are the first-rate/first rank musicians of $YEAR"
| does not seem to me like it could be answered with "there
| were none in that year".
| hinkley wrote:
| There are great works of literature from those times that we
| only know about because someone else wrote about them and those
| accounts survived.
|
| Copying is backups, on the scale of millennia.
| AlpineIvyPhD wrote:
| The one thing missing here imho is skepticism about the sources
| and their biases. They can be both factually wrong and also
| biased.
|
| I could be wrong about this, but I think the Suda is somewhat
| questionable, isn't it?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-27 23:01 UTC)