Thursday, June 21, 2018

Blame math: University Professor claims math, not greed or human fallibility, is behind the world's wealth disparity

One of the key reasons as to why today's liberalism can be very much considered a mental disorder is due to the fact that those who aspire to it rely completely upon the art of persuasion and the use of emotion rather than through the use of logic, reason, facts, or evidence.  And perhaps one of the best examples in recent days occurred when a large portion of the media attempted to compare the separation of illegal alien children from their parents as likened to Nazi concentration camps.

Ie... two completely separate events, with absolutely nothing in common between either of them.

Yet the push by liberals (and we will place socialists, Marxists, Progressives, and even Fascists under this umbrella because all anti-capitalists today like to claim the liberal title) to change the economic structure of a given nation is ironically also being done using the same 'art of persuasion' without the application of either logic, reason, evidence, or facts.  And a new book out by a University of Exeter Professor seems to entrench this assertion even more by declaring that mathematics itself is the cause of the world's wealth disparity.

A professor at the University of Exeter claims in a new textbook that learning mathematics can cause “collateral damage” to society by training students in "ethics-free thought." 
The Ethics of Mathematics: Is Mathematics Harmful” was written by University of Exeter Professor Paul Ernest, and published as a chapter in a 2018 textbook he edited called The Philosophy of Mathematics Education Today.  
"The nature of pure of mathematics itself leads to styles of thinking that can be damaging when applied beyond mathematics to social and human issues." 
Despite the myriad benefits math offers to society—such as increased scientific knowledge and improved healthcare, allowing us to live longer and happier lives—Ernest warns of three ways mathematics education causes “collateral damage” to society.  
First, Ernest asserts that “the nature of pure of mathematics itself leads to styles of thinking that can be damaging when applied beyond mathematics to social and human issues,” since math facilitates “detached” and “calculative” reasoning. 
“Reasoning without meanings provides a training in ethics-free thought,” he writes, fretting that this “masculine” paradigm “valorises rules, abstraction, objectification, impersonality, unfeelingness, dispassionate reason, and analysis.”  
Second, he argues that the “applications of mathematics in society can be deleterious to our humanity unless very carefully monitored and checked,” worrying particularly about how math facilitates transactions of money and finance.  
“Money and thus mathematics is the tool for the distribution of wealth,” he states. “It can therefore be argued that as the key underpinning conceptual tool mathematics is implicated in the global disparities in wealth.” 
Finally, Ernest worries of the personal impact math has on “less-successful students,” especially women, since math is often perceived as a “masculine” and “difficult” subject.  
“One of the persistent myths of the twentieth century has been that females are ‘naturally’ less well equipped mathematically than males,” Ernest claims, albeit without acknowledging data that would complicate his theory. – Campus Reform
What is most interesting, and perhaps even most ironic about these unevidenced assertions is the fact that economics itself is not a mathematical science.  Finance is based primarily on math, but economics is a social science based on nearly all the different areas of history, philosophy, sociology, and psychology.  In fact even religion has played a role throughout history when it comes to economics.

Mathematics however has nothing to do with the ways humans interact in society outside of providing a boundary and foundation in which people can understand the basic laws of nature, the world, and the universe.  And it has little to do with the creation of wealth disparity the same way a gun has little to do with killing someone... ON THEIR OWN.

Wealth disparity, as with a firearm based homicide/suicide, requires a sentient being (outside of an extremely rare accident or act of God) to make a choice on how these tools are applied, and the results or outcome of those decisions are based entirely on the choices of men.  So the absolute irony of the Professor's failed assertions in this particular chapter that mathematics is an 'ethics free' thought tool is that no tool functions on its own without a catalyst, and in finance that catalyst comes in the form of the ethics of man.

For centuries business accounting followed a fairly standard format at its core... if your revenue and assets were greater than your liabilities than you were solvent.  If they weren't, then anomalies appeared which required action to correct them or the business failed.  But today mathematical and accounting models have been changed so they don't follow the logic of pure mathematics (GAAP vs. Non-GAAP Accounting), and as such it has helped create false results and in part has aided in both a nation's and the world's wealth inequality.

Math, like most well functioning tools, should never have an 'ethics' attributed to them, for that would mean that reality itself would change from day to day based on the fact that nothing would ever be constant.  But since this is not the case, and ethics are solely a construct tied to sentient beings such as man, blaming math for wealth disparity and inequality is a sure sign of growing insanity, which sadly is overtaking a large portion of the world's population.


Post a Comment