WHAT MATH AVOIDANCE MEANS FOR SOCIETY

"A DIATRIBE" or "WHAT I TOLD DOLDERMAN"

PLEASE NOTE: Every life path that involves doing less math is just avoidant…

No one should attempt philosophy, psychology, or politics, without grounding these efforts in computer science. This is no different from what Plato said…not really…

Doing anything involves numbers -- but I am referring to being 'avoidant' of math when I say 'doing less' aka math anxiety -- how else can we hold politicians and scientists to account if we are innumerate rather than a culture of ongoing lifelong learning of math and other formal sciences? We can't, hence it is a universal civic duty to stay up to date on math and science etc.

… how crazy is someone if they switch their thought process to an algorithm that takes ten times longer for a basic life task?

Inefficiency is insanity -- often the computationally efficient path through the mind is the sanest, or very close to it -- or at least sanity requires the ability to take these direct routes. This is just one example. Computer science IS the science of thought, not the science of computers.

Therapy is more-or-less identical with 'debugging the mind'. To ignore the most modern techniques is malpractice. Computer science throughout the curriculum, just like English!

"Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes, biology is about microscopes or chemistry is about beakers and test tubes. Science is not about tools. It is about how we use them, and what we find out when we do." — Edsger W. Dijkstra

Most analytic philosophers I know need the 'therapy' of reading Russel & Norvig so they can pull their head out of their ass! Computer scientists, sociologically defined, took the torch and ran with it -- philosophers are still looking around wondering where logical positivism went... (it founded AI).

... thinking your own discipline is sufficient is malpractice here -- the larger issue here is that anything short of radical interdisciplinarity is malpractice -- as the biggest disciplinary barrier is between 'math stuff' and 'everything else' this is the most pressing disciplinary boundary to erode and one ignored btw, by Vervaeke, who you were recently upset with -- his single biggest disservice to students has been reassuring them that they don't need to study math or computer science or linguistic (the 'formal stuff') when really they should, and the reality is that his own math anxiety leads him to prefer students who stunt their growth in this domain, an abusive practice. (That being said, I support him talking to JBP contrary to your position.)

Philosophy had to pass the torch to CSC because it became a product for rich and funded kids, not a career path; so it became against the business logic to teach the real tools early (formal logic) because it reduces revenue while accurately informing students about what is truly required. The same applies to counterpoint classes in music departments. No one wants to eat their vegetables so these disciplines got out of the vegetable business. CSC is still cooking as are the students who correct their personal curricula for this.

A friend who TAed philosophy at western was told not to give such accurate feedback on what was wrong with a student's writing, philosophically, because they would drop out earlier and the department would lose money, even though they agreed the student had no real professional prospects. Milking the vulnerable with gaslighting reassurance that you make sense when you don't. That is what math avoidance and related psychologies mean for society.
—
adamgolding.ca