rjf_berger on Nostr: npub1ch8hf…w3ckt Regarding the question of what teaching sciences or math can ...
npub1ch8hfpny6tp95jqut4smklg3nx2h93dvvw6x4jsaqzwj8u6az9lqfw3ckt (npub1ch8…3ckt) Regarding the question of what teaching sciences or math can contribute to countering hard times: I sometimes ask what is the difference between (many) scientific discussions and (many) public or political discussions. I think the most basic difference is that scientists engage in discussion to find out how things really are. This normally their main motivation. In political discussions it often seems that all parties already know how things are and then they kind of talk-fight against others trying to "win" the debate. The later concept never really made sense to me. I also doubt if this is feasible. Even in maths, can you really convince someone who is tryling to fight his position and ready to give up any common foundations (like axioms systems or similar)? When you point out errors in your partners (not opponents) arguments the overall result is that all are happy about it (even if one is a bit annoyed by having done a mistake) because one made progress in this way to the big goal to understand things better.
Published at
2024-11-08 16:22:17Event JSON
{
"id": "6d0a11fece4efb122b90a550e9648a6e72d1a55192dc87f5d71dd56433fe8ab4",
"pubkey": "c88f9fd6a7236b3825471f142d204a955b52efc3e94d42b1b0c32464fac3011a",
"created_at": 1731082937,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"c5cf748664d2c25a481c5d61bb7d11999572c5ac63b46aca1d009d23f35d117e",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"bc13e579bf49294633747700e25eb4f71d0c2aa134e89f30d36d7e1630e1bba3",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"3971e317de8a19a15c879d673d391b6ebec43124788ddf207c72e78b294f86fc",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://mathstodon.xyz/users/rjf_berger/statuses/113448251394245658",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub1ch8hfpny6tp95jqut4smklg3nx2h93dvvw6x4jsaqzwj8u6az9lqfw3ckt Regarding the question of what teaching sciences or math can contribute to countering hard times: I sometimes ask what is the difference between (many) scientific discussions and (many) public or political discussions. I think the most basic difference is that scientists engage in discussion to find out how things really are. This normally their main motivation. In political discussions it often seems that all parties already know how things are and then they kind of talk-fight against others trying to \"win\" the debate. The later concept never really made sense to me. I also doubt if this is feasible. Even in maths, can you really convince someone who is tryling to fight his position and ready to give up any common foundations (like axioms systems or similar)? When you point out errors in your partners (not opponents) arguments the overall result is that all are happy about it (even if one is a bit annoyed by having done a mistake) because one made progress in this way to the big goal to understand things better.",
"sig": "1fd6e8800ce143f918a9e0e64c86ac3b7df3041c07e09d529688f78ec271c5742dabe934ec1cdc6d81f879e45c2c800211812688f1fd5fb3c2f74c3f76879cce"
}
