This is from Harvard, the “most prestigious” university in the United States. This is the kingmaker university that mints the political, social, and business leaders of this country.
Well, I have a Ph.D. in engineering, and I can tell you that no it fucking doesn’t.
Kareem Carr is a biostatistics Ph.D. student at Harvard and thought it was a good idea to defend this absurdity and Popular Mechanics – the once good but now Woke magazine – thought it would publish this bullshit.
In his original thread, Carr points out some simple, but provocative truths about the world. “Our numbers, our quantitative measures, are abstractions of real underlying things in the universe and it’s important to keep track of this when we use numbers to model the real world,” one tweet reads.
That is gobbledygook. Numbers are quantitative, the measure things exactly. Sometimes we round those numbers for convenience but that doesn’t change what we are actually measuring. If we come to a conclusion that results in 2 + 2 = 5, then we made bad assumptions and rounding errors.
Saying that if you put a chicken and a fox together and the fox eats the chicken so you have 1 + 1 = 1, that assumption is so extremely and model so extremely simplified that it should be rejected.
“There’s a need for this sort of thinking, because we’re basically turning everything into data,” Carr tells Popular Mechanics. “Because we’re turning more and more domains into data, it’s becoming more and more important. If we’re going to be a world that’s just in apps, we need to be sure these things are working how we think they work.”
That is a world in which every assumption is wrong, every approximation is way off, and our data is useless.
Carr hasn’t said anything really controversial here, unless just saying mathematically nuanced things is inherently controversial on Twitter. The idea that the counting numbers—whole values only, excluding fractions and decimals—are somehow “naturally occurring” is a common fallacy among people who aren’t trained in math or, say, human development.
More fucking gobbledygook. 2 + 2 = 5 is an absolute integer statement. There is no nuance to add to it. Trying to nuance this into being correct is mendacious bullshit. Popular Mechanics then decided to highlight this asshole as an example of this.
I can state with absolute certainty that this is not an example of 2 + 2 = 5. This is 2.5 + 2.5 = 5, which is correct. Ignoring the half of a machine in each factory doesn’t make one magically appear out of thin air.
I understand why this is being praised as deep thought and written about by Popular Mechanics. A couple of months ago Popular Mechanics wrote an article about tearing down monuments.
The editors at Popular Mechanics have read 1984 as an instruction manual. First, they advocated for memory-holing our culture through iconoclasm. Now they are pulling the quote “In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it,” and making it real.
Harvard, as the kingmaker institution wants to put us in a position where when one of their graduates says something this ridiculously wrong, we just obsequiously accept it.
The University that we have been told to show total respect for the infallibility of its students and professors has teamed up with the most popular STEM magazine for the popular culture, to turn Orwell’s absurdity into reality and use pseudo-scientific jargon to convince us that what we know is wrong.
I know I’m not supposed to advocate for violence, but God damnit, shit like this makes that very, very hard to do.
Like this:
Like Loading...