Hacker News Reader

Comment by barry-cotter | Hacker News Reader

> Perhaps if the author had a better attitude towards education and was capable of appreciating the value of mathematics (or more generally, science) in everyday life (to say nothing about the importance of this in democracies), then he would not hold this infantile opinion.

Caplan has a doctorate, teaches at a university, has written several books and home educated two of his sons to a level where they published academically before they entered university. He’s also more well read in philosophy and literature than average though that is a low bar to clear.

If you don’t think a professor of Mathematics, David Edwards, understands the value of Mathematics why do you think you do?

View on HN

My argument is that the value of mathematics is not merely, or even principally, in whether it’s useful in everyday life (the first-order utility), but that it is in fact in how it helps you to think better (the higher-order utility).

The author, as decorated as he may be, seemingly fails to appreciate the latter: in his own words, he has a “very low opinion of this self-serving nonsense”. The exercise of fleshing out the argument against the higher-order value of mathematics, you will note, is left as an exercise to the reader.

This is by definition an anti-intellectualist position: defending such a position, which goes contrary to what should be the default position in general, should require a very high burden of proof, not an offhand dismissal.

The author addresses the claim about “thinking better” in TFA.

No, he really doesn't. His argument against the higher-order value of mathematics is focused on first-order matters, and a vague allusion to an unspecified conflict of interest (?!). This essentially amounts to no more than "brushing off the argument".

> The second argument is the one I always hear around the mathematics department: mathematics helps you to think clearly. I have a very low opinion of this self-serving nonsense. In sports there is the concept of the specificity of skills: if you want to improve your racquetball game, don’t practice squash! I believe the same holds true for intellectual skills. In any case, the case for transference of mathematical skills is unsettled.

Directly from the article.

So in other words, his case against the higher order of mathematics is:

- He doesn't have a high opinion of it

- He makes a vague allusion to some unspecified conflict of interest (?!)

- He argues that first-order skill development is most effective (which may be true, but misses the point).

- He says that higher order value of mathematics is "unsettled".

As he is defending a fundamentally anti-intellectual position, I'm going to need a little more than that.

You keep on assuming your conclusion and name calling and acting like you’ve made an argument.

I’m sure the author has a high opinion of mathematics as an intellectual pursuit. He is a Math professor. That’s separate from his argument, that it has very limited practical use, even to most engineers and others you would assume would be highly selected for finding it useful.

If Mathematics was enormously useful for teaching argument and precise thought in a reliable way Economics would have eaten all the other social sciences already. Economists know far more Math than the others. Math is uncommonly useful but if it was that good at teaching people how to think, if the transfer of learning argument was true, it would not need to be argued. It b would be bloody obvious.

Please point to me exactly where I did any name calling.

There's this thing called the burden of proof, in philosophy. When you take a difficult position, you must displace this burden. The author has not done so, and it is not my responsibility to show how he is wrong: he has not shown how he is correct.

> Please point to me exactly where I did any name calling.

Anti-intellectual. You keep on saying that the author is anti-intellectual for denigrating the practical value of Math.

Allow me to clarify: I do not mean to say that the author is an anti-intellectual person. I have read nothing else that he has written, and I do not know him.

What I am saying (or at least what I intend to say) is that he is defending an anti-intellectualist idea/position, which is just a fact by definition.

> What I am saying (or at least what I intend to say) is that he is defending an anti-intellectualist idea/position, which is just a fact by definition.

Saying something is of limited practical value is not an anti-intellectual position. I do not think most people get any practical value out of the chemistry or physics they learn in school.

> I do not think most people get any practical value out of the chemistry or physics they learn in school.

This is a good example of an anti-intellectual comment or attitude.

The transference of mathematical skill is only "unsettled" in the sense that it is unclear what would it would be transferred to. It is already an entire epistemological category. How much more transference is required?

“It is already an entire epistemological category.”

Very eloquent phrase, I’m going to steal this!

You’re just assuming your conclusion, that the thing you enjoy and value, intellectual stimulation, should be supported by default. Both of the people you’re dismissing are intellectuals. They’re just self aware enough that they don’t think their preferences should be enforced on others without a rash justification.

Lovers of physical exercise, the production of art or combat can sing the praises of their joys and the benefits according thereto. We don’t rearrange the world to force their interests on the world. If we’re going to do it for our interests we should have actual reasoning behind it, not hand waving.

I understand that the author is "an intellectual", but he is nonetheless defending a fundamentally anti-intellectualist idea.

This is not compatible with an inquisitive, academic or intellectual mindset, no matter that he is a professor or that he holds a PhD. He's free to advance arguments in support of this position, but he should be met with extreme skepticism, as he is defending a difficult position.

> This is not compatible with an inquisitive, academic or intellectual mindset

The world has millions of things to learn about. Why is Math specially subsidized? That’s good argument. That’s not anti-intellectual.

> He's free to advance arguments in support of this position, but he should be met with extreme skepticism, as he is defending a difficult position.

Again, you’re just assuming[edited] your conclusion. You and I and he are people who like ideas and arguing over ideas. He’s arguing that what he teaches isn’t that useful and asking why it gets so many resources. There’s nothing there about the beauty or joy of Math, which I presume he could wax rhapsodic about as a professor. You’re attacking a position that doesn’t appear in article. It’s about the practical value of advanced Math.

> Why is Math specially subsidized? That’s good argument.

First, that's a question, not an argument.

Second, math is special because it's an exact science, as opposed to a natural science. Encompassing the study of "logic", "information", "things that change", "symmetry", "equality" or equivalence... it applies to pretty much everything. In other words it's one of the skills that has the most potential to be widely applicable.

> Again, you’re just aiming your conclusion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "aiming", but I am referring to the burden of proof [1], which the author has not shifted one iota.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Caplan is fantastic at identifying mathurbation in academic navel gazing. His (and the cited author's) opinions are well informed, even if not universal. In economics the concept is called a separating equolibrium

>that it is in fact in how it helps you to think better

And we do use that in everyday life. Learning higher maths doesn't help us solve problems we encounter all the time or everyday, at least not directly. But it helps us frame them and our thinking conceptually in a quantitative way, and maybe even sometimes in a qualitative one, which is incredibly helpful generally.

That changes his whole argument to: "it's better for my kids if your kids don't learn math".

A professor of mathematics would have a vested interest, don’t you think? Your logic is faulty,

Indeed, when someone argues against their own interests we should take them more seriously, not less. That Edwards thinks the main arguments for teaching advanced Math is garbage when that’s his livelihood should make us look at it closely.

Is he not a fully tenured, late-career professor? I doubt he has even an ounce of concern for job security.

> someone argues against their own interests we should take them more seriously, not less.

I'm not sure it is a good advice in general. All the quack "doctors" that go against the mainstream medicine are actually degree-earnt doctors, yet are just scams.

If those doctors were to gain from scams then that's an example that corroborates the GP's argument, not a counter example as you seem to make of it.

GP did not say "against their profession's interests", just their own.

The fact that someone who is a university professor would remove their kids from the general education pool, makes me think they don't really understand one of the main purposes of education.

If their kids were kept in normal schools with other kids, they may have published academically a few years later, but a lot of their peers would have had the privilege of studying with them and improved their academic lives because of that.

> but a lot of their peers would have had the privilege of studying with them

If you need other students to successfully study, that's either yours or the educational system's failure; but other children shouldn't be dragged down for it.

Yeah, but that's not how things work in reality.

There is a large number of studies on the positive effects of integration in education, from more extreme cases such as not having special schools for disabled children to the more mundane socioeconomic mixing. The consensus seems to be that the positive academic effect a smart kid gets from being put in some advanced school is trumped by the negative effect on the average kids. European countries with a strong egalitarian bend in their schooling system seem to do much better than the American ones and not just on average.

>European countries with a strong egalitarian bend in their schooling system

Europe is not some fantasy-land where all the dreams of the American left come true. Most European countries track students into separate secondary schools based on their demonstrated academic ability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secondary_education_sy...

As an Italian, I know that very well. In my country the high school system very much reflects the socio-economic class of the parents and this separation was designed during fascism and left pretty much unchanged.

When I said "European countries with a strong egalitarian bend in their schooling system" I was thinking more about countries like Finland and Scandinavia rather than implying that all European countries are egalitarian.

I didn't know about the Bottai reform. Apparently the fascists invented middle school, possibly independently. Who knew? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liceo_classico#The_Bottai_refo...

From what I gather, Finland and Sweden both track students into separate "academic" and "vocational" secondary schools.

> countries with a strong egalitarian bend in their schooling system seem to do much better than the American ones and not just on average.

I'm not sure; France and Russia and their selective systems, respectively classes préparatoires and elite schools, do not seem to do worse than other European countries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com