These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Is Mathematics _merely_ socially constructed, or is there something deeper and inevitable? I think this deserves a new thread, but I couldn't manage to start one. Let me try to draw out and assemble the line of discussion that spun off from the "a minus times a plus" thread. In her inaugural post to xcma, Anna Sfard about talked "rules of the mathematical game" among other things. Then Jay Lemke said:- > ... > I think it's important, however, to see, as Anna emphasizes, > that there is a certain "arbitrariness" involved in this, or > if you like it better: a freedom of choice. Yes, it's > structure-and-agency all over again! Structure determines that > some things fit into bigger pictures and some don't, but > agency is always at work deciding which pictures, which kind > of fit, which structures, etc. And behind that values, and > culture, and how we feel about things. ----- Then I (Ng Foo Keong) said:- > regarding structure and agency, arbitrariness:- > i think now it's time for me to pop this question that has been > bugging me for some time. i am convinced that mathematics is > socially constructured, but i am not so convinced that mathematics > is _merely_ socially constructured. if we vary across cultures > and different human activities, we might find different ways > in which patterns and structure can be expressed and yet we might > find commonalities / analogies. the question i am asking is: > is maths just a ball game determined by some group of nerds who > happen to be in power and dominate the discourse, or is there some > invariant, something deeper in maths that can transcend and unite > language, culture, activity .... ? Foo Keong, NIE, Singapore ----- Then Ed Wall said:- > Ng Foo Keong > As regards your question about mathematics being socially > constructed, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by > mathematics or what kind of evidence would convince you it wasn't. > Suppose I said that there was evidence for innate subtizing. _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca