Isn't it ironic that this misguided political correctness is in ascendance at a time when STEM is becoming ever more complex -- to the point where the smartest people in the world cannot know even the boundaries of human scientific knowledge in all areas. In each area, computational tools are becoming more and more complex, requiring deeper mathematical understanding. Explicit and implicit assumptions are buried in the mathematics of these tools, and without deep mathematical knowledge, one cannot know whether to trust the results.
An example: a model used in the oil and gas industry for underground gas wells was used to model 3-D gas flows in a landfill, but the model didn't include a small gas generation term which was assumed to be zero. Re-deriving the model including that term changed the bottom line by a factor of 2 using the same field data. As a young scientist at the time, I realized this but failed to convince the mathematically disinclined oil and gas "expert". The company lost 17 million dollars on oversizing the plant design by a factor of 2.
Mathematics is not white supremacy. It is simply application of truth to reality.
I am really sad about these developments because I believe in diversity, equal opportunity, etc. But not in gobbledygook! I will give you an example of what sexism in science teaching meant for comparison in the early 70s. I had to teach Introductory Dynamics as an Assistant Professor. The book that was selected for teaching was written by a colleague, who was white and male. He was well intentioned, no doubt, but it never occurred to him that it was not a good idea to illustrate his book with examples and drawings using only (white) boy characters for various activities! I refused to use that book and there were plenty of other books that did not have this problem, at least not to the same degree.
Even if we want to make it a requirement to talk about DEI in all classes and in science, why use a post modernistic obscurant language? I am sure there are lot of elegantly written and convincing articles on the subject.
I once told a class that the only law I respect, until proven incorrect, is the second law & only in a closed system.. all other laws are man made..
that did not go well.. I do not teach anymore :)
I would add maybe second law of motion, and certainly conservation of momentum. :)
I agree :)
Isn't it ironic that this misguided political correctness is in ascendance at a time when STEM is becoming ever more complex -- to the point where the smartest people in the world cannot know even the boundaries of human scientific knowledge in all areas. In each area, computational tools are becoming more and more complex, requiring deeper mathematical understanding. Explicit and implicit assumptions are buried in the mathematics of these tools, and without deep mathematical knowledge, one cannot know whether to trust the results.
An example: a model used in the oil and gas industry for underground gas wells was used to model 3-D gas flows in a landfill, but the model didn't include a small gas generation term which was assumed to be zero. Re-deriving the model including that term changed the bottom line by a factor of 2 using the same field data. As a young scientist at the time, I realized this but failed to convince the mathematically disinclined oil and gas "expert". The company lost 17 million dollars on oversizing the plant design by a factor of 2.
Mathematics is not white supremacy. It is simply application of truth to reality.
I am really sad about these developments because I believe in diversity, equal opportunity, etc. But not in gobbledygook! I will give you an example of what sexism in science teaching meant for comparison in the early 70s. I had to teach Introductory Dynamics as an Assistant Professor. The book that was selected for teaching was written by a colleague, who was white and male. He was well intentioned, no doubt, but it never occurred to him that it was not a good idea to illustrate his book with examples and drawings using only (white) boy characters for various activities! I refused to use that book and there were plenty of other books that did not have this problem, at least not to the same degree.
Even if we want to make it a requirement to talk about DEI in all classes and in science, why use a post modernistic obscurant language? I am sure there are lot of elegantly written and convincing articles on the subject.