Education

The racist nitwits of Cape Town

A reporter from Africa met me recently in India to find out about the events concerning the panel discussion on decolonisation in Cape Town, a year ago. Someone here asked: could he be a church agent, who may again present a biased picture? I don’t know. But he does not seem to know any math, and may not have understood my critique of formal math. So, to make sure that others (especially the ill-informed) do not “control the narrative”, and totally misrepresent it, it is time I put up my side of things.
An important background, to the debate last year in the University of Cape Town, which has not been adequately mentioned, is my book The Eleven Pictures of  Time (Sage 2003). In it I extensively criticised the book Large Scale Structure of Space-Time by Stephen Hawking, and G. F. R. Ellis, of the University of Cape Town. (Note, in passing, that Hawking unethically collaborated with Ellis at a time when there was an academic boycott of apartheid.) My key issue with the Hawking and Ellis book was that their conclusions about a “singularity” involved bad mathematics, and a bad understanding of calculus (even from within  formal mathematics).
But let us go one step at a time. First, their conclusion that the cosmos began with a  “singularity” was not science (since not refutable on Popper’s criterion). Second, their conclusion was of great political significance to the church, through the claim that science supports the church’s religious dogmas of creation. The  mathematical conclusion of a singularity is explicitly connected by Hawking and  Ellis to religious beliefs about creation and other dogmas. The key takeaway of their book (p. 364) is that “the actual point of creation, the singularity, is outside  the presently known laws of physics.”
The belief that God rules the world with eternal “laws” of nature is itself a religious church dogma first articulated by Aquinas, not a scientific (refutable) belief. Simply put, the church supports it, but Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam deny it.  (See this minuted discussion for example, which explains that Hinduism accepts rta, but not immutable laws, for Buddhism, see the video “Buddhism and science”, for Islam see the keynote and article on Islam and science.) Further, other religions accept continuous creation, or the creativity of living organisms (not continuous creation in the mechanistic sense of the theory of Bondi, Gold, Hoyle and Narlikar). The big bang theory alone is NOT the opposite of continuous creation. The “singularity”, interpreted as a beginning of time, relates to creation  more clearly than the big bang, which need not be a true beginning of time, but could be just the other side of a big crunch in an oscillating cosmos.
There is no doubt about the religiosity of the book by Hawking and Ellis. Ellis got  the million dollar Templeton award, for putting together science and religion, and Hawking never got the Nobel prize! The church greatly glorified Stephen Hawking, and that church propagandist support helped sell millions of copies of his book  Brief History of Time which restated the conclusions of singularity theory for a lay audience.  But singularities and creationism are simply not physics. Therefore, much as Hawking desired the Nobel prize, and much as the Nobel prize committee may have wanted to give it to him, they simply could not do so.
The physicist F. J. Tipler (Physics of Immortality) pushed this connection of science and religion via singularity theory. He explicitly claimed that singularity theory proves the truth of Judeo-Christian theology. In the opening paragraphs, Tipler said his book aimed

“to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics…the area of global general relativity…created…by the great British physicists Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking.”

The colonised mind may talk against creationism, in support of Darwinism, but it never dared contest this kind of religious claim of creationism backed by Western authority. Despite the millions who read Stephen Hawking’s book, Brief History of Time, I have not heard a SINGLE other dissenting voice in the last thirty years. (more…)

By C. K. Raju, ago

Some recent honors

Yesterday (26 November, Constitution Day) at Constitution club, I received the Nilakantha honor from the Dalit organization “Kabir ke log” from a former Union deputy education minister (and scholar) Dr Sanjay Paswan). Click for a related article on dalit scientific achievements, in Jansatta. Earlier I had received the Bharatiya Dharohar Read more…

By C. K. Raju, ago

Oxford must fall

The long-awaited book Rhodes must Fall, by the Rhodes Must Fall Group at Oxford has been published by Zed books, and is distributed by the University of Chicago press.
Cover image Rhodes Must Fall
It carries my censored article “To decolonise math stand up to its false history and bad philosophy” together with a supportive essay by Kevin Minors a black Bermudan doctoral student.
Recall that my article was censored by the South Africa editor of the Conversation on the false ground that it did not meet their editorial standards (though I intensively interacted with an editor for a week before publication).  Basically, the editor succumbed to the furious response of the whites, to my article. The Conversation had earlier published the foolish (and obnoxious) claim that mathematics is essentially the work of dead white males, so blacks and women should be taught to think like them. In response, I pointed out that black Egyptians knew fractions 3000 years before Greeks, Romans, or Europeans learnt about elementary fractions.
The Conversation did not mind publishing that obnoxious falsehood, but the editor had no place for any truth that was anti-West. So, she objected to my referring to my own published work. Why? What on earth is wrong with that? Why should one not refer to one’s own published work? Obviously the unstated but racist ground was her belief that what a brown man says is not reliable, therefore, she will not permit him to say anything original, even if it has been peer reviewed and published earlier. He is allowed only to repeat and quote what some white man says. (This is also the Wikipedia policy: a white man, or an article approved by white men, is the only reliable source.)
Though my censored article was initially widely reproduced, sadly it was taken down by most publications around the globe. Only one Indian newspaper, the Wire, recognized the problem of racist censorship and put it back. Another international publication retained it under the title “Was Euclid a black woman?”. This is described in my article on Mathematics and Censorship, and the censored article was published in full as part of an article in a peer-reviewed journal: Journal of Black Studies. Clearly the editor of the Conversation was using utter lies to defend racist decisions.
The important thing to emphasize now is that #OxfordMustFall.
Thus, consider what happened in the panel discussion at the University of Cape Town a year ago.
(more…)

By C. K. Raju, ago

Israel denies visa for talk on decolonisation exposing Einstein

The Palestine Technical University, Kadourie, Palestine, is organizing the Sixth Palestinian Conference on Modern Trends in Mathematics and Physics PCMTMP-VI, 5th-8th August 2018.
I was invited to give two plenary talks (scheduled on 7th and 8th Aug) on
Decolonising mathematics: how and why it makes science better (and enables students to solve harder problems)
An extended summary and abstract of my proposed talk are posted online.
The Israeli embassy has, however, refused me a visa. No official reason or explanation was offered for the denial of visa. When I asked, an official from the Israeli embassy did very rudely warn me not to apply ever again for an Israeli visa.
Now five years ago, I visited Palestine (See blog post “Mathematics in refugee camps”, and a nice video on History and Philosophy of science). Of course, I did have a terrible experience with the Israelis: they charged me some USD 200 for a taxi for 8.5 km, then put me on a share taxi and promised to give the receipt after I crossed the border! Never encountered such terrible cheats anywhere else in the world. But last time the Israeli embassy in India had issued me a visa.
So, I am left wondering what has changed. Three things have changed. 1. Decolonisation, 2. Einstein, and 3. Indo-Israeli relationship
(more…)

By C. K. Raju, ago

Alternative math: media reports

Here are the media reports for the Rajju Ganit workshop from Dainik Bhaskar, Nai Duniya, Talk show by Global Herald, and Free Press Journal Global Herald talk show प्रसिद्ध गणितज्ञ सीके राजू से खास चर्चा Dainik Bhaskar Nai Duniya26 June 2018 Global Herald e-paper 30 June 2018 Free Press journal

By C. K. Raju, ago

Petition to teach religiously neutral math

Petition is given below. To sign online go to:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/teach-religiously-neutral-mathematics

If you are convinced, do also SPREAD the word by forwarding this email to others.

Anyone who has children or grandchildren in school (or had a bad math experience in school) qualifies as a potential signatory, as does anyone who wants real independence.

1. Printable copy: http://ckraju.net/petition/Petition-to-teach-religiously-neutral-math.pdf
2. Detailed explanation: http://ckraju.net/petition/Math-petition-explanatory-note.pdf
3. List of relevant books, papers, news etc: http://ckraju.net/papers/Reading-list-on-history-philosophy-of-math.html

————Petition——————

To,

HRD Minister, Govt of India,
Ministers and Secretaries of Education of all Indian States,
Vice Chancellors of various universities,
Chairperson, NBHM,
Director, NCERT

Sub: Ensure that mathematics taught in public schools is religiously neutral.

Dear Minister/Secretary/Vice Chancellor/Chairperson/Director,

Colonial education served the interests of the coloniser, so it should have been critically reviewed after independence. Unfortunately, this was not done till now, and our education system still imitates the West. Uncritical imitation may be harmful. European universities were set up by the church and controlled by it for centuries. Long-term church control meant sustained pressure to make all knowledge theologically correct. So, religious biases are likely in Western knowledge.

Indeed, the accompanying note explains that this applies even to mathematics: mathematics developed differently in different cultures, but Europeans perceived it in religious terms relating to mathesis and eternal truth. As the note explains, most school mathematics, such as arithmetic, geometry, algebra, calculus, and probability, actually originated in the non-West and was imported into Europe for its practical value. However, Europeans attempted to make it theologically correct, and align the notion of infinity to the church notion of eternity. In the process, they turned mathematics into metaphysics and introduced elements of Christian dogma in it, so that there is a subtle religious bias in the way mathematics is taught in schools and universities today. Eliminating that religious bias does not affect any practical application of mathematics.

Teaching a religious bias through a compulsory subject in public schools is unconstitutional. Mathematics should be taught in public schools in a religiously-neutral way and for its practical value. Therefore, if the charge is right, the teaching of mathematics in schools must be changed forthwith. Mathematics is commonly regarded as a difficult subject, and the superfluous theological complexities in it may be the reason for that. We note that actual teaching experiments have been performed, in universities in various countries, to show that teaching mathematics, devoid of theological complexities, also makes it easy. If the charge were not right, then our educationists ought to have publicly refuted it long ago, since it has been published in 4 books, 32 scholarly articles and numerous newspapers, in various countries, for over a decade. The silence is strange.

This matter concerns millions of students each year, including our children or grandchildren about whose education we are deeply concerned. Accordingly, we feel that the issue must be decided in a transparent way. Usually, such decisions (regarding what mathematics to teach) are taken by experts. But to avoid a biased decision, the experts must be properly selected. The non-experts who select the experts must explain why they chose those experts. The customary practice is to select experts by blindly trusting Western endorsements and certifications, but that method is inappropriate in the present context of a critical review of colonial education, where the interests of the colonised and the coloniser may diverge fundamentally. Whose interests do these experts represent? This must be transparent, especially if there is no concrete evidence that these experts contributed to the welfare of people in India. Relying exclusively on Western certified experts just amounts to continuing the colonial system of requiring permission from the West for any change of policy.

(more…)

By C. K. Raju, ago

Infinity, math, physics, and metaphysics

Can physics be done without infinity as taught in math (real analysis) today? Someone demanded an explanation in an email sent to my son.  (I guess the Raju family has the same problem as the Bernoulli family in Europe!  🙂 .)
Ordinarily, I would not have responded, for people ought not to demand an explanation by email without bothering to read or understand what I have already written. But, similar doubts were expressed by a young woman (with a PhD in functional analysis) who attended my talk in Ramallah. They may again arise in future. So, I decided to respond.
Infinity is metaphysics. Infinity relates to eternity, so that the Western concept of infinity in present-day math is saturated with the church metaphysics of eternity.
Ironically, the figure for infinity, ∞, is still shaped like a serpent coiled back on itself and eating its own tail, and is an old symbol of quasi-cyclic time.
The linkage of infinity to eternity led to the first creationist controversy: over the nature of eternity, not evolution. In the 6th c. John Philoponus objected to Proclus’ notion of eternity based on quasi-cyclic time. Philoponus’ problem was that if the cosmos is eternal (as Proclus conceived it) it would not be created. That creationist controversy is still going on.
For example, Stephen Hawking claimed the cosmos was created with a “singularity”. (A “singularity” is nothing but an infinity of some sort.)  He concluded his only serious scientific book by identifying the “singularity” with “the actual point of creation” where there is a breakdown of the “laws of physics”. This conclusion is pure metaphysics, for there is no way to check it empirically.
In his popular book, Hawking explained the point of this metaphysical conclusion: because the “laws of physics” break down at the “singularity”, that leaves God free to create the world of his choice. Note that this is in accordance with the Christian notion of one-time creation (and contrary to the Islamic notion of continuous creation, or the Buddhist notion of non-creation, or the “Hindu” notion of periodic creation and destruction). The church heavily promoted this “scientific proof” of the correctness of its (post-Nicene) Christian theology.
People may be suspicious of the church but they implicitly trust scientists today. And, though few  (perhaps 2 or 3 among the 1.25 billion in India) have read or understood Hawking’s scientific work, hundreds of millions of people strongly believe he is a great scientist. Such gullibility and implicit trust is bound to be exploited by the church, which is ever on the lookout for new ways of doing its propaganda. Few people are even aware that Hawking reached his conclusion by postulating his “chronology condition” which denies quasi-cyclic time, and does so using exactly the same bad argument that Augustine used against Origen,  and which argument is at the foundation of post-Nicene Christianity. So, what Hawking did was to use the metaphysics of infinity to promote the politics of the church, like Augustine.
(more…)

By C. K. Raju, ago