I enjoyed learning more about the history of math from a non-Eurocentric point of view. I wasn’t aware of much of the European revisionist history of the origins of mathematics, but I can’t say I was entirely surprised to hear that information obtained from colonized countries was either ignored or claimed to be a wholly original discovery (or from the Greeks). The idea of scientific progress being a “uniquely European phenomenon” made me uneasy, especially after reading the two Eurocentric quotes from Rouse Ball and Kline.
There were a couple other tidbits mentioned about the math used in various cultures that I thought were interesting. I was intrigued to learn that the Babylonians had observed and used the Pythagorean Theorem, but seemingly did not prove it. I wonder if they had in fact proved it but their proof just hasn’t been found, or whether they had simply made enough observations to be confident that it was true. If not, I wonder what their possible attempts at a proof may have looked like. As well, I noticed that when interpreting figure 1.3 as a graph, there are no “source vertices”, i.e. all of the nodes have at least one arrow pointing towards them (In contrast to figures 1.1 and 1.2, which do). This demonstrates the interconnectedness of math history; notably how many different cultures came up with their own math as well as borrowed from others.
Thanks Chris!
ReplyDeleteYour reflection shows a strong critical awareness of Eurocentric bias and how revisionist history has shaped our understanding of mathematics. I especially liked your reaction to the quotes from Rouse Ball and Kline — it highlights how uneasy and misleading such perspectives can be. Your curiosity about the Babylonians’ use of the Pythagorean Theorem was excellent; it shows a genuine engagement with the material and a willingness to think beyond what is presented.
ReplyDelete