Also for what it's worth, I don't see attacks on science in any things you link. I see, perhaps, a call for more empiricism in certain fields, and a call for recognition of our society and it's flaws, and how those flaws may extend into systems embedded within our society, such as the scientific community and our educational system.
I mean, it's clear you agree with some of these criticisms: in the same post you staunchly defend science as, presumably a source of everything productive, but criticize "academia". Yet how do you propose to differentiate between the two? You're both criticizing different parts of the social system scientific discourse is embedded in. What makes the other criticism inherently invalid?
> The end of this line of thinking is to destroy mathematical education and leave children ignorant
I want to call out specifically that there is absolutely nothing you've quoted that supports this claim.
Hopefully we find a way to renew it, or else to do basic science outside of it
But actually, I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding what your point is, could you help me? I mentioned a specific line that Paul Graham wrote, then said it was "dumb" for the reasons I outlined. Then, in defense of Paul Graham, you posted links to tweets to snippets of research absolutely without any context at all. How would I know whether that research is good or not? I have no training in any of those fields.
I'm really confused about how what you posted defended Paul. Did you want me to see that someone wrote the words "decolonizing" and "math" together and subsequently think that it is stupid, after all, to write the words "hegemonic" and "whiteness" in the same paper?