By the way, since the 18th century, some very smart people did indeed make attempts to refute a geometrical axiom, namely Euclid’s Fifth Postulate stating that parallel lines can never meet, and the result was differential geometry. It gave us a revolutionary and beautiful new understanding of the architecture of the cosmos (general relativity), of the fundamental laws governing the universe (gauge theory), and of elementary particles (quantum field theory), and on top of that it enabled groundbreaking fields of technology such as robotics, satellites, and artificial intelligence. All of these theories have stood up to every experimental test, and all of these technologies show their usefulness and indeed necessity on a daily basis.
If even in a such a clean and parsimonious field as mathematics such a backwards and unnecessary postulate can stand for two millennia, then what are we to believe of the ostensible “axioms” of the blurry, inexact subject of sexuality, that are after all influenced by dubious traditions and unchallenged assumptions? Must we still profess faith in the centennial sociology journals of Lenin’s age that are gathering dust and worms in the archives of some historical institute?
By the way, since the 18th century, some very smart people did indeed make attempts to refute a geometrical axiom, namely Euclid’s Fifth Postulate stating that parallel lines can never meet, and the result was differential geometry. It gave us a revolutionary and beautiful new understanding of the architecture of the cosmos (general relativity), of the fundamental laws governing the universe (gauge theory), and of elementary particles (quantum field theory), and on top of that it enabled groundbreaking fields of technology such as robotics, satellites, and artificial intelligence. All of these theories have stood up to every experimental test, and all of these technologies show their usefulness and indeed necessity on a daily basis.
If even in a such a clean and parsimonious field as mathematics such a backwards and unnecessary postulate can stand for two millennia, then what are we to believe of the ostensible “axioms” of the blurry, inexact subject of sexuality, that are after all influenced by dubious traditions and unchallenged assumptions? Must we still profess faith in the centennial sociology journals of Lenin’s age that are gathering dust and worms in the archives of some historical institute?
Lol, why is this getting downvoted? This comment basically said what mine said.