Scott Alexander uses an analogy between race and culture to argue that mathematical clustering arguments don't determine whether race 'exists' any more than they determine whether culture 'exists'. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'Eulering,' using complex math to debunk common sense ideas, and proposes 'Feynmaning' as a counter-technique. He applies this to the debate about race, comparing arguments against race as a biological concept to similar arguments that could be made about culture. He concludes that mathematical arguments about clustering don't determine whether race 'exists' any more than they determine whether culture 'exists,' and suggests that race doesn't have any extra reality beyond culture. The post uses an analogy between race and culture to challenge both those who claim race isn't real and those who claim it's more 'scientific' than culture. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of 'Eulering' and strategies for dealing with complex mathematical arguments in non-mathematical debates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the concept of 'Eulering,' where complex mathematical arguments are used to refute non-mathematical ideas, potentially leaving those less mathematically inclined unable to respond effectively. He uses the apocryphal story of Diderot and Euler to illustrate this concept. Scott explores the dilemma of whether to dismiss such arguments as sophistry or to accept them at face value, highlighting the trade-off between avoiding mathematical intimidation and maintaining intellectual rigor. He discusses his personal experiences with mathematical arguments in various fields, particularly focusing on statistics in scientific research. Scott proposes a strategy of 'routing around' complex mathematical objections by focusing on the underlying non-mathematical claims and evidence. Shorter summary