Comments on: Calculated Values

By: RadGradReviewer

RadGradReviewer — Thu, 05 May 2022 04:00:45 +0000

Bill describes the process of how political members used numerical critiques for their arguments. Deringer states that individuals outside political dealings were greatly passionate about the legitimate use of mathematical investigation into politics, as they lacked “access to original government data” (77-78). It struck me that the questioning of institutional affairs came not from the public writ large. For instance, though rejected out of fear of his previous monarchical work for James II, Devenant was a political figure who promoted the idea that the general people should be able to know government ongoings (65). Devenant demonstrates that this push for “numerical thinking” was certainly from a privileged group (5).

By: Anna Ciambotti

Anna Ciambotti — Thu, 05 May 2022 02:06:13 +0000

Hello!

I agree with Bill that his use of sources to explain his argument was impressive. He was able to make the argument interesting enough but still lost me at some parts. (As someone who does not like numbers this is not surprising). I do wish he would have stated some other reasons why calculations seemed to have gained credibility other than politics.

By: Edward Kirsch

Edward Kirsch — Thu, 05 May 2022 00:31:31 +0000

Bill’s review is cogent and well written. Bill put his finger on Deringer’s core idea that was most surprising to me: “To put it bluntly: Britons did not come to fight with numbers in the eighteenth century because numbers were already believed to be trustworthy and authoritative; numbers came to be seen as trustworthy and authoritative because Britons fought with them.”” I also concur with Bill’s conclusion that Deringer’s argument is extremely well crafted but gives me a sense that it is too mono-casual. I suspect there were other factors that played an important role in the change in “civic epistemology” that Deringer ably describes.