Richard Dawkins.8
"If intelligent extraterrestrial beings ever visit us, what common ground shall we find for conversation? Science, of course. Overwhelmingly science, very probably nothing but science and mathematics. Our other preoccupations will be too alien to them, or too parochial, to arouse their interest. And vice versa. The aliens will revere their equivalents of Newton and Einstein, of Planck and Heisenberg. They'll have the Pythagorean Theorem. They'll have computed ( in their own notation, of course ) p and the other great constants of mathematics and physics. They'll have the atomic theory. They'll recognise the same list of elements as we do and will group them into their equivalent of our periodic table."9
Those are the words of Richard Dawkins, but the equivalent argument has been presented by science writers for decades, going back at least to the late, great Carl Sagan.
The facts and laws of science and mathematics are universal; they are the same everywhere in the Universe, and will be understood by any intelligent beings which are capable of observing their surroundings and conducting experiments. If we do ever manage to communicate with a species of aliens - whether due to interstellar travel or simply by exchanging radio signals - then we can take it as read that their knowledge of science will be at least on a par with ours ( and probably far surpassing it ) - because if it wasn't, they wouldn't be capable of contacting us! So if we were able to learn their language, we would recognise their science and mathematics as being equivalent to our own.
In Dawkins' words again, "science is, or incrementally approaches, universal truth sub specie aeternitatis, truth for all time and all space".10
Yet here on Earth - or rather, on some parts of it - we are now faced with the absurd phenomenon of science, and even mathematics, being attacked, threatened and corrupted by the relentless forces of "woke"!
In response to this, Lawrence Krauss, an eminent Canadian professor of physics, has produced a vitally important book, The War on Science.11 As the book's editor, he invited a number of eminent scientists from various fields to contribute essays on aspects of the subject. His hope is that having such people speak out publicly against the corruption of science will encourage many more to do so, and thus turn the tide.
The best known contributor is Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist. The book is worth buying for his essay alone, the title of which sums up the entire subject perfectly - Scientific Truth Stands Above Human Feelings and Politics.
I have already referred to the book several times, on this page and my earlier page on "ED&I", and will do so several more times yet!
8.1. "Decolonisation"
In the last few years, with the rise of the "Black Lives Matter" movement, there has been a growing campaign in the UK and other European countries, to condemn everything connected with their colonisation of other parts of the world in the past.
Most notably, its proponents in the UK want to remove every statue of, and rename every street or building which is named in honour of, any historical person who had any slightest connection with the transatlantic slave trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries - because we are all now expected to feel "guilt" for what our ancestors did centuries ago.
As I said earlier; of course the slave trade was terrible - but we need to learn from history, not erase it! We can't simply pretend that horrible things didn't happen!
But the movement has gone far beyond slavery. We are now all expected to condemn, and be ashamed of, everything to do with "colonialism". I'm certainly not going to condone the manner in which our ancestors went about it - basically, they marched into other people's land and stole it from them, often succeeding simply because they had guns, and the locals didn't! - or the manner in which they subsequently treated the indigenous people. There was a great deal about it which was indeed shameful - but yet again, we need to learn from history, not pretend it didn't happen!
However, those behind this campaign will presumably conveniently ignore all the benefits which Europeans brought to other parts of the world - education, modern medicine and healthcare, science and technology - in a manner reminiscent of the "What have the Romans done for us?" scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian!
As a consequence of this, nearly all universities in the western world have embarked on a campaign to "decolonise the curriculum" - that is, to rectify what they see as a huge problem, that academic subjects are dominated by western, European or "white" influences.
In the case of the arts, this simply means putting less emphasis on western art, music and literature, and including more from other cultures. In the case of history, it means teaching the subject more from the point of view of other cultures, instead of in a traditional "Euro-centric" manner.
But the concept of "decolonisation" has even been extended to include science! This has arisen from the utterly nonsensical claim that science, and even mathematics, is a western, European or white "invention", or "social construct". As Dawkins has stated so eloquently, it's nothing of the sort!
8.2. All cultures have science!
The word "science" is simply derived from the Latin for "knowledge". All human cultures, since the earliest, have engaged in at least elementary forms of what we would call science - that is, the process of observing phenomena in nature and making deductions, in order to improve aspects of their lives.
The earliest humans, many thousands of years ago, in every region in which they lived, must have learned, by trial and error, which plants are safe to eat, and which are not. They learned to make and use tools, first from wood and stone, and later from metals. They learned, presumably also by processes of trial and error, to make and use weapons, such as spears and bows and arrows, with which to hunt animals for food. And they learned to produce and harness fire, to cook food and keep themselves warm.
Tribes in the rainforests of South America learned that certain species of frogs, as their defence against being eaten, secrete a deadly poison through their skin. Subsequently, they discovered that they could use small darts, fired from a blowpipe, to kill large animals, if the darts were tipped with that poison by rubbing them on a frog's back!
Ancient people worldwide observed that different patterns of stars are seen in the night sky at different times of year, and so, with the development of agriculture, learned to use the sky as a calendar, to know when to plant and harvest their crops. In the Northern Hemisphere, they learned to use the stars to find directions, after observing that one star - the one we now call Polaris or the Pole Star - remains fixed in position while everything else appears to revolve around it.
And the ancient Egyptians learned that a particular astronomical phenomenon, the heliacal rising of Sirius, occurred shortly before the annual flooding of the Nile - the natural event on which their entire civilisation depended - and so were able to predict that event, and plant their crops accordingly.
Does anyone doubt that all of those were early forms of science?
8.3. Facts versus "social constructs"
The concept of "decolonising the curriculum" seems to have arisen from a desire to force all Europeans and white Americans to be ashamed of being white! This has been extended to the ludicrous claim that all of modern science is a western/white/European "invention", or as the proponents put it, a "social construct".
I'll shortly address the utter idiocy of this idea - but first, what exactly is a "social construct"? Well, it means something which has no fundamental basis in nature, but is an arbitrary convention of human society or culture.
Dawkins gives two examples of things which definitely are social constructs. The first is money.12
Thousands of years ago, humans used to barter, or exchange goods for other goods perceived to be similarly valuable. Then at some point in history, they invented the concept of money ( actually, many different cultures did so independently ), whereby "tokens", such as coins, are assumed, by convention, to represent a particular value, which can be exchanged for goods. A rectangle of green paper with "One dollar" printed on it has no intrinsic value or usefulness, but social convention says that it can be exchanged for goods of a certain perceived value, such as a loaf of bread or a pint of milk.
Of course, the use of money involves simple mathematics, which is most certainly not a social construct, as we shall see shortly. The fact that a hundred dollar bill is worth ten times as much as a ten dollar bill is part of the social convention - but the underlying mathematical fact, that ten times ten equals one hundred, absolutely is not!
The second example is the calendar. The number of days in a year is a fundamental fact of nature; what we call a day is closely related to, but not quite the same as, the Earth's rotation period, and a year is the period of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. But the way in which we divide a year into twelve months, with varying numbers of days in each, is of course a human convention.
Ancient cultures, of course, didn't know that the Earth orbits the Sun; they thought the Earth was stationary, and everything else revolved around it. But they defined a year as the time which the Sun takes to apparently move all the way around the sky with respect to the constellations - which is of course the same thing! It also equates to the length of the cycle of the seasons, and knowing that was vitally important for the development of agriculture!
Thousands of years ago, people invented ways of dividing up the year into convenient shorter periods for purposes of timekeeping. Our current system of twelve months dates from the Romans; the fact that the months have different numbers of days arises from the fact that 365 is an awkward number to divide up!
The calendar has evolved in line with our astronomical knowledge. 2000 years ago, people realised that the length of a year is not exactly 365 days, but rather 365 and a quarter - so Julius Caesar introduced the concept of leap years, adding an extra day to the calendar in every fourth year, to compensate for the quarter, and keep the calendar in step with the seasons.
By fifteen centuries later, astronomers had realised that the length of a year is not precisely 365.25 days, but very slightly less, by an amount which roughly equates to three days in 400 years. So in 1582, Pope Gregory XIII, on the advice of an astronomer, reformed the calendar, such that three leap years are removed in every 400 years; that is, in every 400 years, there are 97 leap years, rather than 100. This is the Gregorian Calendar, which we still use today.
By 1582, due to that small discrepancy, the calendar had moved out of step with the seasons by ten days, so in that year, ten days were removed from the calendar at an arbitrary point - 4th October was followed by 15th - to bring it back into line.
Because the calendar is a human invention or social construct, we can change or correct it at will, in line with advances in our knowledge. But such changes are driven by the accuracy with which we can measure the fundamental properties of nature on which it's based.
8.4. Science is not a human invention!
Those who want to "decolonise" science claim that all of modern science is a western, European or white "invention", or "social construct", and consequently, that it's somehow "racist"! They are effectively saying that, just because Europeans - beginning with the classical Greeks, around 2000 years ago - happened to discover many of the laws of science, it somehow follows that it's racist!
The vital word there is "discover". Refer again to the Dawkins quote at the start of this page: "The facts of science were facts long before there were humans to discover them." We did not invent science; we discovered it! Any human culture, in any part of the world, could have discovered the laws of science first; it just happened to be Europeans who did! In fact, much of it was also discovered independently in other parts of the world, such as China. In particular, cultures in almost every part of the world developed astronomy, due to using the sky as a calendar and for navigation.
Much of the work of the great Greek philosophers was lost in AD 415, when the Great Library of Alexandria was destroyed by Christian zealots who opposed science. Scientific progress subsequently ceased in Europe for centuries, suppressed by dogmatic religion. Thankfully, some of the Greeks' work had reached the Arabic world, where science continued to flourish for the next thousand years, before finally being revived in Europe during the Renaissance.
So those who claim that science is entirely a European "construct" are as ignorant of history as they are of just about everything else!
Of course, most of modern science has been developed since about the 17th Century - but it was the Greeks, and later the Arabs, who laid the foundations, and established what we call the Scientific Method - the process of making observations of natural phenomena, conducting experiments and formulating theories to explain those phenomena.
Continuing with the theme, let's take a simple example. It's a fact that matter is made up of tiny particles, which we call atoms, which are in turn made up of three kinds of even tinier particles, which we call protons, neutrons and electrons. It's a fact that atoms with a given number of protons in their nuclei form a particular kind of matter, with particular properties, which we call an element. It's a fact that 92 different elements exist in nature, with numbers of protons from 1 to 92. ( There are also a couple of dozen more which don't exist naturally, but have been created artificially by humans. )
All of those things are exactly that - facts. They are indisputable, and were facts - apart from the last - for 13 billion years, before humans existed to discover them! That is, atoms, subatomic particles and elements existed for 13 billion years, before humans discovered their existence and gave them names. If they were not facts, then we would not exist to be able to discover them!
And they exist everywhere in the Universe. Any intelligent species, anywhere in the Universe, will also discover their existence, and will recognise the same 92 elements as we do. If we ever contact aliens, and we are able to learn their language and vice versa, then we will be able to recognise their list of elements as being the same as our own, and vice versa.
( As an aside; 70 years ago, combining multiple disciplines of astronomy, physics and chemistry, Margaret Burbidge ( Section 5.5 ) and her colleagues realised what is, to me, the most remarkable fact of all revealed to us by science - that every atom of every element other than hydrogen, which makes up you and me, was created by thermonuclear reactions in the core of a long dead star! )
Yet the ultra-woke deny all this, and claim that other cultures have their own "ways of knowing" - usually meaning tribal beliefs or religious creation myths - which should be regarded as "equally valid".
Dawkins says that he once had a conversation with a social anthropologist, who said something along the lines of: "As a western scientist, you look at the Moon and see a lump of rock obeying Newton's Laws, some 240000 miles away. But if there are a tribal people who believe that the Moon is an old cooking pot tossed into the sky, just above the treetops, their belief is equally true. You believe what you believe because you are a western scientist. But your truth is no more true than their truth."13
To say that that's absolute nonsense is putting it very mildly! An anthropologist might respect such a tribe's right to have their own beliefs as part of their culture, but that does not mean they are in any way true! Dawkins - or I, or anyone else - does not believe that the Moon is 239000 miles away, "because he is a western scientist"; he believes it because it's a fact! A tribal belief that the Moon is just above the treetops, if any such exists, is not "their truth", or a different "way of knowing"; it's merely a belief, and is simply false! There is no such thing as "your truth" or "their truth"; there is only the truth!
The Greeks determined the distance of the Moon over 2000 years ago, and got within a few percent of the correct value. How they measured it is quite simple in principle, and could be replicated by any group of amateur astronomers today.
If two people at different locations, say a few hundred miles apart, observe the Moon at exactly the same time, they see it in slightly different positions in the sky with respect to background stars, because they are looking at it from slightly different angles. If each observer carefully measures its position with respect to the stars, they can calculate the apparent shift in its position. Knowing the distance between the observers, a bit of trigonometry - itself discovered by the Greeks - gives you the Moon's distance.
We have sent dozens of spacecraft to the Moon, and twelve humans have landed on it. How would that be possible, if we didn't precisely know its distance? Today, astronomers have calculated its orbit with incredible precision, using the laser reflectors left on its surface by the Apollo astronauts; at any given moment, its distance can be measured to an accuracy of a few centimetres!
On eight occasions so far, at the time of writing, I have travelled to diverse parts of the world to observe total solar eclipses. ( I successfully observed six of them; the one thing which no-one can predict accurately is the weather! ) Some of those trips were to places as far away as Hawai'i, China and Australia - so I spent thousands of pounds and travelled thousands of miles, to put myself in the right place at the right time - sometimes booking my place on the trips up to three years ahead.
So how do I know, years in advance, exactly when and where an eclipse is going to occur? Precisely because astronomers have calculated the orbits of the Earth and the Moon with fantastic precision! They can predict the exact time, to the second, and location, to the kilometre, of every eclipse for centuries to come. For each individual one, for any given location within its path, they can predict the time and duration to the nearest tenth of a second!
This is a practical example of how I, for one, put my trust in science!
Oh, and why specifically "because you are a western scientist?" Does the anthropologist not think that any Indian, Chinese or Japanese scientist shares "western" knowledge of astronomy? After all, each of those countries has its own space programme, and has sent its own probes to the Moon! Duh!!
I just mentioned putting my trust in science - but we all do that, almost every day - even those science deniers who are too stupid to realise that they are doing so!
Think about it. Every time you drive, you are entrusting your own life, and those of others around you, to your confident belief that each time you accelerate, brake or turn a corner, the car will respond as you expect it to. That is, that it will behave as expected, in accordance with Newton's Laws of Accelerated Motion!
If you don't drive, and travel on public transport, then you are of course still doing the same - putting the same trust in the bus or train.
Even when walking, if you cross a busy road, and have to wait for a gap in the traffic to do so, then you are again doing the same - entrusting your life to the belief that vehicles on the road will behave as expected, in accordance with those same laws.
Even those so uneducated as to have never even heard of Newton's Laws of Accelerated Motion are still unknowingly entrusting their lives to them!
Another term bandied around by the ultra-woke is "lived experience" - which supposedly also counts as a "way of knowing". I'm not entirely sure what that means - but if I understand it correctly...
Suppose that someone was to say that his "lived experience" tells him that the Earth is flat, because he personally can't see any evidence to suggest that it's round. Then, according to the ultra-woke, his belief - or as they might say, "his truth" - should somehow be regarded as "equally as valid" as the scientific truth!
Anyone who believes that would have to be not only deluded, but also incredibly unobservant of the world around him, as there are numerous simple ways in which anyone can see for themselves that the Earth is spherical! Imagine walking or cycling across some fairly flat country, and heading towards a village a few kilometres away, where there is a church with a tall spire. The top of the spire first comes into view over the horizon; then as you get closer, the rest of the spire gradually comes into view, then the main body of the church, and finally the houses. How would you explain that, if the Earth was flat? In fact, the very existence of such a concept as the horizon is itself proof!
Again, that the Earth is spherical is a fact - indisputable to any rational person. Around the same time that the Greeks measured the distance of the Moon, they also deduced that the Earth is spherical, and in 240 BC, Eratosthenes determined its size with similar accuracy.
Science evolves and advances over time, as we learn further facts - or sometimes, realise that something which was widely believed is in fact wrong. For thousands of years, almost everyone believed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe, and everything else revolved around it. Then in the 16th century, Copernicus proposed that the Earth is in fact a planet, and it and the other planets orbit the Sun. ( The Greek philosopher Aristarchus proposed the same 18 centuries earlier, but wasn't taken seriously. ) In the following century, after the invention of the telescope, Galileo and others proved it beyond any doubt. Today, no rational person can possibly believe that the Earth is the centre of the Universe - though incredibly, there are still some far from rational people who do, for reasons which have nothing to do with logic and everything to do with dogmatic religion!
Those other opponents of science, religious creationists, sometimes claim that "You can't trust scientists, because they keep changing their minds!" But far from being a weakness, as they think, this is science's strength! Scientists sometimes change their minds, because they admit when they are wrong! Unlike religion, science is based on the principle that there is no such thing as a "sacred truth" which must not be questioned; a theory is regarded as correct, only as long as it continues to be supported by evidence. If some evidence is found which doesn't fit, and can't be explained by an established theory, then it follows that the theory, or at least some detail of it, is wrong, and must be modified to account for that evidence.
This is in fact part of the definition of a theory in science; it must be testable, or falsifiable. That is, there has to be a way of proving a theory wrong, if it happens to be wrong!
I've explained the Scientific Method in detail elsewhere on this site ( see here ), but I'll repeat one point here. Dawkins, in The God Delusion, tells a true story from his days as an undergraduate.14 A distinguished Oxford professor of biology had long held onto his own theory about some aspect of cell structure ( which I don't pretend to understand ), which went against the conventional wisdom. Most people in the field disagreed with his theory, but none had found any evidence which conclusively disproved it. One day, a visiting American researcher gave a presentation to the department, in which he presented some newly discovered evidence, which finally proved, beyond any doubt, that the professor's cherished theory was wrong.
At the end of the presentation, the professor, in front of his own entire department, shook the visitor's hand and congratulated him, saying, "You have proved that I have been wrong these last fifteen years!" That admission was met with rapturous applause.
That's a fine example of how science is meant to work. If your pet theory is proved to be wrong, then you accept that it's wrong, and move on - though many might do so rather more reluctantly than that professor!
8.5. And nor is mathematics!
Not content with attacking science, the ultra-woke also want to "decolonise" mathematics, which they also claim is a western, European or white "invention", or "social construct", and is therefore racist! If possible, that idea is even more idiotic!
In The War on Science, John Armstrong, a British professor of mathematics, has demolished this barmy notion - which is exactly what it deserves - in his essay How Do You Decolonise Mathematics?
As with science, not only is mathematics not a western or European invention; it isn't even a human invention! Once again, we didn't invent it, but discovered it. I'll come to that shortly, but firstly, the idea that it's a western or European anything falls apart with the slightest bit of rational analysis!
Many laws and principles of mathematics were independently discovered multiple times by multiple cultures, in multiple parts of the world, besides Europe. Much of it was developed in India and the Arabic world, and the Mayans of Central America had a pretty sophisticated knowledge of it, centuries before they ever had any contact with Europeans.
The Arabs, in particular, had a very strong influence. The system of notation for numbers, which is now used in most of the world, originated in India, and became widely known through the writings of the Persian mathematician Muhammad al-Khwarizmi ( c. 780 - c. 850 ). We call them Arabic numbers for a reason! Before Europeans adopted the Indian/Arabic system, they used the cumbersome system of Roman numerals, where, for example, you would write "MDCCCLXXXVIII" instead of "1888"! The concept of zero as a number also independently originated in both India and Central America.
The words algebra and algorithm are derived from Arabic. The latter comes from the name of al-Khwarizmi, and the former from the Arabic title of his treatise Al-Jabr ( "Completion" ), in which he established the method of solving quadratic equations.
There is a remarkable formula for calculating the value of p:
p/4 = 1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 - 1/11...
which was independently discovered by James Gregory in 1671 and by Gottfried Leibniz two years later. But we now know that an Indian mathematician, Madhava of Sangrama, discovered it several centuries earlier!15
The fact that the same mathematical principles were independently discovered by multiple cultures shows that truth is indeed independent of culture, and is itself enough to demolish the idea that mathematics is an "invention" or "social construct" at all - European or otherwise.
Just like the facts of science, the facts of mathematics were also facts long before there were humans to discover them. While the notation we use to represent them is our arbitrary invention, numbers themselves, and the operations of arithmetic, are not; they are fundamental properties of nature.
If you are not convinced of that, consider the following. Suppose a single bird is perched on a branch of a tree. If another bird then lands on the same branch, then there are two birds on the branch. If another one lands on the same branch, then there are three. And if one bird then flies away, then there are two again... whether or not there happens to be a human nearby to count them!
To put it another way; one plus one equals two, two plus one equals three, three minus one equals two - irrespective of the names and symbols we use to represent the numbers.
Two plus two equals four. That's a fact, full stop. It's a fact, whether you say it verbally ( in whatever language, be it English, French, Japanese or Swahili ), or write it numerically ( whether using Arabic or Roman numerals, or in binary or hexadecimal ), or represent it by moving beads on an abacus!
Similarly, it's a fact, and a fundamental property of nature, that the circumference of a circle is always a certain constant times its diameter, and that the area of a circle is that same constant times the square of its radius - no matter what we choose to call that constant. ( By arbitrary convention, we of course call it pi or p. ) And the value of that constant is itself a fundamental property of nature, independent of our system of notation.
We humans use the system of decimal, or base 10, arithmetic, for the simple reason that we have ten fingers and thumbs! But computers store data in binary format, consisting only of ones and zeroes, and programmers often use hexadecimal, or base 16, notation ( using the digits 0 to 9 and the letters A to F to represent values from 0 to 15 ), because that's much easier to convert to binary, if you're working at the level of bitwise operations.
If there's a species of intelligent aliens somewhere, who happen to have twelve fingers and thumbs, then they may quite possibly - though not necessarily - use a system of base 12 arithmetic. They will have calculated, for example, the value of p in their own format, but it will be numerically equivalent to ours. If we were to contact them, and we were able to learn their language and notation, and vice versa, then any mathematician, ours or theirs, would be able to convert our value of p to theirs, or vice versa.
After all this, the reader is probably as baffled as I am as to what the concept of "decolonising" mathematics actually means! That's because it's primarily gibberish! Some lecturers have said that they are unable to identify any part of the syllabus which is "colonial", and therefore can't imagine how they are supposed to "decolonise" it.
In the UK, the Quality Assurance Association for Higher Education apparently recommends that students be taught the supposedly "problematic" history of the subject. It suggests teaching that "some early ideas in statistics were motivated by their supporters' support for eugenics, some astronomical data were collected on plantations by enslaved people, and historically, some mathematicians have recorded racist or fascist views or connections to groups such as the Nazis".16
So because a handful of mathematicians were connected with the Nazis, or supported eugenics - the severely flawed pseudoscience used by the Nazis to justify their atrocities - it somehow follows that the entire history of mathematics is "problematic"!
One mathematician, on the woke side, has said, "Theorems and techniques have names associated with them, and most of the time, those names are of nineteenth-century French or German men."16 While that's undoubtedly true for a lot of theorems and techniques, many others don't have associated names at all, and we have already seen that the terms "Arabic numbers", "algebra" and "algorithm" identify their distinctly non-European origins.
As Armstrong says in response, "The practice of modern mathematics is resolutely international. While it is true that some mathematicians were Nazis, one should also consider that many of the great names of twentieth-century mathematics and science were Jews persecuted by the Nazis."16
I'll let Professor Armstrong have the final word: "This is why the media sees decolonising mathematics as comic. The public knows that the concept of racist mathematics is nonsensical, and they rightly view those who claim to be able to decolonise a linear algebra class as buffoons."17
Need I say more?
References
8. Richard Dawkins, Scientific Truth Stands Above Human Feelings and Politics, in Krauss 2025, p. 34. ( see Ref. 11 )
9. Richard Dawkins, Scientific Truth Stands Above Human Feelings and Politics, in Krauss 2025, p. 31.
10. Richard Dawkins, Scientific Truth Stands Above Human Feelings and Politics, in Krauss 2025, p. 32.
11. Lawrence M. Krauss, Editor, The War on Science, Forum 2025.
12. Richard Dawkins, Scientific Truth Stands Above Human Feelings and Politics, in Krauss 2025, p. 45.
13. Richard Dawkins, Scientific Truth Stands Above Human Feelings and Politics, in Krauss 2025, p. 34.
14. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Bantam Press 2006, p. 283-284.
15. John Armstrong, How Do You Decolonise Mathematics?, in Krauss 2025, p. 122-123.
16. John Armstrong, How Do You Decolonise Mathematics?, in Krauss 2025, p. 126.
17. John Armstrong, How Do You Decolonise Mathematics?, in Krauss 2025, p. 127.