top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

The scientific method of socialism is revolution. The object of study is society and how it changes. The hypothesis is that the class that generates value can change it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    this dude has never heard of a social experiment

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    establishing global communism as a prank, bro

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    During the execution of the last capitalist Ashton Kutcher appears around a corner to reveal the hidden cameras

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Romanov's on a prank show feels like it'd be a great WKUK sketch

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    Lenin laughing at the Romanovs and pointing out the hidden cameras :lenin-laugh:

    Also, a sitcom where Stalin is running the Big Brother house, which is the Führerbunker and the contestants are Hitler, Eva Braun and the rest of the Nazi high command. To amp up the drama, every day an update on the Red Army's progress is broadcast into the bunker, and getting voted out means you need to surrender to the Soviets.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Imperialism is literally full of tables of data-- what does this moron think "materialism" is?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    Cockshott is a TERF Anglo prick, but he has in fact shown, mathematically, that the LTV is correct. Yes, in a peer reviewed journal.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    This tweet was not arrived at by iterative testing of a causal model. As such, I must discard it as unscientific and therefore worthless

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    I ran two vibes based models.

    :bloomer: Just keep fighting comrades! We're gaining ground!

    :doomer: We already lost. Stockpile canned goods and bullets.

    I conclude there is a 50/50 chance of things working out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yeah if only those Hegelians and Marxists had some sort of iterative philosophical framework that moved between theory and practice to inductively arrive at a conclusion.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago* (10 children)

    Holy shit:

    Liam Kofi Bright is a British philosopher of science who is an assistant professor or lecturer in the department of philosophy, logic, and scientific method at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He works primarily on formal social epistemology, particularly the social epistemology of science

    WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING THEN

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    average anglo philosopher cannot read books, all they know is utilitarianism, twerk, call things "continental" and lie

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    But my baby-brained understanding of "utilitarianism" says communism is good, yet I don't think Mr London School of Imperialism Apologia agrees with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

    This is just an attack on absolutely everything that isn't a hard-science based in mathematics. Or poo poo pee pee for short.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    Thus the intense drive by neo-liberal economists to mathematize their "science." It's physics envy. A bunch of dorks made massive assumptions about human behavior and motivations because that made it a lot easier to model with mathematics, then spent the next century jacking themselves off until they were left with nothing but a bloody stump.

    Too bad their assumptions WERE WRONG and they should be laughed at for being such dorks :farquaad-point:

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Except that mathematics mostly isn't a "casual model generating precise predictions", especially at the higher levels, famously so with the philosophical failures of Bertrand Russell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Gödel tapping the sign

    No consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

    :wojak-nooo: Kronecker and Wittgenstein crying: Noooo! you can't use a diagonalization argument to prove by contradiction.

    Cantor, Gödel and Turing: haha, well look at that, the diagonal can't exist. QED

    Whoops: Hilbert actually liked Cantor's proof.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Positivism zealots are so tiring

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    This isn't even positivism, this is baby's first falsificationism. I would respect a positivist critique since they at least acknowledge induction exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Mfers read Popper once and think they're brain geniuses who've debunked Marx

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago* (3 children)

    He claimed that Marxism is pseudoscience because it is unfalsifiable. The example he uses is the original idea that the revolution would originate in developed Western countries and when that didn't happen Marxists developed a new explanation and apparently that means it's unfalsifiable and thus wrong.

    Of course, inductive reasoning is, you know, a thing. But Western "scientific method" brainworms and their consequences etc etc

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)

    Doing science but the cia keeps sneaking into your lab and overthrowing the beakers

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    So this person has never actually talked to a marxist.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›