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.
this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2022
1 points (100.0% liked)
philosophy
19789 readers
2 users here now
Other philosophy communities have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it. [ x ]
"I thunk it so I dunk it." - Descartes
Short Attention Span Reading Group: summary, list of previous discussions, schedule
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
this dude has never heard of a social experiment
establishing global communism as a prank, bro
During the execution of the last capitalist Ashton Kutcher appears around a corner to reveal the hidden cameras
Romanov's on a prank show feels like it'd be a great WKUK sketch
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.
"Bro it's just a social experiment" I say as I execute the Tsar's family.
The only valid forms of experimentation involve double-blind single-variable lab tests.
This is why Astronomy isn't real.
tfw when your revolution was actually the placebo run :ussr-cry:
Imperialism is literally full of tables of data-- what does this moron think "materialism" is?
Someone should ask this guy how much it costs to make a coat.
Cockshott is a TERF Anglo prick, but he has in fact shown, mathematically, that the LTV is correct. Yes, in a peer reviewed journal.
Stafford Beer also arrived at this conclusion (accidentally too). Then actually put it in practice in Chile before the coup
This tweet was not arrived at by iterative testing of a causal model. As such, I must discard it as unscientific and therefore worthless
~~Causal~~ casual model
Chill Vibe based modelling
Chill Lofi to Vibe and Make Baseless Assumptions About Reality To
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.
50/50 chance of things working out
100% chance of working out at da gym :swole-doge:
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.
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
average anglo philosopher cannot read books, all they know is utilitarianism, twerk, call things "continental" and lie
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.
Popper/Kuhn brain is a powerful drug.
I know how Popper is responsible for these brainworms - but how is Kuhn implicated?
load more comments
(8 replies)
This is just an attack on absolutely everything that isn't a hard-science based in mathematics. Or poo poo pee pee for short.
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:
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.
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
: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.
Basically :gun-hubris:
Just your average STEM douchebag
Here's the twist: This guy isn't a STEM lord, he's an assistant professor for philosophy.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Positivism zealots are so tiring
This isn't even positivism, this is baby's first falsificationism. I would respect a positivist critique since they at least acknowledge induction exists.
Mfers read Popper once and think they're brain geniuses who've debunked Marx
What did Poppel say?
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
load more comments
(3 replies)
Doing science but the cia keeps sneaking into your lab and overthrowing the beakers
load more comments
(2 replies)
So this person has never actually talked to a marxist.
view more: next ›