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.
post
Imperialism is literally full of tables of data-- what does this moron think "materialism" is?
Cockshott is a TERF Anglo prick, but he has in fact shown, mathematically, that the LTV is correct. Yes, in a peer reviewed journal.
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
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.
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
Popper/Kuhn brain is a powerful drug.
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
Just your average STEM douchebag
Here's the twist: This guy isn't a STEM lord, he's an assistant professor for philosophy.
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
Doing science but the cia keeps sneaking into your lab and overthrowing the beakers
top 50 comments