You must log in or register to comment.
just reinterpret Hegel
he doesn’t know about historical materialism
Man thinks utopian socialism is Marxism
This tweet was not arrived at by iterative testing of a causal model. As such, I must discard it as unscientific and therefore worthless
Causalcasual modelChill 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.
50/50 chance of things working out
100% chance of working out at da gym :swole-doge:
Chill Lofi to Vibe and Make Baseless Assumptions About Reality To
Replying to save empirical evidence of Marxism
starred and saved, gigabased post
So this person has never actually talked to a marxist.
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
Popper/Kuhn brain is a powerful drug.
I know how Popper is responsible for these brainworms - but how is Kuhn implicated?
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.
deleted by creator
Yes, indeed. But saying you know shit about epistemology and then masterfully show how shit you are at it makes me wonder why even say you are good at epistemology specifically to begin with.
Why not just: “Yeah I do the philosophies and let me tell you bombing the third world if anglo pigs don’t get enough treats is good and ethical and very philosophy”
deleted by creator
I mean, the most likely thing is that he is the most typical kind of anti-marxist, an anti-marxist that has never actually read Marx.
deleted by creator
Tbh, am not reading Mises nor Friedman nor any other of those lizard court jesters.
I don’t work at the philosophy factory tho.
I like my models to be casual, ya know, nothing too fancy
If you’re going to be sneering about people looking dumb you should probably spell causal correctly lol
Doing science but the cia keeps sneaking into your lab and overthrowing the beakers
You’re complaining about the CIA fucking up all the experiments, but it very clearly warns about bourgeois capitalists acting as a counter-revolutionary force in the experimentation protocol.
Might as well whine about gravity fucking up all your attempts at rocketry.
I whine about gravity if it had a face and an address tbh
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
Seems like molecular biology is unfalsifiable then
Along with vast swaths of fundamental physics. Nobody doing serious philosophy of science is a strict Popperian these days–the Quine-Duhem thesis put the final nail in that coffin 25 years ago.
I think this is mostly a shitpost, because Liam Bright is actually pretty rad. He’s done a bunch of work about how racism and capitalism are inextricably intertwined, and is pretty radical in his positions about philosophy in its current form being basically useless to society, since it doesn’t usually engage with actual social problems.
Ah, good then
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 dude has never heard of a social experiment
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:
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.
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 is just an attack on absolutely everything that isn’t a hard-science based in mathematics. Or poo poo pee pee for short.
Just your average STEM douchebag
Here’s the twist: This guy isn’t a STEM lord, he’s an assistant professor for philosophy.
Well that’s fucking hilarious
Love to “make casual models generating precise predictions” for philosophy problems such as the problem of universals
Fuckin dweeb needs to go back to helping determine the answers to such critical conundrums as “does a haybale exist if you remove five pieces of straw from it”
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:
It evolved with and out of scientific understandings of anthropology, psychology, natural/human history, and ecology. It’s rooted in the same philosophy as science with the same core project of demystifying a physical universe, but approaches that through constructivist rather than reductionist process. Outside of Latinwang and much smaller efforts from within the same system, there is no other critique of science as a structure from a philosophy compatible with a scientific worldview. There is no science to explain the interaction between vastly different systems which predates what Marx was doing or applies as many analytical angles as subsequent Marxists did. Where there is one, it’s neutered by the material interests of its patrons and reduced to passive observation of individual subjects if it’s funded at all.
If there’s a more scientific philosophy I’ve never found it despite searching. There just isn’t meaningful understanding of one thing without understanding its relational opposites. It doesn’t matter if it’s an electron or a river or a factory.
I like my models like I like my relationships, casual. Nothing long term, nothing too clingy.
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.
