|
Finicums Wake posted:the only thing i advocated for was george politzer's book about materialist philosophy. i asked the other guy who mentioned politzer to let us know, itt, whether the other guy's explanation (published by the cursed kerpsbleblap!!) of marxist materialism was good or not. what the gently caress is objectionable about that, you loon? What I gather from this is that you cannot string together the rudiments of an argument, which in itself is fine, I'm drunk and not looking for an argument, but whatever references you toss at our readers, only demonstrate your bankruptcy
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:i laugh every time i read the kersplebedeb in response to me saying, in effect, 'that's a funny name': Pomeroy posted:The guy has to be an asset, just has to be. Even the most pathetic self-hating teenage suburban Third-Worldists would, if they were sincere, know better than to condemn anti-imperialist resistance in the middle east as Fascist. lmao
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:46
|
|
|
is there a good breakdown somewhere of why Alexey Navalny isn't actually a great guy and is only getting all this Western press because he's the nominal opposition to Putin? He's in the news again because he's apparently been poisoned and I want to brush up
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:48
|
|
|
i'm going to have to think on this; it doesn't *feel* like a substantive rebuke of my thesis, but it might be and i will need to examine it for a bit - it feels like your description of physics is a fairly special case, where because progress has stagnated and nobody can formulate an alternative that's coherent with known data and which would generate substantially new hypotheses, you're left with legitimately trying to prove that the present framework is wrong somehow, but this is pinch of salt stuff - effectively, there's no counter-narrative that's at all compelling or useful, and so you're left trying to knock holes in the present narrative. i can accept that under those circumstances, fairly serious falsificationism is the order of the day and revise my earlier statement on the matter (though i don't think i accept it as refuted in a serious way). though as i say, i'll have to mull it over a bit; i know it's a cop out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:49
|
|
|
imo social sciences are so unlike physical sciences that puzzling that out won't tell you anything about how to proceed wrt marxism
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:51
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:i'm going to have to think on this; it doesn't *feel* like a substantive rebuke of my thesis, but it might be and i will need to examine it for a bit - it feels like your description of physics is a fairly special case, where because progress has stagnated and nobody can formulate an alternative that's coherent with known data and which would generate substantially new hypotheses, you're left with legitimately trying to prove that the present framework is wrong somehow, but this is pinch of salt stuff - effectively, there's no counter-narrative that's at all compelling or useful, and so you're left trying to knock holes in the present narrative. i can accept that under those circumstances, fairly serious falsificationism is the order of the day and revise my earlier statement on the matter (though i don't think i accept it as refuted in a serious way). though as i say, i'll have to mull it over a bit; i know it's a cop out. It's definitely gotten more serious, but again, falsificationism has been a thing during the physical revolution spurred by Einstein. You had scientists like Curie, de Broglie, Bohr, Heisenberg, our pinko boy Einstein, Lorentz, Wilson, Pauli - all making extremely bleeding edge theories about the nature of reality. Within 10-20-30 years we had managed to test most of their insane theories precisely because of the overwhelming pressure to falsify as much as possible. Einstein famously considered pushing the theory of the cosmological constant his biggest blunder - and it was not actually because it was such a big mistake. If anything, the constant pops up because you're doing an equivalent to integration in the general relativity framework at one step, and if anything, the bigger error was in the start, when he forgot to put it in. Mathematically speaking, it belongs there, even though it feels physically weird. No, he considered it his biggest blunder because he pushed it using his considerable authority in face of evidence against him, and thus slowed down the progress of what ended up becoming the Big Bang theory. This was considered a Big Deal and a completely anti-scientific mistake even then. dex_sda fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:54
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:the only thing i advocated for was george politzer's book about materialist philosophy. i asked the other guy who mentioned politzer to let us know, itt, whether the other guy's explanation (published by the cursed kerpsbleblap!!) of marxist materialism was good or not. what the gently caress is objectionable about that, you loon? Why in god's name should anyone care? Just do anyone who knows you a favor and die. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:57
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:Why in god's name should anyone care? Just do anyone who knows you a favor and die. dude chill out
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 09:59
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:dude chill out gently caress that. if an honest person comes to talk, I'll be patient with them, and I'll beg them for forgiveness if I'm uncivil, but I'd sooner take a bolt to the cranium than imitate a Disney extra Pomeroy fucked around with this message at 10:05 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 10:03
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:Why in god's name should anyone care? Just do anyone who knows you a favor and die. someone said 'i'm reading a book, it's like politzer's but might be better.' i said 'tell us itt if it is better. also, here's a link to politzer's book.' you've been having a meltdown about this exchange for a while. you already said you're drunk, so please just chill
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 10:04
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:is there a good breakdown somewhere of why Alexey Navalny isn't actually a great guy and is only getting all this Western press because he's the nominal opposition to Putin? He's in the news again because he's apparently been poisoned and I want to brush up Navalny calls folks from the Caucasus cockroaches. He's a vicious neoliberal son of a bitch, but please, don't let me stop anyone, I hope all the degenerates on reddit who chase after his sack get to catch up with him in one mass grave or another
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 10:13
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:dude chill out You're not worth an answer, just cower and shake where you stand, you loving poodle impersonating a man. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) Pomeroy fucked around with this message at 10:53 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 10:16
|
|
|
@VIL: So I'll actually show a couple pages from Einstein because this subject makes my inner nerd go, in favor of showing how even in 1915~ physics treated falsifiability as a big deal: the foundational text of the theory of general relativity is Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, published in 1916. It bears mentioning that Einstein published bits and pieces of his theory before this, but this was the big boy, probably the biggest intellectual achievement of humanity, with very few citations (weird for science even then) - as if Einstein had conceived the theory ex nihilo. It consists of 5 chapters. Chapter A is the relativity principle, a foundational philosophical principle of our universe from which the laws come forth. Chapter B is establishing the physically meaningful theory of tensor mathematics, Chapter C is applying those to a material curved geometry of spacetime. Chapter D is a couple models to show that GR explains, for instance, the mysterious form of Maxwell's equations. And finally the moneyshot, the way Einstein finishes his magnum opus: Chapter E is Newton's Theory as a First Approximation. It shows that GR supercedes Newton's theories thanks to better accuracy, immediately also showing why Newton's theories were so effective up to this point. And in the last section, we get Behaviour of measuring rods and clocks in a statical gravitation-field. Curvature of light-rays. Perihelion-motion of the paths of the Planets. This is an entire chapter dedicated to showing what can be used to falsify the theory. Einstein explains using his theory the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, a question that has been unsolved in physics for decades and the primary motivation for the development of the theory. If your suggestion that falsifiability is not a big deal were true, this is where the text would stop - however Einstein calculates exactly how much time will 'slow down' for the observer of a clock - allowing not just a test when clocks got sufficiently accurate to do it, but also showing the exact test that you could do to find out if the theory was correct. The paragraph ends with "Therefore the clock goes slowly when it is placed in the neighbourhood of ponderable masses. It follows from this that the spectral lines in the light coming to us from the surfaces of big stars should appear shifted towards the red end of the spectrum" - a completely falsifiable hypothesis. Similarly, the deflection of light in this theory is calculated, and the paragraph ends with another measurable hypothesis: "A ray of light just grazing the sun would suffer a bending of 1.7 seconds of arc, whereas one coming by Jupiter would have a deviation of about 0.02 seconds of arc." This allowed Eddington to verify experimentally the theory during a solar eclipse as early as 1919. So even Einstein, who as said was prone to pushing his theories too hard in spite of evidence, and who was a bit of a bad boy when it came to doing science, finished his magnum opus with very specific and very verifiable predictions that would instantly falsify his theories. I think that speaks volumes to how stringent the physical standard was a century ago already. dex_sda fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 10:27
|
|
|
Yes that post was more because I love general relativity so much I gently caress it, not to really argue that you're necessarily super wrong (I agree with your thesis in many non-physical sciences), what of it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 10:31
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:gently caress that. if an honest person comes to talk, I'll be patient with them, and I'll beg them for forgiveness if I'm uncivil, but I'd sooner take a bolt to the cranium than imitate a Disney extra i'm not sure what you're so pissed off at, and no one else has a loving clue either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 10:47
|
|
|
dex_sda posted:@VIL: So I'll actually show a couple pages from Einstein because this subject makes my inner nerd go, in favor of showing how even in 1915~ physics treated falsifiability as a big deal: the foundational text of the theory of general relativity is Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, published in 1916. It bears mentioning that Einstein published bits and pieces of his theory before this, but this was the big boy, probably the biggest intellectual achievement of humanity, with very few citations (weird for science even then) - as if Einstein had conceived the theory ex nihilo. i think you're reading into my position something that isn't there. i am by no means suggesting that scientists do not try to make predictions and then test them against reality, i'm saying that in the progress of normal science the project is not to actively attempt to refute a theoretic framework as far as it can be refuted, the project is to try to explore reality and produce knowledge that meets some industry standard. this goes back to some idiosyncracies of popper's doctrine of science, which is what i'm arguing against - briefly, popper will say that because the only thing you can know is negative - i.e. you can say "X leads to Y and X", then if you don't have Y the statement is wrong. to popper, this is the only sort of knowledge that can be relied upon, it's the only statement about the world which can be seen as scientific. my point is that this is not what's going on in most science, and by your account it's not what einstein's doing either - einstein's pretty confident that he's right, and he's setting out some tests that can be checked empirically. not to do this would indeed be deeply irresponsible for a scientist; in the life sciences as well, a theory does need to have some downstream application or to be concretely useful in some way that prior theory was not, such as by being able to generate predictions or by explaining observations that were not previously explained. to popper, science is the project specifically of seeking out inconsistencies and tearing down theory - a statement about reality which cannot be conclusively shown to be true or untrue is by definition unscientific, which is where you start having serious friction with the life sciences' practice of science - life sciences, like marxism in some respects, are mostly sciences relating to tendencies, dispositions and potential. you do not falsify evolution by pointing to the bird of paradise, you invent the principle of sexual selection. formal modelling work has ben undertaken to try to buttress this, to some success but not total; all we know is that those loving birds are out there and surviving somehow with their ridciulous plumage. basically my statement about falsifiability is more limited than i think you're assuming - of course science tries to make predictions and explanations of reality, that's what the whole project's about, and the more specific you can get the better. the point is that something like marxism, which is also a doctrine of tendencies more than about one-to-one laws, claims a mantle of scienticity based on its making sense of the world and making general predictions - popper's big objection is precisely that because there's no obvious failure point of the theory, it's pseudo-scientific, but by that same standard so is evolutionary theory. now, popper himself waffled a bit on the topic of evolution, but the point is that a theory clearly doesn't need a precise and specific failure point in order to be scientifically valid. now, you can rescue weaker senses of falsificationism and that is, indeed, useful as a method of science, but hardly anyone takes its deeper implication - that one needs some entirely specific make-or-break prediction in order for one's work to be science - seriously, in my experience. that would require scientists to construct a theoretical framework and then actively and sincerely seek to undermine it, and that's not how humans work. e. the reason i'm given pause by your description of contemporary physics is because it sounds as though there's no obvious way forward apart from pushing our present framework as far as it'll go, i.e. there's very limited other new knowledge to produce, so in that framework it makes more sense that people are pushed into thinking specifically in terms of falsification V. Illych L. fucked around with this message at 10:54 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 10:50
|
|
|
if my objection here seems tawdry, it's because it is; this whole way of doing philosophy is imo pretty tawdry. popper makes up a theory to explain why marxism isn't a science, and is left without a good answer to one of the biggest scientific endeavours of the modern era, because of a dependence on a rather dubious formal relation which is the only way he found to formalise a criterion by which he could dismiss marxism. you can even make some fairly specific predictions based on the marxist project! you can try to measure things like the rate of profit (it should trend negative over time), the profitability of ownership versus labour (see piketty, though he's not working in a marxian framework) and a whole swathe of stuff connected to imperialism and development. what you don't have is a single, specific failure point where you can say, aha, the rate of profit in such-and-such sector went up for a week, therefore marx is wrong, and that is the sort of falsificationary formalism i'm arguing against.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:03
|
|
|
Didn't popper himself argue against "naive falsificationism", that is the idea that a theory needs to provide a mechanism for falsification, because you can't really make a prediction without assuming the correctness of many adjacent theories? I might be misattributing. Also, that focus on popper is pretty much an anglo thing. Most scientific marxists were more concerned with humbold's definiton then popper's. Because of that focus on popper, I also feel that calling life science, medicine, economics and a lot of other disciplines science is wrong. Even if you are translating from a language where they are the equivalent thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:05
|
|
|
I guess what my point of contention is that I don't see the difference between your conception of falsifiability and mine. By that standard, I feel physics has been obsessed with falsifiability way before we reached the dead end. What I think is actually going on is not that physics is like that because of the dead end, but because it is so rooted in the material reality. There is not much to argue, because the universe will be your final arbiter, so we make theories in the way that allows us to throw away junk quickly. By comparison, Marxism is non-falsifiable because it is a social science with too many interlocking variables to tract, no matter how rooted in material dialectism it is. In that sense yes, it is less stringent and by necessity, the falsifiability will be weaker. There is a branch of exploratory physics that we call metaphysics in the science itself. It concerns itself with theories that are less falsifiable, and over there speculation is more common. Multiverses, Copenhagen vs many worlds, stuff like that. But it is explicitly called differently because it is not THE science. e; it is also a point in favor of marxism, since of all conceptions of social science it deals from the material the most. But it's a far cry from science as physics/chemistry are dex_sda fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:07
|
|
|
to bring it back to the issue of analytical philosophy in general, this poo poo happens all the time because of the need to isolate some fragment of truth which is indisputable, which again leads to some deeply weird poo poo which is of extremely dubious use, which defeats the whole point of thinking about things in the first place. the point becomes the specific integrity of the thought rather than its relation to the phenomenon being examined, which is how you end up with a huge number of papers exploring the most tedious poo poo about what exactly you're referring to when you say "it's o'er yonder"
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:08
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Didn't popper himself argue against "naive falsificationism", that is the idea that a theory needs to provide a mechanism for falsification, because you can't really make a prediction without assuming the correctness of many adjacent theories? I might be misattributing. of course; popper was a smart guy, and he naturally saw a lot of the weaknesses of his own doctrine and worked to limit some of the most obvious issues etc; i'm paraphrasing, imo fairly because popper really did never formulate a satisfactory account of evolution. re: the focus on popper, i'm using him as a representative of the anglo tendency of analytical formalism and criticising it through him. this whole discussion started with me being grumpy at finicums wake's forays into analytical marxism
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:14
|
|
|
VictualSquid posted:Because of that focus on popper, I also feel that calling life science, medicine, economics and a lot of other disciplines science is wrong. Even if you are translating from a language where they are the equivalent thing. I would agree with this. But it bears remembering that treating those things as scientifically as we can is still a good instinct, because scientific method is still our best way to measure and 'know.' You just can't expect to reach the same standard of evidence as physics has.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:17
|
|
|
dex_sda, i think it's more fruitful to think of science in general as a social activity carried out by human beings doing things for human motives, in the concrete social structure of modern academia with its general standards of production, coercion and prestige. i am not and have never been a physicist and have never examined the case with any rigour, but it would sincerely surprise me if the incentives in place significantly differ to the rest of academia. this, of course, is a speculative position and i doubt that we'll get anywhere by restating our positions at each other
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:21
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:dex_sda, i think it's more fruitful to think of science in general as a social activity carried out by human beings doing things for human motives, in the concrete social structure of modern academia with its general standards of production, coercion and prestige. i am not and have never been a physicist and have never examined the case with any rigour, but it would sincerely surprise me if the incentives in place significantly differ to the rest of academia. this, of course, is a speculative position and i doubt that we'll get anywhere by restating our positions at each other Fair, but I will state that I have been embedded in two sciences and the standard in physics is much more stringent than in published computer science (yeah I know, I mean the academia computer science not computer touching). It is not devoid of the social follies of coercion and prestige, but it is considerably less infested by that and more interested in doing capital g Good science. For instance, astronomy these days is a very horizontal activity, and there are some papers which literally list like half or even most astronomers in the entire world as authors, despite the fact that only a few made measurements (nearly every observatory on earth aimed their stuff at a certain spot and everyone who did got credited in alphabetical order). e; to say nothing of amateur astronomers outside the system who get published on the strength of their observations dex_sda fucked around with this message at 11:29 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:26
|
|
|
Also one helpful thing is you get to have very strong theories that have huge computational spaces in physics, GR and QFT are the most complex theories we know. So to stave off the pressure of publishing in academia you can take a toy model with constraints that nobody's calculated before and publish that. It's not very useful for pushing science forward but it doesn't hamper it. Contrast with medical science where you need a positive result so you're gonna falsify/massage data under pressure. But this is getting into really specific weeds and far from the origin of the discussion
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:34
|
|
|
as a really broad generalization, i think anxiety over whether we can call marxism "scientific" or not might miss (or clarify) the nature of the material reality we are attempting to understand through marxism for example, the term is "historical materialism," and my main formal education is in history where the marxist tradition is incredibly useful and influential on the one hand, but no one sits down and tries to do psychohistory with dialectics either and i'd be intensely suspicious if anyone tried. e: my favorite thing about popper is that he came up with falsification by looking at logical positivism, which was a philosophical position that he and others had basically spent their careers developing, and saying "this is obviously incoherent" and then figuring out what was wrong with it. Hodgepodge fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 11:50
|
|
|
i think marxism should be scientific in a relative sense, i.e. relative to other disciplines it overlaps with. so marxism should seek to be as scientific as, say, other sociological theories, or economic theories, or historical theories. that's why i think that all the talk about physics is misguided, for no social or historical theory will ever reach the sort of predictive or explanatory powers that we see in our best physical theories edit: this raises the question: what, then, sets marxism apart from sociology, economics, history etc. my answer is that there's nothing in principle--no unbridgeable gap--that sets these apart. marxism is unique in that it asks a certain set of questions and looks at a certain set of phenomena, but there's no methodological gulf between marxism and the other disciplines that study this stuff Finicums Wake fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Aug 20, 2020 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 12:17
|
|
|
Finicums Wake posted:i think marxism should be scientific in a relative sense, i.e. relative to other disciplines it overlaps with. so marxism should seek to be as scientific as, say, other sociological theories, or economic theories, or historical theories. that's why i think that all the talk about physics is misguided, for no social or historical theory will ever reach the sort of predictive or explanatory powers that we see in our best physical theories Yes, I agree with that. I just wanted to push back against the idea that there aren't very rigorous sciences. There are, but they have a more direct root in measurable reality
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 12:20
|
|
|
If you're going to treat Marxism or socialism as a science, the basic test you can put those things to is, how good is their predictive power? Modern economics has poo poo predictive power and is wrong all the loving time, so not really a science in any appreciable sense. Socialism as a means of allocating resources has to be at least better than that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:If you're going to treat Marxism or socialism as a science, the basic test you can put those things to is, how good is their predictive power? i think both explanation and prediction are important for how a theory 'grasps' reality. then the theory itself can be subjected to tests of coherence and parsimony and maybe other theoretical virtues marxism seems, to me, broadly predictive in the long run, which makes it no worse than more orthodox theories. but i think trying to get a marxist theory of the economy to predict, say, when exactly the next recession will happen is chasing after an unachievable goal. being as as predictive as conventional macoecon isn't hard, because its predictive power is weak, so marxists should start there, but focus on tight explanations, especially ones that would be enlightening to the proletariat
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 12:30
|
|
|
4 the record one thing that both this book and gyorgy lucaks agree on so far is that applying dialectical materialism to the natural sciences isn’t necessarily correct. I haven’t read his Hostory and Class Consciousness yet but i really should get around to it soon. Also Pomeroy posted:I almost missed that, Torkil Lauesen, my god, a failed Scandinavian bank-robber turned Third Worldist, shouldn't the Norwegian sex-criminals who denounced Mao as as first worldist have turned you off? Ah, but that would require a capacity for shame, wouldn't it? The book so far has expressed the importance of maos contribution to Marxist theory, but my apologies for reading the problematic bank robber🥺 certainly no bank robber has ever made an important contribution to dialectical thought. maybe I should’ve started reading my new book from samir amin instead so you could yell at me about pol pot or whatever
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:You're not worth an answer, just cower and shake where you stand, you loving poodle impersonating a man. it’s okay to drunk post imo but not if you’re an angry drunk like this
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
Pomeroy posted:You're not worth an answer, just cower and shake where you stand, you loving poodle impersonating a man. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DieyzCVTMog
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 15:19
|
|
|
I hope everyone is having a good morning!!
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
"could you explain it to me like I'm five years old?" [explaination] "could you explain it to me like I'm an american?" [explaination] "could you explain it to me like I'm a five-year-old american?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 15:45
|
|
|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:"could you explain it to me like I'm five years old?" Do you mean something in particular here? Falsification chat is interesting but also really abstract
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Do you mean something in particular here? Falsification chat is interesting but also really abstract no, more of an attempt at self-effacing humor and a comment about how i find myself in over my head.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:is there a good breakdown somewhere of why Alexey Navalny isn't actually a great guy and is only getting all this Western press because he's the nominal opposition to Putin? He's in the news again because he's apparently been poisoned and I want to brush up Yeah, he is running to the right of Putin including being anti immigrant and pro-privatization. Also, he is big on anti-corruption but has some shadiness in his past. Basically, his videos are usually right about how' laughably corrupt the Kremlin is, but he would most likely be worse than Yeltsin if he was in power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 16:28
|
|
|
marxism is the science of political economy and class conflict, while leninism is specifically the science of proletarian revolution which springboards off those two other things. marxism IS falsifiable - there was a good revleftradio or maybe red menace podcast about this where brett listed a few things that would instantly disprove marxism or at least demand an enormous rework of marxism's base assumptions, like really-existing anarchocapitalism or a liberal state which was able to indefinitely resolve class conflict and didn't generate fascist undercurrents the problem with the immortal science is that it kind of sits in the same place as, say, astronomy or plate tectonics. it's the study of enormous, world-spanning forces that can't really tightly controlled or replicated under lab conditions, so "research" mostly consists of an empirical analysis of the historical record and not tidy experiments with control groups
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
and even from a sociological standpoint, there's a hell of a lot of variables to account for concerning social experiments (e.g. culture, upbringing, individual participant's state of mind, etc) that would also have problems with being able to reproduce results. human race, land of contrasts, ect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2020 18:22
|
|