(Thread IKs:
dead gay comedy forums)
|
Celot posted:No, it either can’t explain ISIS or it can explain every hypothetical. what the gently caress does this mean lmao
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
What's the deal with the spiral? What are they spiraling towards? Each other?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 18:56
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:What's the deal with the spiral? What are they spiraling towards? Each other? it is a system of feedback loops, here presented in broad abstract strokes to convey an idea
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 18:57
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:What's the deal with the spiral? What are they spiraling towards? Each other? freedom 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 18:58
|
|
|
Jon Joe posted:Would it be safe to say your prior is that Marxism is insufficient? No, Marxism is invalid. It takes something that should be a contingent truth, an observation, and makes it an assumption instead. Like we could look at some event or movement and ask, “Is this because of material conditions?” Someone earlier posted about how Iraqis killing US troops can be explained by the material condition of having been bombed for years - a very reasonable approach. But instead it would have us say, “I will find the material conditions even if I have to invent them.” For example the explanations that religious fundamentalism is a consequence of imperialism. If you do this, then your theory can explain any hypothetical, and it’s useless and invalid.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:What's the deal with the spiral? What are they spiraling towards? Each other? its like that junji ito comic where the longer the spiraling goes on that lady's face (the working class) gets more and more hosed up (I think "spiral" as opposed to "circular" or whatever comes directly from Marx and I think it's ultimately due to a bad translation choice)
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 18:59
|
|
|
Celot posted:But instead it would have us say, “I will find the material conditions even if I have to invent them.” For example the explanations that religious fundamentalism is a consequence of imperialism. If you do this, then your theory can explain any hypothetical, and it’s useless and invalid. lmao
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Celot posted:No, Marxism is invalid. It takes something that should be a contingent truth, an observation, and makes it an assumption instead. Cause and effect itself is an assumption, if you're not comfortable with making base assumptions then the only thing left is literal unknowable chaos which is a fair argument but not a very long conversation
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
Celot posted:No, Marxism is invalid. It takes something that should be a contingent truth, an observation, and makes it an assumption instead. This argument invalidates the scientific method. If it weren't completely full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
if your so-called science can explain every instance of the tides going in and out it's useless and invalid!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:01
|
|
|
indigi posted:by your explicitly stated criteria, so is evolution I don’t think so. How so?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:02
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:if your so-called science can explain every instance of the tides going in and out it's useless and invalid! No you misunderstand me. If science could explain tides and not-tides given otherwise the same observations, then it would be useless.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
Celot posted:But instead it would have us say, “I will find the material conditions even if I have to invent them.” For example the explanations that religious fundamentalism is a consequence of imperialism. If you do this, then your theory can explain any hypothetical, and it’s useless and invalid. religious fundamentalism exists in many places, but it is not necessarily the motive force for resistance everywhere. it is in afghanistan, for example, because communist left forces in the country were physically annihilated with aid from the united states of america. fundamentalist forces had their full support with financial backing from KSA, and on the ground military support and havens from pakistan
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
Celot posted:No you misunderstand me. If science could explain tides and not-tides given otherwise the same observations, then it would be useless. tides and not tides have the same explanation of gravitational pull what are you saying what is going on I'm not even a diehard and your argument confounds and frustrates me
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Good Soldier Svejk posted:Why choose i am going to google this and if this single part!!! is longer than the original pamphlet i'm gonna be mad and it is over 50% the length of the whole work. im mildly annoyed
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:04
|
|
|
Celot posted:Then class interests can explain any hypothetical, and it stops being useful or meaningful. You’re taking it as a base assumption instead of an observed fact. Celot posted:The problem is now that the theory can be applied to any hypothetical situation. It can explain too much. Like resorting to God to explain the diversity of life. replace “god” with “evolution” and it’s precisely the same argument, given that we resort to evolution to explain the diversity of life
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:What's the deal with the spiral? What are they spiraling towards? Each other? a rough beast slouching towards Bethlehem to be born
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:05
|
|
|
The immortal science seems to have been defeated when asked to explain tides. Big yikes
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:06
|
|
|
Celot posted:No you misunderstand me. If science could explain tides and not-tides given otherwise the same observations, then it would be useless. I understand you perfectly you fuckin dingus lmao
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Celot posted:No you misunderstand me. If science could explain tides and not-tides given otherwise the same observations, then it would be useless. You can't just skim one Karl Popper Wikipedia article and think you have defeated literally all of science. If you hate observable truth, you should try Socrates. Edit: or Descartes
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:09
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:If the existence of tides and the lack of tides are both explained by the same theory, that's a point in it's favor. If a theory were to predict that there should ALWAYS be tides and then we found a pond that didn't have any, that would require said theory to either be revised or discarded. Alternatively, listening to Jeff Goldblum's chaos theory diatribe from Jurassic Park enough times does not make you a scientist or a philosopher
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
Celot posted:No you misunderstand me. If science could explain tides and not-tides given otherwise the same observations, then it would be useless. so do you expect the scientific process involves throwing out all accepted knowledge at the first unexpected observation, or is it more likely that maybe they think about it for a few moments first and see if maybe it actually does fit in with previous theories
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:its like that junji ito comic where the longer the spiraling goes on that lady's face (the working class) gets more and more hosed up it's just recursive, don't dwell on it too much and just know it likes to play itself as a perpetual motion device
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
Good Soldier Svejk posted:tides and not tides have the same explanation of gravitational pull I think you mean that not-tides are explained by gravity in a different situation where there is no moon or where the body of water isn’t big enough for our explanation to apply. The gravitational pull of the moon explains tides in large bodies of water. It doesn’t explain not-tides in large bodies of water. If we saw not-tides, we would have to reject the theory that the gravitational pull of the moon causes tides. Our belief in the theory is contingent on what we see. If instead our theory were that “the gravitational pull of the moon explains tides in large bodies of water and not tides in those same bodies of water” that would be a useless theory. It can explain too much. Like… a scientific theory that predicts A and not not-A is useful. If it predicts A or not-A, then it’s useless. Marxism can explain A or not-A. Sometimes we see a rise of religious fundamentalism, and sometimes we don’t, given otherwise similar material conditions. Marxism purports to explain both. indigi posted:replace “god” with “evolution” and it’s precisely the same argument, given that we resort to evolution to explain the diversity of life No, evolution can only explain certain observations. If we saw different observations, evolution would not explain that. Not true for using God as the explanation.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:16
|
|
|
Celot posted:Marxism can explain A or not-A. Sometimes we see a rise of religious fundamentalism, and sometimes we don’t, given otherwise similar material conditions. Marxism purports to explain both. that's a load-bearing "similar" if I ever saw one Celot posted:No, evolution can only explain certain observations. If we saw different observations, evolution would not explain that. Not true for using God as the explanation. that's what Marxism does. it's a falsifiable theory. congratulations
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:If the existence of tides and the lack of tides are both explained by the same theory, that's a point in it's favor. If a theory were to predict that there should ALWAYS be tides and then we found a pond that didn't have any, that would require said theory to either be revised or discarded. No, if the theory could explain both the existence of tides on earth, orbited by the moon, in the Pacific ocean, that would be a point against. I like observable truth. Not sure how you’re getting the opposite of my points. Trying my best to be clear and unambiguous.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:If you hate observable truth, you should try Socrates. even this is wikipedia-reader thought its was all about discovering and describing the limitations so you could overcome them, not about denying the world existing
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
indigi posted:
I’m glad you approach it that way.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:20
|
|
|
like drat this descarte guy doesn't believe in objective reality, that's why he invented the mathematics that's used in engineering or socrates that fool (really plato), the founder of political science smh
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
a couple things that would falsify marxism, c.f. brett o'shea from rev left radio: -really-existing anarcho-capitalism -liberalism that successfully reconciles class conflict and does not give rise to fascism -a class society with no repressive state apparatus
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:23
|
|
|
indigi posted:that's a load-bearing "similar" if I ever saw one If we don’t get to call similar conditions similar, then we’re stuck back with an unfasifiable theory.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
Celot posted:If we don’t get to call similar conditions similar, then we’re stuck back with an unfasifiable theory. "similar" is such a weasel word when applied to societal conditions that it's functionally meaningless and I don't understand how you can claim to value scientific rigor and falsifiable theories while using such asinine terminology
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
Celot posted:If we don’t get to call similar conditions similar, then we’re stuck back with an unfasifiable theory. i might have missed it, what are the similar sets of material conditions that have given rise to ISIS in one case but not in a second case that you think falsify marxism
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:30
|
|
|
indigi posted:"similar" is such a weasel word when applied to societal conditions that it's functionally meaningless and I don't understand how you can claim to value scientific rigor and falsifiable theories while using such asinine terminology If societal conditions can’t be meaningfully similar, then we can never check whether our theory holds or not.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:34
|
|
|
indigi posted:I don't understand how with the immortal science, i do quote:If you take as a given that everything is class struggle see this right here? your words come from outside the cave and celot is fighting a projection from the inside of it
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:i might have missed it, what are the similar sets of material conditions that have given rise to ISIS in one case but not in a second case that you think falsify marxism Being totally hosed up by war and poverty in Russia and being totally hosed up by war and poverty in Iraq.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:39
|
|
|
Brain Candy posted:with the immortal science, i do You’re welcome to post your objections.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Celot posted:Being totally hosed up by war and poverty in Russia and being totally hosed up by war and poverty in Iraq. Do you think Russians didn't do the equivalent of what we would call terror attacks during their numerous uprisings and revolutions?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:40
|
|
|
Good Soldier Svejk posted:Do you think Russians didn't do the equivalent of what we would call terror attacks during their numerous uprisings and revolutions? Sure. Do you think they established an Islamic state?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Celot posted:Being totally hosed up by war and poverty in Russia and being totally hosed up by war and poverty in Iraq. lol.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2021 19:41
|
|
