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.
I know how Popper is responsible for these brainworms - but how is Kuhn implicated?
This guy is, somehow, a social epistemologist, and if you read between the lines he's using the standard Kuhn/Popper synthesis everyone gets taught is "real" science if you don't take a HPoS course.
Kuhn's experimental work is fine, but his framework of science as a series of Paradigms is undialectical and doesn't really grasp the complexity of the contradictions and how they are resolved in science-as-social-activity.
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"
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.
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've read them (Hayek is better tbh) and I've even had the sobering experience of reading Rand ("Imagine a person who fled the USSR before they could make them fully literate try and explain Nietzsche as explained by half understood letters from his Nazi Sister")
They're possibly useful in triggering deeper thought though.
Am not reading "let poor people die" apologia. I don't want to "debate" what must be silenced with rifles.
They are all court jesters of pedophile lizards, usually pedophiles themselves, or just insufferable chinless white nerds at best.
This tweet was not arrived at by iterative testing of a causal model. As such, I must discard it as unscientific and therefore worthless
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
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.
During the execution of the last capitalist Ashton Kutcher appears around a corner to reveal the hidden cameras
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:
This is just an attack on absolutely everything that isn't a hard-science based in mathematics. Or poo poo pee pee for short.
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.
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:
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"
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.
Stafford Beer also arrived at this conclusion (accidentally too). Then actually put it in practice in Chile before the coup
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
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
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.
If you're going to be sneering about people looking dumb you should probably spell causal correctly lol
I know I wasn't talking about you I was talking about whoever tweeted this
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.
Fighting capitalism is like fighting cancer, you need to extirpate the tumors, kill the metastases and immunize the body against more metastases.
I like my models like I like my relationships, casual. Nothing long term, nothing too clingy.
just reinterpret Hegel
he doesn't know about historical materialism
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.
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.
It also started at the same time the physical sciences were formalizing. But the prevailing, imperialistic, capitalist society couldn't have demystification of itself. It kept the old enlightenment brainworms. In an attempt to keep up the ruse you started getting wacky race science to explain outcomes of imperialism and industrialization. The world was viewed as purely mechanistic because that's what reinforced industrial capitalism.
Hegel saw this and so did Lenin. They both wrote about the limitations of liberal science. In the mid-20th century the Soviets tried to start injecting DM into science again. But then, you know, WWII and then The Cold War.
