- 22 May 2010 20:28
#13398198
Evolutionary, one might say. I feel like there is something in that, a dialectic between the striving of individual scientists for truth, and the social, political, and economic circumstances which often slow this development.
I've read the "Dialectics4kids" page, and I think it shows that there is some promise to Marxism*- as you can probably guess from above, the Hegelian Dialectic does seem like a useful tool in teleological discussions. On the other hand, Marxism seems to have frozen at Bourgeoisie=Oppressors, Proletarians= Oppressed, and could I think definitely use a revitalization.
Not to say that capitalism has anything that is much better, really. Capitalist Economics is a very narrow field and is really only applicable in certain circumstances (Stable government, fairly continuous level of resource availability, etc.), and is as degenerate as Marxism in the sense that economists are always trying to cover for their incorrect predictions.
*Is Marxism itself perhaps a misnomer? Economics is not called Smith-ism, relativity not Einsteinianism, and Evolution only Darwinism by opponents. Calling it Marxism is akin to calling a religion Christianity- you are tied forever to the originator. Just a thought, but perhaps if Marxism is to be revised as a progressive science, a more progressive name is in order?
Cookie Monster wrote:The development of science is something different than the cognitive basis of science. Many scientific discoveries were by coincidence. Nevertheless they were rational in the sense they had an empirical basis.
Evolutionary, one might say. I feel like there is something in that, a dialectic between the striving of individual scientists for truth, and the social, political, and economic circumstances which often slow this development.
I've read the "Dialectics4kids" page, and I think it shows that there is some promise to Marxism*- as you can probably guess from above, the Hegelian Dialectic does seem like a useful tool in teleological discussions. On the other hand, Marxism seems to have frozen at Bourgeoisie=Oppressors, Proletarians= Oppressed, and could I think definitely use a revitalization.
Not to say that capitalism has anything that is much better, really. Capitalist Economics is a very narrow field and is really only applicable in certain circumstances (Stable government, fairly continuous level of resource availability, etc.), and is as degenerate as Marxism in the sense that economists are always trying to cover for their incorrect predictions.
*Is Marxism itself perhaps a misnomer? Economics is not called Smith-ism, relativity not Einsteinianism, and Evolution only Darwinism by opponents. Calling it Marxism is akin to calling a religion Christianity- you are tied forever to the originator. Just a thought, but perhaps if Marxism is to be revised as a progressive science, a more progressive name is in order?
-Josh
Numbers never lie. People, however, lie often, and use numbers to support their falsehoods. For every statistic, there is an equal and opposite statistic.
Any number not followed by a unit and a source is worth 0 seconds of attention (Me 2011).
Numbers never lie. People, however, lie often, and use numbers to support their falsehoods. For every statistic, there is an equal and opposite statistic.
Any number not followed by a unit and a source is worth 0 seconds of attention (Me 2011).