3 ms·

You do realize that all of the people you dismissed as radicals -- Marx et al. -- more or less claimed the same thing? That they had a scientific or objective a

• mjburgess 3y ago
  Yes, but i'm not advancing a particular theory -- only, at best the criteria for such a theory. The fashion for these theories is predictive power -- but this is unscientific when applied to complex systems of this kind. The error of marx et al. was to suppose that dialectical materialism is a possibility -- this mistakes the kind of phenomenon that history is -- we have learned, after marx, that maxism isnt even a possible theory today, we need to show we have learned these lessons
  • pphysch 3y ago
    Dialectical materialism is a powerful epistemological framework. It's a far better model than any alternative I'm aware of. > we have learned, after marx, that maxism isnt even a possible theory Are you referring to Popper? Have you actually read him? It's easy to say "Popper debunked Marxism" but his line of reasoning is flimsy at best.
    • mjburgess 3y ago
      Not popper, but chaos theory and the like. A swirling glass of coffee isnt subject to 'coffee-bean materialism' let alone the morass of history. What science teaches us, of late, is the radical limits of science. Any prognostictor of society, coming along, and 'reading its temperature' is automatically a fraud. Marx gets a pass. My view is that if marx had lived long eough, he'd be here today as a sceptical capitalist, long beyond the habit of prediction.