3 ms·
Nothing you're stating is empirically valid. The framer has no valid framework. There are no such things as empirically valid statements in political science,
by mallowdram 1y ago
Nothing you're stating is empirically valid.
The framer has no valid framework. There are no such things as empirically valid statements in political science, as the field is composed of subjective narratives. There are no such things as political truths.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago> Nothing you're stating is empirically valid. Oh, yes it is, there's history to learn from, just because you're unaware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > The framer has no valid framework. If you understood the comment you replied to, you'd realize that "the framer" there refers to you, so your statement above means "mallowdram has no valid framework". Ironically, it's true - you lack a valid framework because you lack knowledge of logic, history and politics.
- mallowdram 1y agoThere is no relationship between history (which is subjectively narrated), logic (which is an abstraction) and politics (what are arbitrary). If you had an understanding of what history is, you'd understand it has no scientific validity. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537995/how-history-gets-things-wrong/ https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262537995/how-history-gets-thin... As there is no scientific basis for history, and there is no logic to politics (it is irrational), nothing stated by Alexander is valid.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago[flagged]
- mallowdram 1y agoI'm an anthropologist who's delivered papers at the presidential level at the AAA, which outside of authoring monographs is about as high as it gets. Now I'm training to be a neurobiologist. Not only do I know what science and logic is, it becomes obvious you're not trained in these.