Has anyone else noticed a trend among leftwing circles (even this one to some degree) to admonish, or, diminish the necessity of science over all? I understand we are all, basically, in agreement, par some marginal cases, that, say, global warming is a real phenomena that is exacerbated by the motions of capitalism, however, I have noticed also, to a degree, people, or, leftists who try to reduce, or, marginalize the importance, of, say, astronomy and the work that we put in as people into understanding the origins of the universe, or, understanding things like What Dark Energy and Matter are/is.77 posts and 4 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
To me such things are necessary for understanding our origins and where we want to go as people. Considering that the expansion of the universe is going to make astronomy impossible in the coming centuries I think it's actually pretty important we answer the big questions right here and right now.
We may not have another opportunity to do so.
I can't say for certain that this is happening, or, that this is anything, but, my own personal experience, but, I can't help but shake the feeling that the left has, at best an under-appreciation for the natural sciences and at worst an out right denial of them.
Has anyone else noticed this on the left or is it just me?
>>292320>>292411>>292384>>292354>>292379>>313541Philosophy in the 20th Century > Isolated in their ivory towers, the academics pass their lives writing obscure theses which are read, and sometimes answered, by other academics. Few people understand what they write. Fewer still care a damn. Like some antiquated priest-caste with its own secret language, comprehensible only to the initiated, they resort to all kinds of symbols and jargon, which seems deliberately designed not to be understood. >Ever since Marxism emerged as a significant force, challenging the existing order, the Establishment has declared war on every aspect of Marxist ideology, starting with dialectical materialism. The very mention of Marxism is guaranteed to provoke a knee-jerk reaction in such circles. "Out of date," "unscientific," "disproved long ago," "metaphysics," and all the rest of the threadbare and tiresome litany. Not only are Marx and Engels persona non grata in the hallowed halls of the philosophy department, but poor old Hegel, who was once hailed as the philosopher’s philosopher par excellence, is subjected to a quite shameful conspiracy of silence. >If we leave aside a few mavericks, such as Henri Bergson, John Dewey, George Santayana and A. N. Whitehead, the great bulk of modern Western philosophy falls into just a couple of categories. On the one hand we have the subjectivist schools related to existentialism, on the other, the various brands of "logical positivism," including linguistic philosophy. The former trend has, in general, had more of an echo in the Latin countries, especially France. The latter, until quite recently, enjoyed widespread support in the Anglo-Saxon world. We shall devote most of our attention to it, because of its pretensiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>313646Positivism and the Crisis of Western CivilizationThe Epistemological Support of Totalitarianism>Every step forward on the way toward substituting more efficient methods of production for the obsolete methods of the precapitalistic ages met with fanatical hostility on the part of those whose vested interests were in the short run hurt by any innovation. The landed interest of the aristocrats was no less anxious to preserve the economic system of the ancien régime than were the rioting workingmen who destroyed machines and demolished factory buildings. But the cause of innovation was supported by the new science of political economy, while the cause of the obsolete methods of production lacked a tenable ideological basis.
>As all the attempts to prevent the evolution of the factory system and its technological accomplishments aborted, the syndicalist idea began to take shape. Throw out the entrepreneur, that lazy and useless parasite, and hand over all the proceeds—the "whole produce of labor"—to the men who create them by their toil! But even the most bigoted enemies of the new industrial methods could not fail to realize the inadequacy of these schemes. Syndicalism remained the philosophy of illiterate mobs and got the approbation of intellectuals only much later in the guise of British Guild Socialism, Italian Fascism's stato corporativo, and twentieth-century "labor economics" and labor union politics.4
>The great anticapitalistic device was socialism, not syndicalism. But there was something that embarrassed the socialist parties from the early beginnings of their propaganda, their inability to refute the criticism that their schemes met on the part of economics. Fully aware of his impotence in this regard, Karl Marx resorted to a subterfuge. He and his followers, down to those who called their doctrines "sociology of knowledge," tried to discredit economics by their spurious ideology-concept. As the Marxians see it, in a "class society" men are inherently unfit to conceive theories that are a substantially true description of reality. A man's thoughts are necessarily tainted "ideologically." An ideology, in the Marxian sense of the term, is a false doctrine, which, however, precisely onPost too long. Click here to view the full text.
>>313654 > “To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.
> “Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
> “Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders’ attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.
-John Galt Speech, Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. 1957 https://amberandchaos.net/?page_id=73
compare to The ABC of Materialist Dialectics - Leon Trotsky(December 1939)>Dialectic is neither fiction nor mysticism, but a science of the forms of our thinking insofar as it is not limited to the daily problems of life but attempts to arrive at an understanding of more complicated and drawn-out processes. The dialectic and formal logic bear a relationship similar to that between higher and lower mathematics.Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
In case it isn't clear yet.
A ≠ A. This contradicts the fundamental law of identity.
Formal logic is bourgeoisie science.
The principles of Contradiction and Excluded Middle are directly opposed to materialist dialectics.
The First Law of Dialectics is unity and contradiction of opposites.
Read Mao.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/Post too long. Click here to view the full text.
Physics is not inherently useless, a lot current developments come from them, like transistors, it's just that current physics, or at least a lot of it is just trying chase beauty, and trying to "improve" a theory that already is correct to 16 decimal places, not by studying its contradictions or flaws, but by trying to simplify some equations and make them "nicer", when the universe in itself need not have "nice" equations. And trying to invest time in grand unifying theories that cannot be proven ever, and don't address fundamental problems.
The best examples are string theory, multiverse interpretations of quantum mechanics, super simetry, all of which either introduce shit we know almost for sure it ain't real, or shit that can't be disproven, or that was refuted in the 90s and now they keep coping by modifying the theory to make it more plausiblehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ7jwevZbb4
Interestingly enough this is what happens with economics as well, which to me it means that even the "hard" sciences have been stuck in the spectacle in the modern times, and they are not as sacred as we stemlords would like them to be