unfortunately not since everything taught in high school is a lie. the only way to learn things is to read things after graduating (as long as they aren’t written by high school teachers or any other educated person)
They love that tactic and treating it like it means something. Like a libertarian claiming to be experts in capitalism because they’ve read every work of fiction Ayn Rand ever published. And I’m like, it’s great you read and all bro. But do you understand. And inevitability they don’t.
Or they have read things but cannot place it in context eg The Communist Manifesto was a response to problems Marx and Engles saw in capitalism whereas Smith was responding to issues with mercantilism.
Well that and of the ultimate problem when it comes to things of sociology and economics. No matter how many books you’ve read or by who. Having read and commit those books to heart. Means you know nothing more than what the people in those books say. Whether or not we agree with what they say or hold it true. It doesn’t make it true or valuable in itself.
That most ideologies no matter how rational or logical they seem. Are often impractical due to the assumption of rationality and logical thinking.
Your post makes it seem like you think sociology and economics aren’t sciences. Economics in Marx’s time was certainly closer to philosophy but that hasn’t been the case since the 1960s.
The problem the Marxists who are not formally educated in philosophy or science face is that they don’t realize economics in the modern age isn’t concerned with the kinds of thinking Marx engaged in because it isn’t based on empiricism.
They aren’t. Not in the same sense of physics and chemistry for sure. That doesn’t mean that they are without value. It just means that they have no authority to predict anything. Empiricism and determinism are sort of the core of science. If you mix a set proportion of materials at a specific temperature you will always get the same products. An authoritarian a leninist and a Communist walk into a bar. And you’ll get as many different punchlines as there are people who attempt to answer it.
Nothing changed in 1960. Economics is still largely philosophy. With the hindsight those sort of things give we can often try to understand why things might have happened. Maybe even offer insight into something like it perhaps happening again. But certainly not predict it happening. One of the best indicators that economics is largely philosophy. Is the fact that for these last 50 years conservative in the United States to have babbled on incoherently about bullshit supply side economics.
Oh, so you’re one of those. You don’t know anything about modern economics or philosophy if you think the two are even remotely similar.
Seriously a question in modern economics would be “did the tax policy instituted by placeistan in 2008 positively or negatively impact school enrollment?” While a question in philosophy would be “is the tax policy instituted by Placeistan an ethical or nonethical policy?” Those aren’t the same and the only reason why you would think the subjects are similar is if you know nothing about either one.
Im willing to be you know little about what constitutes a science based on the ignorance you have displayed so far.
Prestidigitation is not part of science and it is weird that you think the inability to predict everything is somehow unique to social sciences.
Oh, so you’re one of those. Getting all pissy, unable to address what was said. Instead making accusations and strawmen.
Your example is just silly. That’s just asking someone to make an observation and personal interpretation. How would you justify that interpretation. How would you test that hypothesis? Is it repeatable? Wheres your control group. Economics fails/doesn’t adhere to basic scientific method. And isn’t SCIENCE. No disrespect econ major. It isn’t. It’s a social science. That’s a significant difference. Saying economics is a Science. Full stop. Is like saying your hatchback is a formula 1. Though if you can prove otherwise I’m willing to listen despite your rudeness
Watch out guys, he’s read things.
He knows the origin of the word “totalitarian” without looking it up. Because memorization is obviously the cornerstone of critical thinking
I love that pointing out that a fascist invented it is somehow a gotcha
Tbh that’s one of the few good things Mussolini actually can take credit for. That and converting a bunch of swamps into arable land.
Can’t easily hate something without a proper name for it afterall.
I learned where it came from in high school. Is that checkmate?
unfortunately not since everything taught in high school is a lie. the only way to learn things is to read things after graduating (as long as they aren’t written by high school teachers or any other educated person)
So you looked it up - got you now evil imperialist
They love that tactic and treating it like it means something. Like a libertarian claiming to be experts in capitalism because they’ve read every work of fiction Ayn Rand ever published. And I’m like, it’s great you read and all bro. But do you understand. And inevitability they don’t.
Or they have read things but cannot place it in context eg The Communist Manifesto was a response to problems Marx and Engles saw in capitalism whereas Smith was responding to issues with mercantilism.
Well that and of the ultimate problem when it comes to things of sociology and economics. No matter how many books you’ve read or by who. Having read and commit those books to heart. Means you know nothing more than what the people in those books say. Whether or not we agree with what they say or hold it true. It doesn’t make it true or valuable in itself.
That most ideologies no matter how rational or logical they seem. Are often impractical due to the assumption of rationality and logical thinking.
Your post makes it seem like you think sociology and economics aren’t sciences. Economics in Marx’s time was certainly closer to philosophy but that hasn’t been the case since the 1960s.
The problem the Marxists who are not formally educated in philosophy or science face is that they don’t realize economics in the modern age isn’t concerned with the kinds of thinking Marx engaged in because it isn’t based on empiricism.
They aren’t. Not in the same sense of physics and chemistry for sure. That doesn’t mean that they are without value. It just means that they have no authority to predict anything. Empiricism and determinism are sort of the core of science. If you mix a set proportion of materials at a specific temperature you will always get the same products. An authoritarian a leninist and a Communist walk into a bar. And you’ll get as many different punchlines as there are people who attempt to answer it.
Nothing changed in 1960. Economics is still largely philosophy. With the hindsight those sort of things give we can often try to understand why things might have happened. Maybe even offer insight into something like it perhaps happening again. But certainly not predict it happening. One of the best indicators that economics is largely philosophy. Is the fact that for these last 50 years conservative in the United States to have babbled on incoherently about bullshit supply side economics.
Oh, so you’re one of those. You don’t know anything about modern economics or philosophy if you think the two are even remotely similar.
Seriously a question in modern economics would be “did the tax policy instituted by placeistan in 2008 positively or negatively impact school enrollment?” While a question in philosophy would be “is the tax policy instituted by Placeistan an ethical or nonethical policy?” Those aren’t the same and the only reason why you would think the subjects are similar is if you know nothing about either one.
Im willing to be you know little about what constitutes a science based on the ignorance you have displayed so far.
Prestidigitation is not part of science and it is weird that you think the inability to predict everything is somehow unique to social sciences.
Oh, so you’re one of those. Getting all pissy, unable to address what was said. Instead making accusations and strawmen.
Your example is just silly. That’s just asking someone to make an observation and personal interpretation. How would you justify that interpretation. How would you test that hypothesis? Is it repeatable? Wheres your control group. Economics fails/doesn’t adhere to basic scientific method. And isn’t SCIENCE. No disrespect econ major. It isn’t. It’s a social science. That’s a significant difference. Saying economics is a Science. Full stop. Is like saying your hatchback is a formula 1. Though if you can prove otherwise I’m willing to listen despite your rudeness
take it easy gamers, be all nice
You can read as much Ayn Rand as you want with perfect understanding and you’re not really going to learn anything.