What is the responce to Karl Poppers criticism of historical materialism? Is historical materialism unfalsifiable ?
en.wikipedia.org
What is the responce to Karl Poppers criticism of historical materialism? Is historical materialism unfalsifiable ?
Isaac Cooper
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Luke Watson
Wait what…according to wikipedia this guy was a radical centrist. fucking hell, a friend gave me a book by him but i haven't read it yet…i will throw it in the bin, because i didn't knew this guy was and now that i do, i have no interest in reading what he has to say.
Luis Richardson
It's idealism.
Bentley Thompson
John Rodriguez
Analytical frameworks are a valid sort of knowledge that don't have to stand up to falsifiability. For instance, the distinction between civil and criminal law.
Ian Mitchell
That wiki page doesn't say anything about what he tried to argue though:
en.wikipedia.org
Ethan Kelly
...
Connor Reed
There's not much point in reading Karl Popper since he has been shown to deliberately misread, misquote, and misrepresent the views of everyone he criticized.
Michael Hill
Big issue with Popper's philosophy of science, concerning unfalsifiability, is that there have been many scientific paradigms established that are not falsifiable, or at least were not when they were first introduced. First to come to mind is Newton's theory of gravity - he himself admitted he did not know how gravity worked, but stated that so long as one accepted his theory, a number of predictions could be accurately made. It would seem that Popper would have to claim that Newton was either doing bad science or practicing pseudoscience, being the case that Newton posited this theory of gravity without any solid grounding for its truth (i.e. why gravity functions in the way it does).
Popper seems to contradict himself - while claiming to be a supporter of the coherence theory of truth (wherein things are true in so far as they are consistent with our overall network of beliefs about the world), he denies the scientific validity of claims that do not appear to have for themselves a real, worldly justification, a la correspondence theory of truth. Historical materialism, as we understand as communists, is the only theory of history that is not contradictory with what we know about the mechanics of the world, how societies have grown and developed - and ultimately changed - over the course of time. This sort of understanding may seem to deviate from the hard-line materialism many people share here, but one must understand that materialism is itself a metaphysical position - more is said on this point by Sartre in his article, Materialism and Revolution.
Hope this clarifies some things, or at least contributes to the discussion here in some respects.
Ryder Howard
I give this cuck zero fuck.
Lukács all the way.
Being serious and more theory based, In "What is Orthodox Marxism", Lukács already answered 90% of the most common dumb questions cucks asks all the time.
Kevin Brown
Empiricism is unfalsifiable. Popper was a liberal hack grasping so desperately for straws in his attempt to smear Marxism, he used a critique that could literally be applied to any philosophy or social science.
Camden Parker
the absolute state of leftists
Gavin Johnson
That was taken from "The Open Society and Its Enemies" by Karl Popper in 1945. In it, he actually blamed Marx, Hegel and Plato for the European dictatorships of the previous decade.
Evan Brown
This is actually pretty fucking based.
Jaxson Baker
Reminds me, during a philosophy of science course I took in Uni, my prof was discussing Popper's principle of falsifiability. As an example, he brought up that Marx predicted that the first proletarian revolutions would happen in industrialized nations such as those of western Europe. However, because the revolutions occurred in Russia, then later other "backwater" states such as China, Vietnam, and so forth, this demonstrated that Marxism's predictions were wrong and therefor refuted as a science - any appeals to say otherwise meaning that Marxism was unfalsifiable.
He didn't know what to say really when I informed him that Marx studied Russia intensely towards the end of his life and even wrote that "perhaps, in Russia a revolution will begin," (quote not exact, forget where he wrote this).
Evan Watson
fyi, Popper didn't write this. Idk what the relationship is between this post and what Popper wrote
Joshua King
Why the fuck would you post this facebook garbage here? Zig Forums is far from perfect intelectually but it's quite a bit more advanced than this.
Jason Miller
Do you have any actual arguments against it?
Ethan Lewis
It's basically the same logic antifa uses.
Mill's on liberty does a pretty good job of arguing free spoke.
Josiah Ramirez
...
Blake Bailey
Well, they are right. Free speech is all smoke and mirrors. It only goes as far as it is harmless to the status quo and for a good reason.
Hudson Rivera
Why exactly did Popper thing that historical materialism was unfalsifiable? If history operates according to broad trends dictated by material conditions and class struggle, then wouldn’t it be possible to falsify it by testing its predictions? If those predictions prove to be false, and the various elements of the model don’t behave as expected, then the theory must be modified. But that’s literally what’s been happening constantly since Marx’s death. His theories have been updated and improved by new concepts that address its original flaws. Also like others have said, just because a theory cannot he falsified at the current moment doesn’t make it wrong. The theory of the atom couldn’t be falsified when it was first postulated, and yet it was correct. Perhaps in the future there will be more means available to empirically test Marx’s theories.
Brandon Anderson
Based on Laws, I wouldn't say so:
The Athenian Stranger was more or less Plato's stand-in.