Anybody has a link for the rebuttal of this faggot concept of falsiability?

(OP)

Okay, how about this: "The assertion that only falsifiable claims have any weight or value is an unfalsifiable claim"

There's your meme-length argument.

It's only unfalsifiable in the sense that, because unfalsifiable claims are, well, unfalsifiable, you can't compare then with falsifiable claims by that metric. But you can falsify the claim that falsifiable claims generally do a better job at describing reality than unfalsifiable ones.

Attached: rly makes you think.webm (640x360, 624.72K)

Fuck I was about to make my own thread and ask about this guy. Is his angry booklet worth reading? If it's not can someone quicky explain his ideas and why they're dumb?

Is there anybody who can even summarize or distill the points against Popper? Falsifiability seems like a good standard for science. Sure he's a chode with bad politics, but that doesn't mean he's wrong about everything. The argument for falsifiability seems compelling to me.

There's a large body of scientific work that is based on falsifiability. The value of this standard could be falsified if a different standard produced a more useful framework for predicting outcomes, so you are wrong to say the claim isn't falsifiable. It's not just falsifiable in theory but in practice. The fact is that nothing comes close to the predictive power of falsifiable science, either in accuracy or precision. The limits of falsifiability, by all appearance, correlate pretty strongly with how "hard" a scientific discipline is, i.e. how accurately and precisely that science can model and predict outcomes with math.

Falsifiability is a very good criteria. Popper just didnt understand Marxism

Fun fact: vulgar economics also fall according to his criteria.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/economics/

(for )

This is the best one.
TL;DR - applying the same rigid standard of falsifiable claims suitable to natural science to social science is self-defeating, because human beings have complex agency. If you subject Popper's own social science work to the method he used to claim Marxism was "pseudoscientific", you'll easily see he BTFOs himself.

How is Marx not falsifiable? I've never understood his argument. If the rate of profit was static or even saw a general trend of increase over time, that would falsify his labor theory of value.

Attached: rate of profit, 14 core countries estaban maito 2014.png (715x387, 40.14K)

Marx is falsifiable. You're correct. Popper was arguing in bad faith, like so many apologists for capitalism. He misrepresented Marx.

Speaking of which, the Wikipedia article for the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall is up to 713 sources. :^)

abstraktdergi.net/this-ruthless-criticism-of-all-that-exists-marxism-as-science/

That predictability is a good thing that should be sought after is an unfalsifiable claim.

Marx and his intellectual progeny are the only group of philosophers, sociologists and economists that even make falsifiable claims. Just take a look at the liberal and reactionary variants sometime. Marxism is called “scientific socialism” for a reason. I’m just poking fun at Popper’s vulgar empiricism.

In fact, this is mostly just Popper saying “I can’t falsify Marxism, therefore it’s unfalsifiable”, and just ignores that his own liberal idealist bullshit doesn’t even attempt falsifiability.

“I can’t falsify it, therefore it’s unfalsifiable :^)”

In other news, Evolution declared pseudoscience by liberals because they couldn’t prove it wrong.

And why would you want to disprove him?

Capitalist economics is the peak of unfalsifiable. Instead of correcting their model when they can't predict shit, they come up with a billion explanations so they can still say supply/demand curves are relevant.

I didn't want to bother too much, because I believe other things are more worthy of my time right now but then some intelectual inclined porkies seem to base their convictions against communist on arguments from the guy, so, in order to seed doubt in their minds, it is a good idea to present to them a marxist rebuttal and if they take it maybe start to break down their fallacious schemes.

Pic related more empirical proof of the LTV

Attached: watch?v=emnYMfjYh1Q.00:14:19.000.png (640x360 75 KB, 115.94K)