Time for a thought experiment. Suppose you showed up at a university anytime between, let’s say, 1910 and 1970, and went from department to department asking (in so many words): what are you excited about this century? Where are your new continents, what’s the future of your field? Who should I read to learn about that future?
In physics, the consensus answer would’ve been something like: Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Dirac.
In psychology, it would’ve been: Freud and Jung (with another faction for B. F. Skinner).
In politics and social sciences, over an enormous swath of academia (including in the West), it would’ve been: Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin.
With hindsight, we now know that the physics advice would’ve been absolute perfection, the psychology and politics advice an unmitigated disaster. Yes, physicists today know more than Einstein, can even correct him on some points, but the continents he revealed to us actually existed—indeed, have only become more important since Einstein’s time.
But Marx and Freud? You would’ve done better to leave the campus, and ask a random person on the street what she or he thought about economics and psychology. In high school, I remember cringing through a unit on the 1920s, when we learned about how “two European professors upset a war-weary civilization’s established certainties—with Einstein overturning received wisdom about space and time, and Freud doing just the same for the world of the mind.” It was never thought important to add that Einstein’s theories turned out to be true while Freud’s turned out to be false. Still, at least Freud’s ideas led “only” to decades of bad psychology and hundreds of innocent people sent to jail because of testimony procured through hypnosis, rather than to tens of millions of dead, as with the other social-scientific theory that reigned supreme among 20th-century academics.
2/2
Marx and Freud built impressive intellectual edifices—sufficiently impressive for a large fraction of intellectuals to have accepted those men as gurus on par with Darwin and Einstein for almost a century. Yet on nearly every topic they wrote about, we now know that Marx and Freud couldn’t have been any more catastrophically wrong. Moreover, their wrongness was knowable at the time—and was known to many, though the ones who knew were typically the ones who the intellectual leaders sneered at, as deluded reactionaries.
http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2494
>I just picked a section of it, the full thing is in there. How will /his/ dialectic their way out of this one?
>>313364
>psycho analysis didn't establish the scientific study of the human psychology
>Marx isn't one of the founding fathers of modern sociological research
And Lenin and Trotsky have never been in the majority
>>313376
So damn, I'm mad. And holy fuck does this guy imply physics didn't have a massive paradigm shift during the 20th century. Does this guy know that around 1900 people were still believing in the existence of fucking ether
This has already been shitposted on /lit/.
Who likes the Moomins?
>>313364
Damn, this guy is /pol/ tier. Absolutely based.
>More broadly, it seems to me that the entire apparatus of “privilege,” “delegitimation,” etc. etc. can simply be tossed overboard, to rust on the ocean floor alongside dialectical materialism and other theoretical superstructures that were once pompously insisted upon as preconditions of enlightened social discourse.
Based.
>>313376
>>313388
>>>/reddit/
>>313411
You're either false flagging or /pol/ is as silly ad everyone says.
Stop spamming this shit.
>>313414
>ur silly
Nice ad hom. Now fuck off.
>>313421
Hahah--learn what ad hominem is first you mouth breathing retard.
>>313364
So he basically said he doesn't like Marx and Freud because they use big words he doesn't like and literally just because.
Yeah, good argument from someone who apparently cares so much about clarity and hates tossing words but does exactly that.
Seems MIT is becoming more of a joke with each passing year, a shame.
Lol. As "Quantum Physics", where every sage from past civilizations would know more about than your great "professors". And lol, no one in a political science or in a history department would say that. Scientism is such a sad thing.
>>313426
>continues
Shut the fuck up you underage faggot. Fuck off.
>>313428
>So he basically said he doesn't like Marx and Freud because they use big words
No, he said he doesn't like them because they were wrong about everything (which is quite true).
>>313364
Marx was clearly wrong. But Freud was not as wrong as people think. His thoughts have been subsumed into our very culture and all that's left to see is his weird shit he got wrong.
>>313449
>s-stop it!
Go cry to papa hitler you wimp cunt.
>>313453
Marx is taught in every sociology course. Not because people people believe in the fucking inevitability of a class revolution, but because Marx made one of the first major sociological studies with Das Kapital, and the principle of base-superstructure is STILL a legit way to interpret social phenomena.
>>313428
Moreover, it looks like, um, Scott there never set foot in various social science classrooms, and doesn't know the history of their development.
The department I graduated from was excited about Geertz and Turner in the period between the mid 50's and the 70's.
>>313464
>Marx is taught in every sociology course.
So what? Intelligent design is probably still taught in some schools.
> Not because people people believe in the fucking inevitability of a class revolution, but because Marx made one of the first major sociological studies with Das Kapital, and the principle of base-superstructure is STILL a legit way to interpret social phenomena.
>STILL a legit way to interpret social phenomena.
But that's where you're wrong.
>>313472
To not teach Marx is to omit one of the most important people of the past few centuries.
>>313483
You can teach him, but teach him in the same way you would teach Adolf Hitler...
>>313493
Heh...
>>313472
You know that the study of the materialistic aspects of social phenomena is literally one of the foundations of every social government policy right. You know that the studies on the problems of the disappearing nuclear family are tested by literally gathering raw data on the success of children coming from those families right? This is literally how government policies are made: by starting from the materialistic phenomena,
>>313364
First of all, the answer would not have been Marx, Engels, Trotsky and Lenin. Sure, they all have a big influence on the field, but they were not that relevant in the twentieth century (Lenin being the only real exception because of his critique of imperialism, and good luck proving that wrong). They would have talked about Realism vs. Liberalism, which is extremely relevant and you can see that ideological fight in International Politics every single day.
What a fucking retarded attempt to discredit other studies. If anything, he proves the autism of "real" scientists and their lacking ability to comprehend the world.
>>313472
Are you seriously trying to convince me that critical theory is not applicable to my own field of study?
>>313532
If critical theory is applicable to your field of study, you mustn't be studying something very important, so go ahead friend!
>>313364
I might be mistaken, but is he saying that Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky were the only figures in the field of political theory that were worth reading about at the time?
That's ignoring a shit-ton of other people who were influential around the same period:
>Stirner
>Bakunin
>Bernstien
>Neitzsche
>Luxemburg
>Goldman
>Dewey
>Weber
>Strauss
>>313556
>Stirner
>influential in any way outside of /lit/ and /leftypol/
>>313541
>Political science
>Ever, not being relevant
ahahahahahahahahahahah
>>313541
Are you trying to hurt my feelings?
>>313559
We're talking about him right now, so that must be worth something.
>>313564
not really, he's a meme on /lit/ and that's about the sum of it
>>313570
What are you studying, apparently it's really important. Please, enlighten us.
>>313580
I never claimed I was studying something important, but since you're asking, computer science.
>>313453
>because they were wrong about everything
Neither of those were wrong as much as anyone else from the time was wrong, both made good points and terribly wrong assumptions, moreover he said they were completely wrong but doesn't even care about pointing out why and where exactly they were wrong. If he wanted to argue about how psychology as a whole is completely unfounded, unscientific and therefore unreliable I would have given him a medal, and yet he didn't because he's so butthurt about Marx and Freud using big words he doesn't understand and can't reduce to simple data because he can't see beyond his analytical nose.
Saying that either Marx or Freud were completely wrong only shows your utter ignorance on the subjects and pretentiousness.
Both of them had some great insights in their own cultural environments, most of that turned out to be wrong of course, some of it however is not all that wrong.
And let's not forget that without people like Freud we wouldn't have the actual scientifical branches of his studies like psychiatry and Neurology, we wouldn't have had people like Oliver Sacks or in the case of Marx, good ol' Vladimir Ilyic.
But yeah, not that I expect much from /pol/ 1.1, as soon as someone talks about muh privileges you're all ready to suck on his cock.
>>313541
>Hurr humanities and minor sciences are irrelevant
fuck off, you're just as cancerous as this MIT faggot quoted on the OP
>>313564
There's a good reason why Stirner has always been a marginal figure of philosophy and there's basically nothing on him, /lit/ and /pol/ just caught on him because he becomes mildly relevant with hipsters around every 30 years or so just to be forgotten again.
>>313556
>Dewey
Underrated.
>>313364
seems to me he is dismissive of actual intellectuals, and somewhat supportive of pseudo-intellectuals, insofar as they were opposed to communism and freudian psychology.
>>313364
>In politics and social sciences, over an enormous swath of academia (including in the West), it would’ve been: Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin.
kek.
Nobody actually believes this right?
>>313493
You know jack shit about sociology, don't you? You should differentiate between sociological marxism and ideological marxism.
>>313599
Well, you said I was studying something unimportant, so by contrast you must be studying something extremely important.
I'm not going to descend to your level of argument and insult your field of study, however, I'm not impressed.
>>313393
I didn't grow up with them, but I watched them anyway a few years ago. It was wonderful.
>>313649
>Well, you said I was studying something unimportant, so by contrast you must be studying something extremely important.
Is this the kind of "logic" you work with?
>>313364
But that's wrong, you idiot.
Freud pioneered psychoanalytic talk therapy and was a leader in developing an idea of children having cognition that differed from adults. A lot of his work is suspect or wrong, but then again, we don't understand the fundamental underpinnings of psychology; we're working with tools several levels removed from the root of thought.
>>313364
whoever decided to give physicists the open mic to become the public intellectuals of our time deserves to be punished for all eternity, goddamn I'm so done with guys like Hawking and this guy who think they've got the authority to shit on ANY intellectual field just 'because'
>inb4 he's a dumb stemfag
http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf
That's more intelligent than anything lit will ever write
>>313662
No, I just happen to know how insufferable cunts like you think about yourselves.
>>313714
>I just happen to know how insufferable cunts like you think about yourselves.
But you clearly don't since you were wrong about your assumption.
the person who wrote this has a fundamental misunderstanding of historiography and the role it plays in modern analytical historical discourse
picture related
>Implying Skinner's work isn't the foundation of modern game design, an industry which rakes in more cash than the movie industry and the book industry combined
>Implying Marx isn't vindicated by the upcoming inevitability of basic income brought upon by advances in AI e.g. self-driving cars, legal consultants, visual parsers
When was Freud proved false?
I thought psychoanalysis was not falsifiable. It is not a science.
>>313455
>Clearly
That's debatable. Some of his ideas have been vindicated. For example, he was writing about globalization before it was cool.
>>313493
He's a pretty important figure in economic history and sociology.
What was Jung wrong about?
>>313605
>scientifical branches of his studies like psychiatry
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The problem with leftists like Scott Aronson is that they are so naive. They actually believe that principles ever mattered, and that the modern left is deviating from such principles when they throw them out of their theoretical framework.
The truth is that principles such as "free speech" and "liberty" are always only useful as means towards an end. For example, when the clergy dominated official education life in Europe, when they were the ones who taught the common people how to think, when religious thinking held cultural hegemony and was accepted as the "normal" one, then free speech for outsider intellectuals was useful to dismantle this ideological apparatus.
But now that these "outsiders" are part of the status quo, now that every university celebrates the ideals of the revolution (both the French and the Russian ones), now that radicalism is actually expected and the presumptions of communism such as equality, feminism and anti-racism are part of the common thinking of mankind, what use is "free speech" for? They don't need it anymore, so into the trash it goes.
Those who think that "politics is a battle of ideas" always lose, because they don't understand that politics is actually a battle of different people and social groups whose objective is to drive their enemies before them, enslave their children and rape their women.
Which is exactly what is going to happen to this young fool. Wait until BLM discover that he mocked the notion of "privilege", they are going to do sit-in and protests demanding his dismissal, and they are going to win.
>>313556
>That's ignoring a shit-ton of other people who were influential around the same period:
Yeah, but he's probably never heard of them, because he's a layman just like anyone else on the street. STEMshits know practically nothing outside of their own autistically narrow fields, but still like to act all hoighty toighty
Freud is completely useless. He took his theories out of his ass. They were not based on logic or data.
And he is ignored today in modern psychology. A very charitable comment would be that Freud is to psychology what the theory of humors is to medicine.
The only people that take him seriously are in English Departments. Which tells more of their mental retardation than it does about Freudian psychology.
>>314230
You have a very negative and pessimistic outlook on human nature.
>>313680
That's honestly part of the reason it shouldn't be considered a science desu
>>313688
They can shit on it because they're right and can prove themselves
Physics departments laugh at almost every other research based field (yes even other sciences) because they get shit wrong all the god damn time and don't fix it fast enough
>>313464
You've just pointed out the main problem plaguing sociology. Even historians, by no means champions of the right, have managed to leave historical materialism in the dustbin. And his theories are even less popular with economists.
>>314608
>historical materialism
What exactly are alternatives to historical materialism?
>>314618
The entire idea of a single factor being the overwhelming motivator of human history is flawed, as is the idea of a scientific approach to history.
historical events arise from many factors, the means of production only being one of them.
>>314702
You seem to have a different definition of materialism than I do. My conception of historical materialism would be just that things like physical resources and political power are the primary driver for historical events rather than spiritual matters.
>>314772
Then myths, being real or not, have no effects on history?
>>314816
Secondary driver, not primary.
>>313364
>humanities don't work in the same way as exact sciences
srsly?
Marx and Freud are now surpassed but they weren't completely wrong and had huge influence over their successors.
>>314987
Marx was a shit historian.
>>313364
>In politics and social sciences, over an enormous swath of academia (including in the West), it would’ve been: Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Lenin.
Are you a fucking idiot? Go read review articles from the 1960s. Fucks sake.
>>315014
18th Brumaire is pretty good, but Engels is a better historian than Marx.
>>314987
Freud was 99.99999% wrong. When he was right it was basically a broken clock being right twice a day.
>>315285
Engels was a better everything than Marx.
>>315313
Not a better historical materialist and anti-idealist. Anti-Dühring is mostly metaphysics.
>>313376
Sociology and Psychology are in the shitter because of these people, well Psychology has at least made some progress out of the shitter
>>313364
>Everyone who isn't related to STEM isn't worth studying!
Another prime example of an autistic STEMbabby who can't think past numbers.
>>316301
What degrees would you consider to be academically respected and worthwhile that are not STEM? Genuinely curious. I just don't see someone with a background solely in something like English literature, history, arts and so on doing anything to advance humanity or change the world in any meaningful way. Anything political is a double edged sword.
I'm not saying someone with or studying a STEM degree is automatically worth something, since you get retards in every field.
>>316337
Wait, you don't think literature, history or the arts in any way advance humanity?
Jesus fuck.
>>316337
Any field where you do not learn how to be a professional victim can contribute to humanity.
English literature and the arts helps expand culture. It may not be some sort of scientific field with measurable data as results, but it is still extremely important to society to have some form of culture and entertainment which keeps a group of people together.
As for history, understanding the past is very important so that humanity does not repeat their mistakes.
>>313493
If you ever learned anything about Marx that was not from /pol/ you would know that he's undeniably important in sociology
His political theory is irrelevant in this discussion
>>314598
Physics will never be as important as chemistry which in turn will never be as important as biology
>>316361
There's a big difference between majoring and actually affecting humanity
Most English majors I know are great at analyzing literature but terrible at actually creating it
>>316476
I doubt that, it is through literary theory that most English majors today understand literature. Most literary theory is garbage that incorporates the things that this guy is railing against.
>>316518
What do you boubt? Seems like you're agreeing with me
>>316523
That English major are great at analyzing. They could be, but I think they are hindered by the analytic tools they are given.
>>313764
Skinner boxes are such wide abstractions that they are useless. You could smash anything into being a Skinner box.
>>316539
He said game design not game theory, and he is actually right.
If there is one situation where people genuinely do act like they are in skinner boxes, it's at the arcade/playing vidya.
>>313688
>implying that sociology, critical theory, communications have not been doing that in a passive way
We need more people shitting on these fields and on the weak and cancerous epistemologies used in these fields.
>>316548
Go and talk to actual psychologist about it and they will reject that notion. The only thing you can label a Skinner box are the loot system in some game, even then most people do not distinguish between scheduled and random rewards. It is as useful calling games Skinner boxes as saying I am performing a physics experiment every time I drive my car.
>>313561
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>316578
Well they are actively trying to follow the theory, and succeeding to make billions out of doing it.
Most mobile games are skinner boxes.
>>313900
>muh semantics
You know he means that Freud's theories have proven to be retarded.
>>315270
This. Dude might sound fractionally less ignorant (with regard to Marx) if he'd phrased the question as 'who are the cornerstones/canonical works of your field', but 'what's the future of your field'? Jesus.
>>316595
Sorry but Jon Blow is not an authority and Bogost as pseudo. Mobile copied older games and then integrated various types of reward scheduling into those games. Integration of reward scheduling does not make a game into a Skinner box. The definition that you are using to define Skinner box is useless, might as well say all of life is a Skinner box where we consume energy to produce negentropy.
>>316623
More like the pedantic definition you are using is useless, as the term has gone on to have a completely different meaning now both in common usage and in technical application.
>>316639
It is not pedantic to say that abstract concept need to be well defined. The lack of well defined concepts and the undermining of definitions is one the major reason why the social science are joke to most people. Loose abstractions like Foucault's definition of power relations or hegemony are useless, the only people that use such fuzzy abstractions are ideologues who can't see past these terms. It is why critiques and analysis using these abstractions are often absurd.
>>314478
>A very charitable comment would be that Freud is to psychology what the theory of humors is to medicine.
Pretty much, except that the theory of humors isn't pop culture today
God I hate that fuck so much
>>316666
Nice quads.
I completely agree with you here to be honest, though you are still wrong to say that modern games design doesn't use skinner box theory. All the psychology and cod-psychology from that era has been recycled again and again, like you said with muddied definitions, entire disciplines built up around them. Technically they are not following Skinner's definitions, but that is the fate of any thinker. Regardless of how close it is to the original, there is a concept of a skinner box that is common currency now in multiple fields, very much including games design.
>>313364
>Freud’s ideas led “only” to decades of bad psychology and hundreds of innocent people sent to jail because of testimony procured through hypnosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis
Not even gonna read part 2, that fucker has no idea what he's talking about. I also doubt that he has a comprehensive refutation of marxian theories up his sleeve.
>>313364
Coming from a math studenti, this is kinda retarded, because all this argument is based on the premise that human sciences should be studied like real sciences. He puts beforehand what he whants to demonstrate. Kinda sad for a scientific mind, but I guess he was rused by some 'humanistic' dumbass like some of the anons that posted in this thread
>Einstein overturning received wisdom about space and time, and Freud doing just the same for the world of the mind.
Lol, I was taught the exact same thing.
>>316744
The fact they're usually not studied like real sciences doesn't mean they shouldn't.
>tfw the brain will remain a mistery for fuck knows how long
thanks politics
>>316776
Good luck explaining concepts like libido and general sexual deviancies using mathematical terms.
The guy is right, the Social Sciences should be a sub field of statistics. Instead it is an incubator for activists, art fags, Marxists, pseudo-intellectuals, and other degenerates.
>>316978
You don't need mathematics for it to be science.
You need hypothesis, statistics and logic.
Not idiotic shit taken out of Freud's ass like dream interpretation and Oedipus complex.
>>316978
The scientific method can be applied to every field of knowledge.
>>313393
Any yourofags here? Anyone remember based Farthing Wood?
>>317348
If something can't be described by science or experienced then it does not exist.
>>313455
>post animoo face
>is dumb
>has dumb opinion
color me surprised
>>317353
what about non-existance
>>317367
the Continental fags can have that shit
>>317311
>statistics
>not needing math
lol
>>316464
>chemistry which in turn will never be as important as biology
kek
>>316464
>biology
>anything important
HAHAHAHAHA
>>316464
Into le trash you go
>>317353
Can everything that can be experienced be completely described by science, i.e. by, as some anon defined it, testing hypotheses while using logic and statistics?
>>317403
everything that is not a one off event can be. What I am getting at is that metaphysics is trash and should not even be considered in fields like Sociology or Psychology.
>>313393
how is this a shitpost? there are serious problems with the humanities that need to be addressed and what better place to discuss than 4chan
>>317414
>metaphysics is trash
>implying the concepts used in science are themselves based in science
And even if that were true, that would be circular reasoning.
>>316464
Dude come om, I'm a microbio major and you're being retarded. Physics and chem are more important on a grand scale but biology is more important to the survival of humanity bar some Deep Impact-tier apocalypse.
>>317437
>implying the computer you are typing on was created by utilizing circular reasoning
the brain in the vat game is fun, but it is just game.
>>317421
Because the guy in the OP is a typical example of talking outside your area of expertise (see Dawkins) and OP knows he'll get multiple replies with his bait (just look at the thread name).
>>317421
>there are serious problems with the humanities
Judging from this ttread alone, the main problem anyone sees in the humanities is that they don't attempt to describe the inner life and interactions of humans as physical events. And why would they, you have biology for that.
>>313616
I once wrote a paper on his education reform. He had a lot to say about pedagogy and I recall agreeing with him quite a bit, especially as he was pushing back against the Efficiency Movement which reigned largely supreme in the early 1900s. They're the ass hats who decides regimented periods, bells, etc. ought to be put in place and modeled schools after factories. Dewey emphasize education as an independent process where the teacher exists as a facilitator and a catalyst. Also really wanted lots of communal space for students and a variety of labs designed to give students the chance to experiment with various areas of work. An engineering lab, science lab, etc. He got one school built in Gary, Indiana but unfortunately that town went to shit and he never got a chance again. I read one of the initial newspaper reports and it sounded pretty great.
>>317444
You just confirmed my assertion that metaphysics are legitimate, and indeed necessary, by answering my question of wether or not scientific concept have their ultimate foundation in science in the negative. So now I wonder, are you completely oblivious to this, or have we reached an agreement?
>>314608
Historians shifted away from materialism toward idealist reaction during the Cold War. It was by no means a logical, apolitical change. Marx was absolutely correct on his fundamental analysis of capitalist production and the contradictions inherent within it, and the modern, unscientific emphasis on "cultural" critique "Marxian" garbage is, behind appereances, bent to the same conservative strain that overtook the field of history.
>>317494
negation, pffft. Hegelian and Marxist drivel. In the negation anything goes, who gives a shit. If philosophers were being honest they would realize that there are no original concepts in the negative, they are all just different configurations of the positive. Scientific concepts have their foundation in empiricism.
>>317450
I guess he is spamming
>>317454
>why would they
the humanities can study things biology can't, and it should, but isn't, because people can't stay on topic
freud's ID, ego and super-ego actually correlates somewhat with our understanding of different parts of the brain and how they interact like the amygdala and neo-cortex, this was before modern neuroscience but unfortunately it was mixed in with a lot of willy nilly hocus pocus, had freud been more formulaic like the behaviorists, what could he have accomplished?
>ITT: delusional people who can't admit they have wasted money and time over pseudo-scientifical worthless degrees
I mean for fuck's sake, the brain still hasn't been fully figured out and you pretentious fucks claim to know 100% how behaviors and personalities work?
Fucking hacks.
>>317596
(You)
>>317562
>what could he have accomplished
would of STEMmed a lot of bullshit
>>317617
Yeah keep denying the truth
>>317519
Are you literally retarded? I didn't employ any dialectical concept of negation, I merely said, and I am going to have to make this as simple as possible so you'll get it, that you answered my question "are scientific concepts themselves based in science?" with "no."
>Scientific concepts have their foundation in empiricism
Interesting hypothesis, now tell me what empiricist concepts are based on.
>>317646
empirical induction need no justification, retard
>>317562
>freud's ID, ego and super-ego actually correlates somewhat with our understanding of different parts of the brain and how they interact like the amygdala and neo-cortex
I'm pretty sure the "multiple brains" theory is completely outdated.
>>317655
True, in the sense of, we already know that inductive conclusions are never certain and therefore pretty ill-suited to provide the sole basis for a conceptual scheme that is supposed to encompass the entirety of existence.
>>317688
it still is the only the basis that we can use for any scheme to explain reality
>>317698
>reality
If by that you mean, physical events involving physical objects, then yes.
Then again, the very question of what is and isn't a physical object or event is irreducibly metaphysical.
Furthermore, it is at least doubtful wether events like, say, a monetary transaction, or the act of thinking about what another person might be thinking about what I might be thinking, or the appreciation lf a fine piece of art, are even describable as physical events, and it is even more doubtful wether such a description, were it possible, would have any advantage over the ways we normally describe such things.
>>317766
all of those things will manifest in a vareity physical ways
>>313364
>Still, at least Freud’s ideas led “only” to decades of bad psychology and hundreds of innocent people sent to jail because of testimony procured through hypnosis, rather than to tens of millions of dead, as with the other social-scientific theory that reigned supreme among 20th-century academics
Does he knows about atomic bomb and so on
>>317782
Of course, but describing these physical manifestations is quite severely insufficient if you want to understand the events themselves.
>>317421
>there are serious problems with the humanities
>people don't agree with me, that's a problem
>>317834
I am unsure of that though, we will find out as VR gets better and better
>>317822
That's what he was talking about, I'm sure. Physics was a catastrophe.
>>316337
>it's only worthwhile if it advances technology and production
Absolutely disgusting
>>317976
he actually said advanced humanity or change the world
>>317849
Since VR can only simulate physical object, I don't think it ill reveal anything in regard to psychological, socio-economic or cultural phenomena, let alone make then into things best understood by the means of natural science.
>>318064
games and simulations have already. Though what I was getting at is that if you can create an event purely by simulating the physical manifestation/conditions of said event then that says something about our consciousness and reality.
>>313428
>MIT is a joke and not the humanities
Holy shit just kill yourself, you dellusional fuck.
>>318157
Triggered STEMfag detected
>>317997
In which case the humanities fulfill that qualifier. The only way it doesn't is if you count material production as the only valid form of advance.
>>318122
Ok, now tell me, what could the virtual simulation of the physical manifestations of one of the three events I mentioned possibly reveal about them?
Anyone here thinks there is anything of value in shit like Oedipus complex?
>>313561
What has political science contributed to the world in the last 50 years?
>>318735
What have you contributed to the world in the last 50 years?
>>318307
that there is no metaphysical spookiness. That if events can be simulated in a computer then the subjective argument dies.
omg somebody say WHY was Marx wrong
>>319019
does that make me political science?
>>317502
what an interesting unsubstantiated opinion. Your definition of conservative would baffle anyone to the right of Trotsky
"Freud was wrong about everything" is the dankest meme ever to be quite frank my hombre.
>>317357
>doesn't toast anime face
>>317596
>the brain still hasn't been fully figured out
>YOURE WASTING YOUR TIME TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT
>>320270
You're doing it in the worst possible way.
>>320023
>Expecting STEM libercunts to actually form coherent criticism
The most you'll get out of this is "HURR TELL ME ONE SUCCESSFUL COMMIE COUNTRY", disregarding the fact that the Capitalist market worked pretty much like Marx theorized, and if you even dare bring up some points towards the chronic crisis of Capitalism or exploitation of the proletariat they'll backpedal and say "HURR DURR that's because that isn't true Capitalism" or even worse, "That's fault of socialism and socialists not collaborating with us".
tl;dr: allowing humanities on /his/ was a mistake.
>>322711
>Capitalist market worked pretty much like Marx theorized, and if you even dare bring up some points towards the chronic crisis of Capitalism or exploitation of the proletaria
All of those things are bald face lies. Even Marxist have moved on from exploitation because it has no utility, they now use the alienation. No one says that Capitalism is perfect, what people say is we are not going to replace our 80% solution with your jalopy 10% solution.
>>317596
I mean for fuck's sake, gravity still hasn't been fully figured out and you pretentious fucks claim to know 100% how subatomic particles work? Fucking hacks.
>>317357
>complains about anime on anime website
I agree that most of what the average person knows about Freud is a load of bullshit though
>>320043
kek
>>322743
>Even Marxist have moved on from exploitation because it has no utility, they now use the alienation.
Go read the autonomists.
>>313414
Pol is worse than what they say.
>>313464
>and the principle of base-superstructure is STILL a legit way to interpret social phenomena.
>STILL
Talk about damning with faint praise. There's still something he did that's legitimate?
>>323190
more Marxist dodo, no thanks. Any group that is anti-nuclear is retarded and scientifically illiterate. Just another group of ideological zombies who have no practical or descriptive understanding of the world.
