/edu/ - Education

The End.

Wonder if anyone will actually make it all the way through.

>>6346
Very useful PDFs, thanks.naziNazi

Can this thread be merged into >>4337 please?
This thread has good resources and is already dying without any discussion. It would be a good addition to the thread above. Many thanks.

Thank you, I will have a look at them some time.

>>6346
>>6347
>>6348
>>6349
>>6350
>>6351
>>6352
>>6353
>>6354
>>6355
>>6356
>>6357
>Bengals fan
Lmao dropped

>>1237
You just wanted to make a topic about corona-chan didn't you, admit it.

>>1240
There is already a thread about that on /GET/ already and lets be honest. This is only but another example of what I am trying to tall about. Because during the internet age we have been making art of things like the ebola or now the corona virus. I wanted to have a discussion about why we personify these deadly dieases as we did throughout history.

>>1238
This might be the case, I wonder what makes us as humans feel more at ease being able to see the virus as a humanoid. I know from what happened in the mid 14th century with the black plague it drastically changed the world in those five years it lasted. Art changed showing the depiction of death, as a sort of comforting thing.

>>1242
Here's something for you; Apollo started out as such a personification

>>1237
It could be theoretically argued that the tendency to personify things extends outwards to all boundaries of human existence, as a sort of inevitable anthropocentrism which permeates all facets of our perception due to qualities which are inescapably ingrained in our consciousness: i.e. that a human recognizes their own humanity, as its species essence, is a rather unique feature, even though it might sound mundane. The symbolic realm arguably derives from this, and if said realm does indeed owe its origins to such a tendency, then it would make sense for it to always be 'textured' with the recurrence of specifically human imagery. Even animals, as we often depict them, are more or less projections of our own sense of mythos… representational metaphors–a fox, for example, is not 'just a fox', but is connotated as 'sneaky, mischievous, suave–an archetypal trickster', etc.
People will probably accuse me of coming off as overly Jungian, but I'm not really much of a subscriber to him, that is, outside of the base realization that there's probably some kind of innate anthropocentric lens which colors our figurative ideals of reality. So at any rate, I don't think the phenomenon spoken of here is so exclusive to death, although at the same time, I guess the 'coping theory' isn't mutually exclusive with what I'm saying either.

>>9470
*is so particular to death

>>3097
Yes

>>3097
Bumping for this guy again

Can this be archived please?
It was two new threads from deletion, basically already dead.

QM is a mess (having actually studied in academically in some capacity) but its a materialist conception of history not really a metaphysical one. Also the idea that reason falls back on a quantum mechanical world was fucking destroyed by Bell in the 60s so the idea that any broad metaphysical statement has any scientific backing is rather suspect.

Perhaps I dont understand materialism, scientific value, communism, marxism, or what you mean
but
The way I see it, materialism is all that matters because its all that can be proved to exist
>inb4 solipsism brain in a jar shit, I dont care if my house isnt actually real, I have performed numerous repeat experiments by living in it and all evidence points toward corporeality
I guess this is one of those things that can be really easy to bring into a navel gazing circlejerk about what is reality, what is real, etc, like in the same vein as Last Thursdayism where technically you could have been created a few days ago and it just so happens that all your memories are generally pretty accurate and also congruous with reality moving forwards

>>9438
everyone in the comment section is going on a list

>>9326
I have read that book it was quite interesting to get the life of Posadas and how Trots turned against him. Despite the fact that there was valid reasons for it, as the Fourth International were very Eurocentric. They did not listen nor cared about the blight of the South American Comrades. When Posadas with his influence decided to do the Fourth Inernational Posadas, he basically pissed off all the Trots doing soo.

It was when he addressed one of his comrades on the UFO phenomena was why the Flying Saucers article everyone knows was written. It was originally a speech and was written down as the minutes, what this speech was supposed to do was basically saying, if advance civilizations exist they would be Socialist'. It was this twisting of words that caused the Posadist to be seen as the ufo cult by the jealous trots that still had beef with Posadas.

If you read some of his other articles like the ones I posted and the book he written. You would see that Posadas was very much a ecologist, wanting Nuclear Power to be out of the hands of the capitalist and into the hands of the populace. That Workers state should be in control of the nuclear weapons to defend themselves in a capitalist world.

>>9145
I would agree usually, but Bukharin is an exception. His imperialism and works on marginal utility are all fine

>>9145
Lenin and Bukharin are the exceptions to your rule

>>9144
didnt bukharin get purged by stalin?

>>9144
The book has recently gotten some new attention since it got republished by Cosmonaut Magazine not too long ago: https://shop.cosmonaut.blog/product/historical-materialism-a-study-in-sociology/16?cp=true&sa=false&sbp=false&q=false&category_id=2
Now I haven't read it myself but I've heard very good things about it and Bukharin in general was a pretty great theorist. This book is on my personal reading list, though I don't know when I will get to it. Let us know what you think of it when you're done, OP.

>>9152
Yes, unfortunately.

>>9153
It's quite nice so far. I recently read Stephen Cohen's biography on Bukharin, which is what spurred my interest. I will say, however, it's restating mostly the basics of stuff. If you have read Engels 4 letters on historical materialism, the first chapter of the german ideology, capital, or even the manifesto, you are probably set enough. Probably. It's good to have things restated clearly anyways. It does remind me that purging Bukharin was an unforgivable and senseless tragedy. It's a determining factor in being a non-stalinist communist, among other factors.

>>9199
Make an argument anytime

>>9202
Baudrillard only had vapid literary critiques of Marx, also suck my dick anytime

>>9204
This is not fucking /leftypol/. Stop shitting this board.

>>9210
OP shat up this board

>>6588
It sounds like a reasonable perspective until you realize that this concept was already addressed by later marxists.
Alienation being a fundamental feature of humanity is something explored by Zizek.

>AES
Contemporary socialist economics aren't your "AES" economics because all serious socialist economists have moved beyond your insipid apologia for state capitalism.

>>9140
To what exactly?

Bump

The 11 yo Grace Bedell wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln telling him to grow a beard. He did it.

>All the ladies like whiskers and they would tease their husbands to vote for you and then you would be President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Bedell

>>6244
>in the late Ottoman Empire there was a movement of weeboos who loved anything to do with Japan, since they were a non-western power who was victorious against a western one in the Russo-japanese war, then it culminated in conspiracy theories that the Japanese emperor was a secret muslim who was going to come to their rescue

Jesus Christ, nothing is new in history

>>8828
>>6244
Fucking kek, that's something I've never heard of before but it sure is hilarious.

>>6979
This is my life's dream

The same company that invented Aspirin invented heroin.

Always be skeptical. Even the most rigorous and principled people can make errors.
>Is there any reasonable justification for this? That is, is there a reason to believe knowledge producers would draw the line at actual fabrication?
There's plenty of history that they are fine with outright fabrication at times.
>In general, to what extent can we actually trust the information produced by academia and journalism? If none at all, how can we even navigate the world?
Review sources, methods, data if the claim warrants investigation. Try to corroborate the information with other sources, particularly those with different or contrary interests (if you can't find someone disinterested).
>Is it ever reasonable to simply "trust the science" without even looking at the arguments?
No, literally never. "The science" happens in a real social context with a political dimension and it has always been slanted by this. Even if the data collected is good and the study is valid in a technical sense it will often be interpreted (by the scientists themselves or by reporting) through ideological lenses that lead you into mistakes. Always be skeptical. Anybody telling you dude trust me is probably being dishonest and is self-aware of it. An honest person would tell you to check for yourself and validate what they're saying.

I don't think that's fair.

Scientists are sceptical about results, and it is well known and accepted that results are sometimes wrong. More often because of errors than malice, but deliberate falsification does happen. That's why scientific findings always have to be reproducible. If multiple, independent research groups repeat the experiment/study and find the same results, they are most likely correct. Repeating previous results is expensive and not very attractive and unfortunately it is not done as often as it should be. In most cases as an outsider you can't do it from your bedroom alone. That's why you usually see people attack methodology and other issues first, it is less effort and you only need to get the paper from sci-hub. If you are interested in a topic, try finding meta-analyses and literature surveys instead of individual papers, they are more likely to contain trustworthy results, as they aggregate multiple results.

In journalism it is a bit different, but you can (and journalists are supposed to) cross-check facts from multiple independent sources, when they are available. Then again, this is more work that just pointing out faulty reasoning, so outsiders don't bother. But serious, published works are supposed to have done this for you, and they are more likely to be more factual than some online blog masquerading as a news site.

I don't think your criticism is right, these are known issues and there are safeguards that are supposed to limit their harm. Of course they are not perfect, but the situation is not nearly as bad as you make it to be.

>>9124
>Review sources, methods, data if the claim warrants investigation. Try to corroborate the information with other sources, particularly those with different or contrary interests (if you can't find someone disinterested).
But what if, for example, there's an imbalance between the different interests? Few people have the resources to conduct large-scale nationwide polls, or access to advanced telescopes or particle accelerators, stuff like that. The ability to verify data might be concentrated in the hands of a few and at that point it's easier for their interests to align, especially when it comes to journalism.
It seems to me that the bigger institutions will tend to form a sort of "knowledge elite" that not only may align with the political elite but will also have its own independent interests (such as securing funding or maintaining its credibility) that will steer it a certain way.

>>9125
I'm not that trying to suggest that we're in a crisis where most of the science is wrong, I'm just wondering how, epistemologically, we can justify our trust in the data that's presented to us.
I know replication and cross-checking exist, but as you yourself sort of pointed towards, they have their problems as safeguards on an institutional level. As I said above, the ability to verify might be concentrated in the hands of those with shared interests (or not even necessarily interests, but shared biases). This is especially the case with journalism where sources are often anonymous.

But I do agree now that there at least exist processes by which we can gain sufficient trust in the data, even if I don't think they'll always work.

just be critical, like >>9124 said

>>9123
Learn to think skeptically; the clearest introduction to this mode of thought is still Sextus Empiricus' Outlines of Skepticism.