[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/edu/ - Education

Learn, learn, and learn!
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

| Catalog | Home

File: 1640891729727.jpeg (1.86 MB, 2057x2179, EEDwuFNWwAAU3Kh.jpeg)


(I'm posting this on /edu/ because I think it's more of a discussion about self-education than leftist politics per se.)

To an extent, I think most people on this site are skeptical of journalists and academics. We can all recognize that "knowledge production" is not politically neutral, not free from bias or outside influence, etcetera.
On the other hand, even skeptics of these sources don't tend to be fully skeptical. One thing I noticed is that even when people practice skepticism of journalism, they tend to question the interpretation and presentation more than the facts. That is, they might point out how facts are framed in misleading ways, or important details are excluded, etc., but rarely accuse the media of outright fabrication.
This mimics a similar practice I've noticed in skepticism of science: you'll find people pointing out methodological problems and limitations, but rarely questioning the actual reported results of experiments. I say these practices are similar because they involve questioning the logic but never the premises; they take it for granted that the authors might be trying to mislead you but would simply do so through subtly faulty logic and never through outright invention.
All of which is to ask:
>Is there any reasonable justification for this? That is, is there a reason to believe knowledge producers would draw the line at actual fabrication?
>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?
>Is it ever reasonable to simply "trust the science" without even looking at the arguments?
I feel the need to note these questions aren't rhetorical in the slightest, they're genuinely thoughts I've been struggling with.


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.


>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.

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


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

File: 1640194005960.png (108.56 KB, 1200x1080, P_religion_world.svg.png)


Wanted to make a theology general to discuss whatever questions or topics about religion people here may have. I thought about posting this in /siberia/ but I rather have a higher quality discussion tbh, and since /edu/ has much less traffic I think a thread about theology and religion in general would work better than a specific topic about particular denominations and such. So to start, something I had been wondering for a while, in buddhist theology when you die you reincarnate and depending on your karma you'll either be reborn into a human or an animal. So if you are reborn into an animal, after this life what would determine what you reincarnate into? Does buddhism have a way to judge animals? Do you reincarnate into a human by default after living as an animal and just keep the cycle going until you achieve enlightenment? If anyone knows I'd really appreciate it.
18 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


What do you mean? That is diluted by new-age crap or historical criticism?


I suggest you read material from a believer and practitioner of that religion that belongs to a mainstream current within it, eastern religions tolerate a certain amount of plurality so it would be wise to read multiple perspectives.


File: 1640857188740-0.jpg (28.66 KB, 295x475, 19264315.jpg)


Thanks for the explanation


The case of the alawites is the most interesting imo because as you say, for multiple reasons they purposefully "islamicized" some of their more folk beliefs to be more accepted societally. It's interesting thinking about what would've happened had they not done that, maybe they would be like the Druze who are very distinctly not islamic (with a few similar beliefs iirc). But for the case of the alawites they found themselves in a position where they are constantly forced to prove how they are muslims and whatnot, again despite having some very distinct non-islamic beliefs such as reincarnation. But as of now it seems their position is secured though, and at least in Syria I believe they're considered muslims by most of the population (I guess except sectarian sunnis of course).

File: 1626780285154.png (137.45 KB, 261x400, ClipboardImage.png)


Post Military, Insurgency, General warfare and Military history and Insurgency history books and miscellaneous guides, preferably in pdf format, ZIP Files or torrents of these would also be apricated
32 posts and 17 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Yet Brazil is still a capitalist shithole. I doubt there is any hope for them so as long as the US interferes in their domestic affairs.


Friendo, I wish I could blame all of our faults on the USA, but the feat of having a food insecurity crisis worse than fucking Venezuela was achieved – mostly – by us and us alone:



Please, someone get Xi In line and tell him to come liberate us immediately.


Does anyone have the CIA manual given to the Contras?



Agreed. This got me really hooked for some reason.

File: 1640862477065.mp4 (5.84 MB, 1280x720, Heroes of Yesterday.mp4)


What is conservatism? General concensus is that it started with Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre. A leftist concensus is that it isn't an ideology at all and just an attitude to resist change and progress.
But a lot of people say that conservatism is in fact an ideology like Liberalism or Marxism.

I read this article and it inspired me to make this thread, because really there is hardly any socialists that analyse the "right" in its non-fascist forms and rather focus on liberalism which is to most socialists, the ideology of both american parties, which leaves little interest to analyse a conservatism that isn't even present in america. Hope this thread gives some good answers or book recommendations on "conservatism"
2 posts omitted. Click reply to view.


See you again tommorow :)
but seriously Burke is very much a liberal follow?


What about the de Maistre?


A reactionary
Not as a slur but as a description anarcho primitivism for example is extremely reactionary


So there is a difference between reaction and let's say conservatism of the burkean type?>>9117
>See you again tommorow :)
I don't think this website or any imageboard in general has any staying power at this point. What keeps you here? The richness of leftist discussion provided by this community? Come on man…


>So there is a difference between reaction and let's say conservatism of the burkean type?
Yes the burkean attitude of before you tear this thing down figure out why it's there in the first place doesn't necessarily mean the final conclusion isn't that the thing shouldn't be torn down

File: 1638939815618.jpg (21.1 KB, 322x250, walter audisio pepe.jpg)


What are the best books that give a nuance look at the use of in history political violence. I was talking with my friend about the antifa guy who punched Richard Spencer, and he thought it was bad optics because it gave him more sympathy for his ideas. And that got me thinking about the potential bad optics the use of political violence can have. And what situations warrant the use of violence and what situations warrant an alternative method.


Zizek has written a book called "Violence"





Punching Spencer was good "optics"
Spencer was the first to provoke by openly being a nazi and punching him publicly humiliates him and popularizes ant-fascism

File: 1608527944532.jpg (65.54 KB, 604x381, nigelaskey.jpg)


This guy Is called nigel askey, and is apparently a legitimate historian. He published a paper debunking TIK's claim that the K/D ratio of the soviets during WW was 1/1.6, instead claiming that the soviets lost over 4 more times as many combatants as the Germansduring WW2. Here is his paper. I'm not a qualified historian and I dont have access to acrhives or time to research, so I can't debunk him.


I checked out his website and alsthough he does seem to be knowledgeable, he makes certain ridiculous claims that the "Vicors write history" in WW2, and the allies covered up how technologically and tactically inferior they were to the germans.
63 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


Related thread >>>/hobby/2906


This is the Italian infantry squad as resulting from the 1938 reforms of the Regio Esercito, the infamous "Pariani reforms" (from General Alberto Pariani, Chief of Staff, who authored it); a much criticized reorganization of the whole army, that basically increased the number of divisions by reducing the number of infantry regiments in each from three to one, thus critically weakening them.

On the small units level, it meant that the infantry platoon went from three 12-men riflemen squads and 3 LMGs to two 18-men squads and 4 LMGs. This was meant to streamline as much as possible the maneuver, so the riflemen squad fought together, with no planned subdivisions for more articulated operations in the field. On the infantry company level, there were no other weapons but rifles and LMGs; the light mortars and MGs were at battalion level, whereas heavy mortars and AT guns were at regimental level.

In other words, the infantry was basically rich only in men, and with low fire capability, despite the theoretical ability to detach heavier weapons from the battalion or the regiment when needed. Whereas the rifle (Carcano Mod. 91) could still be considered tolerable enough despite its small 6.5 mm calibre (there is a lot of bad rep going on about it, but I feel it's exaggerated, and that, all considered, the 6.5 mm calibre for a bolt-action rifle wasn't a meaningful tactical disadvantage), the LMG was a poor weapon, but unfortunately it was the only one relatively widespread.

On the other side, the heavy (8 mm) MGs were rarer, but not that rare as Kuso said; while they had a low-ish rate of fire because of the feed tray system, they were decidedly more reliable, fired a reasonably powerful bullet and were more appreciated. Too bad that there is still a legend going around that they too needed the cartridge to be oiled, which is completely false.

I'll just put here that in 1940 the biggest issue of the Regio Esercito wasn't the weapons themselves, was the sheer firepower available to its units. Just compare the Italian infantry battalion (36 LMGs, 8 MGs and 18 light mortars) with a contemporary British one (22 AT rifles, 50 LMGs, 12 light and 2 heavy mortars, plus 10 Bren Carriers), and we can see why the latter could reasonably outmatch the former.


Often called the worst machine gun, the Breda 30 was a poor weapon indeed. The recoil operation was violent, if the magazine was damaged it became inoperable, the Breda suffered from a lot of ammunition cook-offs due to poor heat management, low rate of fire, and was very prone to stoppages. The oiling system which was used to lubricate each bullet was prone to damage, the fully-automatic feature of the weapon was almost unusable due to the aforementioned problems, and it was on par with a semi-automatic rifle in terms of realistic Rate-of-Fire. Other than its unreliability and complexity, if the 6.5 mm calibre was still tolerable for a rifle, it was unacceptable for an automatic weapon. In fact, the decision (taken too late, and reversed by 1940) to adopt the 7.35 mm calibre was taken arguably more due to the need of such bullet to have good performance for full auto weapons rather than its unsuitability or obsolescence for individual weapons (as the RE wanted to use a single calibre for all infantry weapons, reasonably so). The penetration and performance of the bullet is intermediate in terms of power compared to rifle and pistol cartridges of the time.
Forgotten Weapons video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFJI04ifSoM&ab_channel=ForgottenWeapons


File: 1636734530623.png (236.94 KB, 328x513, ClipboardImage.png)

Michael Parenti - The Real Causes of World War II lecture

Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9Lievywdoo

Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDmovEja_f0



I'm tired of people overstating Hegel's influence in Marx's theories and then fucking recommending secondary books because they "make Marx understandable by getting rid of all the Hegel stuff". You REALLY do not need to know Hegel to understand 99% of the stuff Marx wrote.


Absolute worst offender in this regard is Tony Smith and his book "The Logic of Marx's Capital"




Hegel is a philosophical encyclopedia. There is philosophical jargon that I didn't understand from Marx until after having read Hegel, and that's just a bit of Hegel.


actually i don't think it's stated enough
Marx took way more from Hegel than just dialectic, and people thinking they can just read The German Ideology and be finished with Marx's philosophical groundings is a huge cause of theoretical misunderstanding



To understand Marx's reasoning, to understand how he developed his ideas you need Hegel. No, you don't need Hegel to understand what the definitions of "surplus value" or "variable capital" are. Depends on what your goals.

File: 1628816053504.jpg (13.45 KB, 400x400, tiddly.jpg)


What does /edu/ do for knowledge management? Does it work? How important is it? Experiences?

I am starting a Tiddlywiki and plan on doing the zettelkasten method. The way I understand it, I just take notes and link them to each other with tags or something? Seems straightforward yet quite useful.egoismEgoism
9 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1640344131966.png (26.01 KB, 512x512, TagSpaces_logo.png)

planning on organizing my pictures with this little babe, i've already tried it out and the free (as in price) version is pretty ok despite the limitations placed on it.


if you like text based stuff and can manage to learn vimwiki or emacs orgmode, that's very effective.
There are GPT-2 machine learning plugins that at the moment are very basic and limited to software coding but eventually that will be expanded and generalized, and you'll be able to search your knowledge base with cognitive associations.


File: 1640362132797.jpg (30.81 KB, 680x763, 440.jpg)

I read stuff and my brain remembers it for me and automatically connects it to related information. When something relevant comes up, I remember where I read something about it.


Dude that's crazy


Is it possible to learn this?

File: 1640183585474.jpg (1.84 MB, 2048x1340, jwst.jpg)


Once this thing launches it will be a massive step forward for astronomy. This thread is for any future discoveries it makes. Or for discussing the implications of any discoveries that JWST makes.


How is the simulation going to accommodate for this expansion of human perception? Worried that this is going to literally blow up the universe bros.


Can someone explain ?


>The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is a space telescope being jointly developed by NASA, the European Space Agency (ESA), and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). It is planned to succeed the Hubble Space Telescope as NASA's flagship astrophysics mission.
>It will provide improved infrared resolution and sensitivity over Hubble, and will enable a broad range of investigations across the fields of astronomy and cosmology, including observing some of the most distant events and objects in the universe, such as the formation of the first galaxies, and detailed atmospheric characterization of potentially habitable exoplanets.
it probably won't do much
the orbit is further out than the hubble telescope so less noise in the way, and its more sophisticated cooling systems let it detect infrared heat throughout the universe more effectively and sensitively

File: 1639968551587.jpg (185.42 KB, 1080x1356, NickLandUwu.jpg)


I haven't read Land at all but i know that his 'book' (Fanged Noumena) is actually just a compilation of various essays, articles and blog-posts he wrote over time condensed together,

If i open up a .PDF of fanged Noumena are there particular sections that are above all else worth reading or is it more a holistic read?


shut the fuck up(Don't shit up /edu/)


Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7 / 8 / 9 / 10 / 11 / 12 / 13 / 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18 / 19 / 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 / 30 / 31 / 32 / 33 / 34 / 35 / 36 ]
| Catalog | Home