Theories are simplifications/approximations of reality. Frameworks. They do not fully describe reality. They can't. A system cannot contain a full description of itself. In order for a full description to be created, one most go outside the system. But once you are outside the system, there is an external system, with its own nodes and relationships that need to be described, and which influence the subsystem. So a full description is still impossible. Since theories are simplifications/approximations of reality, slogans are oversimplifications of reality, as they are simplifications/approximations of theories, which are themselves simplifications/approximations. Since it is impossible to fully accurately describe reality, one must give up on the theoretician's vain task and fight to change reality. Fighting, action, etc. can take on unwise forms like adventurism, however. Also, it requires the above theory, however much it may be a simplification/approximation of reality, to convey this sense of urgency and need for action, and even once you convey it, people are still not sufficiently motivated to do anything, even if it is in their material interests. This is because they are tired, beaten down, sometimes on the brink of death itself.
How does the proletariat resolve this need to balance theory which is always somewhat incomplete with action which is always somewhat uninformed?
This question just shows me you are the theoretician who only strives to describe reality.
Go and apply your theories and it will become crystal clear how to balance them in practice.
Why must a model (or resulting theories) fully describe reality? Models have the ability to be useful because of their relative simplicity, not in spite of it.
Theoretical models are good enough to help us build space stations and guide surgery. And obviously, those models are formed and evidenced through analysing and testing in the real world. [Effective] theory and practice have a fundamental relationship.
Reading books is useful. Reading books will never be enough even for the theoretical side of things, for those theories are nothing without practice to confirm local conditions. This is true for hard sciences as much as social sciences.
>How does the proletariat resolve this need to balance theory which is always somewhat incomplete with action which is always somewhat uninformed?
I advise you to seek truth from facts.
You don't need to know the motion of every atom to develop a functional law of entropy. In fact if you look at the motions of every atom you quickly find that this "law" is only, on average, true, and that violations are constantly happening.
>>1880702>this "law" is only, on average, true, and that violations are constantly happening.This does not contradict what OP is saying:
<Theories are simplifications/approximations of reality. Frameworks. They do not fully describe reality.
>You don't need to know the motion of every atom to develop a functional law of entropy.Functional? Yes. But if a "law" or "theory" is
merely functional, it will lack predictive power when it is most needed. If you run a simulation, that simulation will get more inaccurate with each stepwise iteration, even if it starts off pretty accurate.
>>1880934Science has learned to work with probabilities. You should too.
>Theories are simplifications/approximations of reality. Frameworks. They do not fully describe reality. They can't. A system cannot contain a full description of itself.
I think the fallacy of your point is confusing the theory that describes something as describing the instance of something, and subsequently trying to describe the instance of everything that currently exists. They are not the same and your argumentation related only to the latter. Also, realistically speaking we are only interested in subsections of reality and not reality as a whole at all times, so storage to describe a specific system would theoretically be available externally.