>>23808i don't think i've even seen this happen
so counterpoint: why do people cite their own feelings like the bible?
Anyways easy solution: argue against the material they cite.
Btw I get the beef with the idea of revisionism, but generally when the word is applied it doesn't mean that someone just disagrees with the holy scripture, it means they've changed course with no reason (which is a very common thing - people get scared/confused/demoralized, and they fall back onto disproved ideas). It's a call for more thorough analysis and critique, it's not a thought stopping mechanism. When people use it as a thought stopping word to protect themselves from criticism just tell them to shove it. It's really not a complex problem. To break it down to its base elements:
Problem: some people are stupid
Solution: tell them to fuck off if they keep pestering without engaging in any real discussion - or just drop your knowledge/critique and fuck off yourself if you're the one pestering and this person wants to be set in their ways
>>23815i think this thread is fine here
>>23812I want to agree with you, but some things you say look underdeveloped.
>they're engaged in pseudo-religionThis is forgivable, as knowledge and practice go hand in hand. When we don't know what to do, having some solid knowledge is existentially stabilizing for us. This is a wrong way to approach science, but we're human so it's hardly unforgivable.
>… the primary legitimate source of knowledge for the in-group. It's not wrong to have an in-group though (or just to put it without the stigma - a group). If a group wants to coalesce around the ideas of a 19th century newspaper article writer, there's nothing wrong with that. It makes sense then that adherence to the
purpose of the group determines whether someone is seen as part of the group, and worth talking to while people want to discuss their hobby topic.
Again it's like, for science this is bad. But for humans, it's forgivable. And the two aren't separable. The best course of action if you want a more truth-seeking atmosphere is to push the Marx cult to go all the way, so people try to follow in the footsteps of their prophet and actually engage in analysis for themselves.
Plus it's very hard to have a discourse that doesn't rely on trust at some point. Like I will not go back and read every major scientific and philosophical canon which has brought us to the modern state of scientific understanding. Why? Am I anti-science? No, I'm only human, and even worse only proletarian, I have limited time. At some point we just trust the consensus feed us more or less correct shit. My point in all of this is that people who quote Marx religiously are not that different from someone quoting Darwin religiously. Is it bad for ultimate knowledge? Yes. But even looking at individual scientists you see they are not themselves trustworthy sources on all types of knowledge (sometimes even their own field, when there is a large split in theories). You should stop looking to individuals for complete scientific integrity, and instead look to our collective human practice for that. As individuals we're pretty bad about verifying and knowing everything, being able to re-formulate every argument we agree with inside and out. It would make us less stupid for sure, but it's also okay for people to not know everything yet.