/siberia/ - Off-topic

I‘m not letting mods keep me from slam dunking on this silly nigha.

The post:
>Why does this Santa looking nigha call himself scientific
one needs to understand 19th century german culture. what usually gets translated as "science" into english is the german word "wissenschaft" which back then referred to a synthesis of STEM and humanities. Also the germans were very opposed back then to the "English Method" of science, empiricism, for being too metaphysical/idealist and not dialectical/materialist. Marx and Engels were very much typical Germans when it came to this attitude, due to their Hegelian upbringing. So when you hear Marx/Engels call something "scientific" they mean that in the sense of dialectical materialist wissenschaft and not in the sense of bourgeois-funded experiments that follow the empiricist ontology and the hypothesis/experiment/theory paradigm, (which is what people are usually referring to in modern times when they say "science").

You illiterate fuck took my post out of context and changed the meaning of my question. I said “Why does this Santa looking nigha call himself scientific and shit on religion but then speak in such a prophetic manner”. I wasn‘t wondering why he calls himself scientific, I‘m pointing out that it‘s ridiculous that he calls himself scientific while acting like a religious prophet. I already know what Wissenschaft meant in the past, plus I‘m German.

Now let‘s tear this nigha apart.
>the german word "wissenschaft" which back then referred to a synthesis of STEM and humanities.
To say Wissenschaft was a synthesis of the two would mean the two were seen as distinct and then deliberately united. The two appear together in Wissenschaft because Wissenschaft was simply the pursuit of knowledge in general, rather than being solely about natural science. It was also done on much looser terms than the standards we see in science today, which exist for a reason and is also why Marxism is neither science nor reliable.

>Also the germans were very opposed back then to the "English Method" of science, empiricism, for being too metaphysical/idealist and not dialectical/materialist.
That is clearly false given that idealism was the dominant thought at that time in Germany. You are conflating Marx‘s critique to that of being the attitude of Germans in general during that time period.

Also, I‘d like you to explain to me in your own words how English science and empiricism are idealist/metaphysical. It‘s an utterly nonsensical claim that only Marxists dogmatically regurgitate.

>So when you hear Marx/Engels call something "scientific" they mean that in the sense of dialectical materialist wissenschaft
Wissenschaft is neither defined by being dialectical nor materialist. It‘s not tied to either and could take on mechanistic or immaterialist outlooks as well. Yet again you are conflating Marx‘s outlook to something broader in German society than it was.

>and not in the sense of bourgeois-funded experiments that follow the empiricist ontology and the hypothesis/experiment/theory paradigm
Science isn‘t defined by being bourgeois funded. Before physicists needed entire teams and national funding for things like the Large Hadron Collider it was individuals investigating the laws of physics on their own and still living up to the standards of science. No “bourgeois funding” needed. This statement only served to signify your ideological indoctrination.

Also, there is no such thing as an empiricist ontology. Empiricism is an epistemological standpoint. And the scientific method of observation, hypothesis and experimenting isn‘t a paradigm, it‘s a procedure. Newtonian mechanics, Darwinian evolution, quantum mechanics are paradigms.

That you reject empiricism and the scientific method on the grounds of being “bourgeois” shows me several things
- you are devoid of an understanding of why the two are legitimately successful and also necessary in attaining real knowledge
- you are so ideologically indoctrinated that you are practically lobotomized to not recognize how stupid everything you said was

Which leads me back to my point in the OP. Marx ironically sets himself up to be a religious-like prophetic figure while the rejection of science by his ilk on ideological grounds make his claims dubious and his certainty appear like madness.