"marxism", "dialectics" and "science"
EQDOMAIN.EQWQ.LROGERS at EMAIL.STATE.UT.US
Mon Jun 19 11:22:19 MDT 1995
As a co-moderator, perhaps I should point out that
1. being "a marxist" is not required for those posting to this list.
2. no one is in charge of defining "marxism" on this list.
3. a supportive explanation of one's own point of view is
encouraged and informative
As a scientist, a socialist and student of marxian thought, I have
Is the "dialectical method" of analysis supposed to replace the
hypothetico-deductive method? In all fields or only in particle
physics? How and why? According to whom?
Does being "status quo" automatically invalidate all results of a
method? Or are there some other relevant factors, in your view?
And especially, Jim, what are the valuable aspects of
Lamarckianism??? in modern biology?
Jim J. wrote:
I am unclear on something here. Are you a marxist? Or is this
knee-jerk reaction to using the dialectical method -- instead of the
'empirical' 'logical' (the actual term escapes me) status quo beloved
of bourgeois scientists -- simply a conditioned reflex developed from
spending so many years in a bourgeois university environment?? :)
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism