[Marxism] Liberal Science, Socialist Conclusions?
ykleftis at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 1 21:04:06 MDT 2006
I dont know about your Da Vinci Code comments.
Certainly, statistical analysis for past populations is historical, not
predictive. Im referring to statements like these:
I strongly suspect we'll soon begin to see more NBA-quality players coming
distinct group appearances will continue to exist in many parts of the
world for hundreds of years. But as intermarriage accelerates and as
people gain a greater understanding of our genetic relatedness the
tendency to say that a person must have particular attributes because of the
way he or she looks will inevitably decline.
Here, Olsons US-centered liberalism emerges. Yet in these same comments, so
too emerges his faith in natural science. He presupposes that knowledge of
natural science determines social change.
I should say that I am less convinced by genetic science at this point,
especially applied to human beings, than I am about mathematical
probabilities. For me, the interesting claim is that even conservative
estimates give all humans a common group of ancestors well after the
development of agriculture. If these are good estimates, then this creates
ideological problems for all kinds of people.
Im suggesting that prediction in human affairs is impossible except as an
Im also suggesting that insofar as Marx (or Marxists) predicts historical
change, he accepts this attitude of the natural sciences.
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
More information about the Marxism