/sci/ - Science & Math

There are plenty of fallacies. Mostly related to confirmation bias.

>>1832336
That's a human fallacy, not one of the scientific method.

I think you have chosen the wrong field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism

>>1832338
So?

I'm pretty sure if you had to write a paper on the fallacies of communism you'd bring up the fact that it caused the death of millions of people.

Assuming that the world is consistent
Assuming that knowledge being sought is knowable at all

>>1832342
Physics major, actually. I'm required a philosophy class.

wait till you get a paper on rationality.

>>1832350
Sorry, could you go over that again for me?

Somrimes its not precise enough
Like the age of the earth is calculated to be 4.5 billion years old based on radioactive decay, which is kind of a leap of faith.
Still its better than nothing

The thing I don't like about philosophy is that they present everything they do in the most warped, twisted, and unclear way possible.

>>1832330
Can ... not ... resist ...!

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
SOCRATES, HIMSELF, WAS PERMANENTLY PISSED...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away;
Half a crate of whiskey every day.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: "I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!

David Hume motherfucker

>>1832362
That could honestly be said about every field of study.

You know what? Fuck you?

I remember in my first year class some idiot said "it's like, if a tree falls in the forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Yeah, real deep. Then some douchebag started raving about sound waves, "which you'd know about if you'd studied some physics". We're in a philosophy class, dipshit. If we're talking about sounds (which we're not anyway), we mean the fundamental concept of 'sound' as it relates to the human mind, not the release of energy. Philosophy is not full of people who pretend science doesn't exist.

Actually, that's another thing that pisses me off more than pseudo-intellectuals - science students who think philosophy is both easy and a waste of time. Easy? You study a world that has two answers - the right one and the wrong one. Trying to write a philosophy essay would break your mind. Just fail the class, asshole.

>>1832348
CAPITALIST LIEING PROPAGANDA

>>1832377

You are visibly frustrated.

>>1832377
Someone is mad...

>>1832377
>a question is posed about sound
>goes on to say it has nothing to do with sound

WTF?

>>1832377
Wow, you're warped.
>implying sound is a release of energy

There are many problems with the scientific method if you stopped being a know-it-all prick for one god damn second and actually gave it a thought.

>>1832381
>>1832382
umadmind

also:
>>1832377
you SOUND upset

>>1832383

that depends on what do you think sound means.

>>1832377

>>1832377
>>1832387

lol. philosofags are jelly of mah science.

>>1832377
You do realize this is a lot like the pot calling the kettle black, right? By rallying against those pseudo-intellectuals, you expose yourself for the pseudo-intellectual you really are. You make it sound as if that handwavy philosophy stuff is harder because there's "no right answer." If you don't think there is a right way and a wrong way to philosophy, you're blinding yourself with a wide-angle lens, so to speak. If there's no "right" answer, then what on earth is the point of studying it?

I've just read way too much new-age bullshit that calls itself philosophy to believe that there is no right and wrong in these regards.

>>1832330
Fuck I had to do something similar.

My sis had an assignement for her history of science courses where she had to glorify constructivism vs positivism. She passed this to me knowing that I'm good to abstract arbitrary thinking. I've fucken hated every moment it and felt like a traitor to my cause but she got a 9/10 so things went better than expected.

A2 fag here

taking maths, physics and philosophy.
>>1832377 has a point. got a c in philosophy with buttloads of revision, 100% and 94% in maths and physics easy.

the problem when scientists try to do philosophy is that we try and think of the problem scientifically, rather than logically. also, physicists can't write for shit

philosophers:
Democritus(~400BC):The world is made of Atoms
2100 year later...
Scientist:
Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier (~1740):he world is made up of atoms

>>1832330
[T]he philosophical presuppositions of science [include]: the existence of a theory independent, external world; the knowability of the external world; the existence of truth; the laws of logic; the reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gatherers and as a source of justified beliefs in our intellectual environment; the adequacy of language to describe the world; the existence of values used in science; the uniformity of nature and induction; and, the existence of numbers and mathematical truths.

Write the paper on how the only fallacy of the scientific method is that people who have no talent for logical thinking (such as philosophers) have a hard time understanding it. The scientific method is not perfect because it's not accessible to idiots.

>>1832348
Which is due to an inherent flaw in communism. Ever heard of The Road to Serfdom?

>>1832373
Never taken a mathematics course have you.
>>1832377
>implying science doesn't exposed some "philosophical" questions for bullshit

>>1832422

Sure have.

>>1832429
Then you would realize that the communism leading to oppression isn't solely due to "human error", but to flaws in the system itself, too. Granted, one of those flaws is that power attracts the corruptible and with communism putting supreme power of the economy in a central government, well... But upholding the communist society is more or less impossible without oppression and suppression of dissent. Since the system is so much inferior to the capitalist system (socialist calculation debate, are you familiar with it?), life under communism becomes horrible. How can the rulers remain in power and not have the support of their rule eroded if their subjects see that their system of government makes their life so much worse than the capitalist system?

Inb4 stateless society bullshit.

KARL POPPER
NIGGER

>>1832350
this

and we can only infer causation, never prove it. all we can prove is corelation

>>1832350
I take it that the scientific method refers to the experimental method.

1) Experimental method assumes that experiments are consistent, situation can be recreated, controls can be reliably established etc

2) Experimental method seeks to isolate variables in order to find their influence on a system. But what if variables can't be isolated or controlled? What if they're just whacked out random? Look at what a problem quantum theory is causing. Now imagine if that extended to all science

>>1832455
>quantum theory
>problem
Except that part where it's experimentally confirmed for the last 50 years or so and precision tests with errors in the 1 part per million range have been made?

>>1832330

induction #1 fallacy of science
empiricism #2 fallacy
#3 going from particular to general, composition fallacy

so many easy fallacies, science is inherently IRRATIONAL, all of it

the interesting thing is, we can still make pragmatic progress even with falsehoods and half-truths

>>1832454
except that all of this is bullshit semantics.

>>1832455
what if quantum behaviors extended through all of science? fact is, is doesn't, so it doesn't matter.

>>1832462
>implying they are fallacies when they obviously work

>>1832462
I... I don't know if this is a troll or not.

>>1832454
Define causation.

>>1832462
The best epistemological stance for science - indeed the only one defensible is that of pragmatism. Now go get yourself some Pierce and Dewey and pay attention to your Prof. he seems like a smart guy.

>>1832469
no its not just semantics. that stuff is part of the scientific method. its called falsifiability. if you could prove causation, you would never have to falsify your theory.

>>1832462
not irrational. as rationality is basically definitory linked with scientific method, your claim is just weird.

>>1832471
i have a big penis. therefore the sky is blue.

thats a non sequitor, a fallacy. still it is true.
why that works has got to do with the predictive quality of theories...

>>1832485
>implying a scientific experiment has been made to determine if the size of your penis is related to the color of the sky

There are fallacies of the scientific method. However, the scientific method is the most reliable way to gain any knowledge at all, even if you can't prove if that knowledge is absolutely true.

The biggest fallacy, in my opinion, is inductive reasoning. You can only make theories from evidence from multiple experiments involving trial and error. Just because the theory has held up for 1000 experiments in a row, maybe next time the laws of physics will change without notice. Sure, this seems stupid and unlikely, but the point is you can't know for sure if it won't.

As a physics major, I don't really give a shit about these "fallacies," since it doesn't matter if the knowledge you gain is absolute or not. As long as the theories allow you to build awesome shit that actually works in the real world, that's all that matters.

It actually annoys me to a large extent that philosophers can sit around all day and debate this crap, while people like me and OP actually gain knowledge for humanity.

Before I get on board this burn the philosopher bandwagon are we talking about analytic philosophy or continental?

>>1832492
Both lack clear definition anyway; why does it matter?

Just because something may be true doesn't mean that it is desirable.

>>1832377
I never got that tree falling thing, it came up in my philosophy class last year too.
If a flashlight is shining at you, you perceive light, because it's coming at you. If you cover the light, and you can't see it anymore, you don't say the light isn't there, just that you aren't perceiving it. So if a tree falls, and sound waves are bouncin', but you aren't there to hear them, do you say there is no sound? That just seems ridiculous to me. All you can really say is that if a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, then no one perceived the sound it made, not that the sound was not there. What people try to argue is that it is not sound unless it is perceived, it is only sound waves. That's not the definition that makes sense to me though.

>>1832489
Yeah pragmatism is good but what about knowledge for knowledges sake - if you're down with pure math you better be down with pure logic, pure critique, and pure theory.

>>1832495
Screw you man - analytic philosophy is an applicable field of research which has given us many useful things like boolean logic, universal computation, several theories of truth construction in language, and some good work into the theoretical limits of simulation of complex entities like consciousness and society.

So yeah - pretty useful. and as far as needing to be well defined - math motherfucker, how defined is that?

There is no scientific method. It's a myth. If you try to compare the way a field biologist, a botanist, a behavioral psychologist, a mathematician, an astrophysicist, and a chemist do science, they're all doing science differently.

the problem is that there are no "synthetic a priori" methods or areas of knowledge, except maybe math and philosophy--

either you stay rational, only dealing with tautologies and axioms or you jump into the world and deal with the irrationality of induction and uncertainty

>>1832330

Fucken newbs need to read some Feyerabend and learn whats going on

lol suckers think science is "rational"

>>1832513
Eh - I doubt the intent was on the classic conception of the scientific method, which is just incomplete in describing how all fields of science conduct themselves and totallydelusional as to how peopel actually do thigns.

All the same - most scientist do work under the idea of peer reviewed empirically derived evidence as being the means of aggregating knowledge which is likely to be "true" insofar as it is applicable to the world.

So yeah - C.S. Peirce scientific method, I think.

>>1832519
synthetic a priori

"1 meter is 3.280839895 feet"

Both synthetic and a priori. Also note how measuring a thing is a foundation of empirical science.

>>1832377

If a tree falls on a woman, and no man is there to hear it, why was there a tree in the kitchen?

I fucking hate Kant to death. Philosophy died between Hume and Wittgenstein.

>You study a world that has two answers - the right one and the wrong one.

The words of someone who has never really studied high level math or science.

But I generally agree with your post.

>>1832498

if you can't understand that there's no helping you. Your retated

>>1832578
> Your retated
FTFY
> You're retarded

I hate it when I try to put down someone's intelligence
and fuck up the two words I'm trying to insult them with.

OK, GUYS

LIKE
WHAT IF
GUYS

YOU WITH ME ON THIS?
GUYS


OK, NOW
WHAT IF
WHAT IF
NOW GET READY

NOW WHAT IF
GUYS

WHAT IF
ONLY YOU EXIST, AND EVERYONE ELSE IS JUST A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION?

>>1832609
Welcome to 4chan. Enjoy you're stay.

>>1832551

>>1832619
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKK YYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>1832513
I'd go with this, OP.

>>1832619
> pro hume and wittgenstein
> ayn rand
hahaha... no

>>1832624
Problem, enemy of Reason?

>>1832330
From a scientific point of view, the best thing you can write about is that the scientific method, in practice, is very rarely as neat and clean as it's presented to be. The logical order they show you in high school of theory, hypothesis, experiment, whatever, it almost never works out quite like that.

If you want to just ramble on with no real purpose or objective, you can mention that it relies on certain axioms, such as the laws of physics being constant. No sane or rational person actually doubts these axioms in practice, but it's a philosophy paper so you can just bullshit the whole thing. If you want to actually doubt these axioms, then you'd better unplug your computer, never drive a car, never step outside your house in fear of being lost into space, and you may as well stop trying to breathe. You never know when every single molecule of air in the room may decide to ignore entropy and diffusion and just march on over to the other side of the room just to give you a giant fuck you.

>>1832422
>Road to Serfdom

You mean that book that assumes every flavor of communism implies heavy central planning?

Protip: Lenin split the Marxists into two camps, the group that favored a libertarian approach (such as Luxemburg) and those who felt the ends justified the means (which Marx himself denied).

>>1832642
>theory, hypothesis, experiment
>THEORY -> HYPOTHESIS
>implying theories come before hypothesis

>>1832655
>You mean that book that assumes every flavor of communism implies heavy central planning?
>implying that's not the definition of communism
>implying decentralized planning with workers owning factories isn't the definition of syndicalism, not communism

>libertarian communism
>oh wait you're serious.jpg

To show the surprising similarities of myth and science, I shall briefly discuss an interesting paper by Robin Horton, entitled 'African Traditional Thought and Western Science'.' Horton examines African mythology and discovers the following features: the quest for theory is a quest for unity underlying apparent complexity. The theory places things in a causal context that is wider than the causal context provided by common sense: both science and myth cap common sense with a theoretical superstructure. There are theories of different degrees of abstraction and they are used in accordance with the different requirements of explanation that arise. Theory construction consists in breaking up objects of common sense and in reuniting the elements in a different way. Theoretical models start from analogy but they gradually move away from the pattern on which the analogy was based. And so on.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm

>>1832406

>You study a world that has two answers - the right one and the wrong one.

lol wut?

he thinks science is black and white

>also, implying science can discover truths

>>1832330
>write a five page paper on the fallacies of the scientific method.

Bullshit, no phil teacher would ask you just nonsense

TROLL HARDER NIGGER!

>>1832642

>If you want to just ramble on with no real purpose or objective, you can mention that it relies on certain axioms, such as the laws of physics being constant. No sane or rational person actually doubts these axioms in practice

in reality, all physics laws have a domain of validity. Newtons law don't apply on large scales, Einstein's theory don't apply on subatomic scale. Quantum mechanics don't apply on large scale, ect. ect.


>>1832655

>who felt the ends justified the means (which Marx himself denied).

since Marx liked the french revolution, those who think Marx don't believe ends justifies means are just morons.

>>1832673
As a matter of fact, a lot of philosophy professors love the idea of taking on the scientific method.

>>1832679

mfw marx think the reign of terror of the french revolution was justified

Write a paper about how there's nothing wrong with the scientific method, and proceed to derail philosophy as inferior to biology because the unchanging human condition was around much longer than written language. Only biology can fully describe our humanity, philosophy is just stupid people pissing in the dark.

>>1832658

Sydicalism is a form of socialism. Marx only talks about the relations of power in such a society, and to say that the communist movement is defined by any single approach is ignorant.

>libertarian communism

And yes, I'm very fucking serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_communism

>>1832656
Properly, no, in terms of how it's actually applied realistically, it depends.

>>1832679
Of course you can't infinitely extrapolate many of the laws of physics. But that doesn't make them any less valid for the regions where they do apply. Not saying you're wrong, just wondering what the point is.

>>1832700
But socialism isn't communism.

>>1832679
>>1832694

>An end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end.
>~Karl Marx

>>1832700
Communism is a subset of socialism.

Humans are imperfect, and therefore the scientific method will yield imperfect results when wielded by humans.
Therefore, the scientific method has "fallacies"??

Inform your teacher that he doesn't understand what the word "fallacy" means.

impugn science all you want

yell "scientism" for all i care

it is the reason we are discussing this right now. it is the reason we are healthy, living in comfort and going to live into our late 70's to 80's.

so "take on" science, faggots.

its worthiness is proven by the fact you have the abilities and means to challenge it.

>>1832728
Seriously, man did you read all the other posts in this thread? There were a lot of other points - not just that straw man bullshit you got there.

I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity

>>1832713

Using Marxist definitions, communism has never been achieved, as it was a term used to describe hypothetical utopia after so many generations of socialism had passed. The core idea behind Marxism is that history is an ongoing struggle between socioeconomic classes, and any successful implementation of egalitarian policy is a victory towards the inevitable end, although such small victories may be small in the grand scheme of things and not as desirable as a radical movement.

Assigning labels to such movements is arbitrary.

>bullshit my way out of this

As an Education student, this is my specialty! You wouldn't BELIEVE how fucking casual that field is.

Stalin doubled the lifespan of the average Russian. Russians had higher life expectancies than people in the USA while Stalin was in power. Then capitalism is installed, and the life expectancy falls. Enjoy your 40-year-old "philosophical" arguments against socialism and communism.

Oh wait, communism killed four-hundred quadrillion people, I forgot. Stalin was just standing on a corner with an AK-47 slaughtering people and no one tried to stop him. Capitalism, of course, never kills anyone, because capitalism does nothing except let the greedy kill the poor.

here's a small list of fallacies for ya:

1. What is has always been.
2. What things are like now is what they have always been like.
3. What things are like now is what they will always be like in the future.
4. What I see is the same as what you see.
5. What I experience through my senses is in fact the way reality actually is.
6. There is a point in space.
7. What I can prove true today will be true tomorrow.
8. Any hypothesis I can imagine is a true reflection of a relistic possibility.
9. Any facts I gather to prove my hypothesis are true in and of themselves.
10. Anything I observe cannot change its nature.

>>1832746
I don't care what some bearded fatass said 200 years ago
Why would someone break their backs working when they don't really get anything in return?

>>1832735
Straw man? I used the language of the person I was addressing. Try reading, hipster.

>>1832756

keep on keep on keep on keep on trollin'

>>1832758
You get a community. That is pretty important to feelings of well being and happiness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness

(Ignoring everything that has been said before)

If your prof. wants you to say that the scientific method (as presented in gradeschool science fairs) is BS, then that's easy to tackle. Science is rarely a linear process like the:
1) Ask a question.
2) Do some background research.
3) Construct a hypothesis.
4)Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
5)Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
6) Communicate Your Results

It's ironic that the OP features one of the fallacies of the scientific method.

>>1832767
>implying Communist countries are filled with happiness

>>1832758

I dunno. That's actually the Marxist argument against capitalism. Why should somebody spend their life working for a higher authority, his boss, and give his boss the majority of the product of his efforts?

Perfectly egalitarian wages would not be a characteristic of early socialism anyways, there would be a transition period between the current state of things to utopian communism as social values slowly adjust.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" seems like an idealistic pipe dream at this point in history, but 400 years ago, so did society without a strong, absolute king keeping things under control.

>>1832760
Hipster wut?

Anyways - the straw man is the idea that the only fallacies are due to the actions being performed by people. This is a straw man argument because you are addressing the problem with the agent but not the problem of the method.

Since most replies focused on the problematic relationships between inductive knowledge and observation (ie the method) than answering that the problem is the agent (like a computer wouldn't have the same problem) isn't answering the problem, ergo straw man.

>>1832767
You had a community in the middle ages too. You were punished if you didn't conform, but hey, you got a family and friends. You still have that in some muslim countries where tribes are strong. Or, a non-religious example, China, where a feel of community (and nationalism) is enforced by censorship.

So you think that is desirable, yes?

>>1832778
>Why should somebody spend their life working for a higher authority, his boss, and give his boss the majority of the product of his efforts?
Yeah, why would he? A free capitalist society allows you to stop working for your boss. Or you can aquire means of production and become bourgeois yourself! So many opportunities and definitely (okay, subjectively) better than a society that doesn't give you any choice.

>>1832783
You're calling something a "strawman fallacy" because you don't understand it. That's not a fallacy, it's just incorrect.

My argument is that there IS NO shortcomings of the method. The method is as perfect as it will ever be (despite the fact that "perfect" is a subjective, nonsensical word), and the only shortcomings that APPEAR to come from the method are actually coming from the agents.

>>1832789

Yeah, you're right. I'm going to quit my job as a TA, drop out of my PhD and start my own university!

Capitalism rocks, bros!!

Dear OP

You have to do this exactly to learn the limitations of the scientific method so that you can actually do well as a scientist.


Also

/sci/ hates on philosophers and does infant level philosophy all the time. It is really entertaining.

>>1832778

implying the government is not a strong king keeping things under control.

>>1832789

That's not true, as much as it isn't true that communism is fair! In reality groups of higher power will form in a matter of months and BOTH systems will be thrown off balance in. It's inevitable.

>>1832789

>Yeah, why would he? A free capitalist society allows you to stop working for your boss. Or you can aquire means of production and become bourgeois yourself!

You have the freedom to quit working and starve to death. And the ability to join the oppressors is no justification; the system is still built upon a corrupted premise.

Wait a second, how the fuck did you guys draw me into an argument over communism? DAMN YOU, /sci/!

>>1832808
>And the ability to join the oppressors is no justification; the system is still built upon a corrupted premise.
Why? The term "oppressors" is just what you think they are. You are not oppressed if you are free to choose. You are also free do create a private socialist society with your friends as long as it's done voluntarily. It's not like capitalism will stop you from sharing your wealth.

>>1832820
>It's not like capitalism will stop you from sharing your wealth.

That is simply not true. Capitalist leaders have a long history of overthrowing even mildly socialist countries and replacing them with dictators when they refuse to play ball.

>>1832820

>free to choose

yeah, in theory

in theory i could quit my job and start my own business.

but i'd have to save up for a couple months, if not years, to have the money to feed myself and family, pay bills (water, electric, house, car, student loans) while trying to get the business started.

the wealthy have the means to start business without jeopardizing their lives as much.

>>1832330

Easy, we can only perceive through our 5 senses, limiting us greatly and making it hard for us to understand if there is anything else out there.

>>1832803

>In reality groups of higher power will form in a matter of months and BOTH systems will be thrown off balance in. It's inevitable.

Very much, so! Capitalism assumes that every human is some superhero that can compete against whole social classes and defeat all. Now, this is wrong on two accounts. It isn't fair for the poor to being life at such a disadvantage and it's something practically impossible to achieve anyway.

Communism takes the other extreme. Individuals are just mindless retards who need guidance in every single thing. This is also unfair as people are not the same, some are hardworking and some are slackers. If anything; it's massively inefficient.

Personally I prefer a real democratic state (not US like) that offers services such as free healthcare and free education to those in need while preserving most fundamental liberties. In other words successful Germany.

>>1832820
>You are not oppressed if you are free to choose. You are also free do create a private socialist society with your friends as long as it's done voluntarily.

When the means of production and the resources of society are tied up in the capitalist hierarchy, that private socialist society could never be more than a back-to-nature hippy commune.

You further imply that capitalist society is voluntary. In order to make anything of yourself, you have to get a job; a job where you are denied the full products of your efforts and hopefully one day end up in a position where you are receiving the efforts of others. If I refused to submit to this system, I am doomed to poverty.

>>1832803

higher ups are corrupt...why they higher then.
higher ups push there own agendas...they know best.

if only the masses wernt afraid of poverty and death this whole place would be better.

governments should bring in funds through industry and tech...that should be government owned

the populace should go back to a barter system, trading goods as a means of passing time (growing crops/ raising aminals)
labour force could also be paid in produce....working for peanuts lol

the government should give out free ipods and flatscreens depending on how much profit the industry side of the country makes.

this would encourage a genuine patriotism...and leave no doubt when the country is under mismanagement.

on a global scale different governments could have different industry....to promote friendship.... also no third party sales at an industrial level! to force co-operation.

>>1832820

>You are not oppressed if you are free to choose.

Bullshit. Oppressed isn't a term locked to state laws. Yes legally you are not oppressed. You are oppressed financially though.

>>1832838
>In order to make anything of yourself, you have to get a job
You have to work to survive, true. That's not related to any system, though. You have to have a job in a communist society too, only with less choice. The necessity of work is beyond anyone's control.

>a job where you are denied the full products of your efforts and hopefully one day end up in a position where you are receiving the efforts of others
If you don't have anything else to sell than your labor then that's the way it is.

We need BOTH!

Take me for example. I'm studying in a Democratic European country enjoying free healthcare and free good education.

I will than also get a job in said country to earn a bit of startup cash.

If things go as planned I need to emigrate to a capitalist country where I would be at a great advantage (with no debt) to start a good business of my own.

You people should do that same.

I'm actually lucky tbh. Being a poorfag I would probably not ever be able to afford University in US and end up welding steel for long hours with minimum wage and no healthcare.

>>1832330

Poorfags cheering for Socialism.
Richfags cheering for Capitalism.

There is no debate here. Fact is, both systems have their advantages/disadvantages with are obviously subjective.

>>1832873
The inefficiency of central planning is hardly subjective, even if some goals of communism might be appealing.

>>1832377

>>1832858
>You have to work to survive, true. That's not related to any system, though. You have to have a job in a communist society too, only with less choice. The necessity of work is beyond anyone's control.

Yes. But the difference between the current state of things and the socialist ideal is that you wouldn't be forced to partition the product of your productivity to your boss, you would benefit directly from it, be that in the form of Proudhon's labor credit or the state socialist's services.

>If you don't have anything else to sell than your labor then that's the way it is.

And you are forced to sell your labor than for less than you are entitled to, that is what we fight against.

>>1832883

Which is why any far-leftist worth his salt is for decentralized socialism: laissez-faire anti-capitalism.

>>1832885

yes, instead of transferring your wage to your boss, it transfers to welfare leeches.

>>1832885
Determining what everyone is "entitled" to is probably impossible (and very much subjective) and a simple and efficient system like money seems just more appropriate for the real world.

Take electronics produced in third world countries, for example. What is the guy assembling all that stuff entitled to? Probably not to everything, because some other guy designed those electronic parts too. And someone else is responsible for selling it, for organizing things etc.

>>1832883

Wrong!

For a poorfag a socialist state is always better. It is subjective. Who gives a shit if your country is rich if you are living in dirt and vice versa? See?

>>1832896

Like I said earlier, capitalism -> socialism -> communism would be a gradual process as society's values change over time. When we have the earliest stages, the wage incentive system is still rigid and the welfare leech cannot flourish, and when we have the later stages the incentive system is softer but we do not have people who leeching as desirable because society's values have largely shifted, and a relatively small amount of work is required to upkeep the individual's status quo because the upper class has largely disappeared and is not demanding wild excesses.

>>1832896

>welfare leeches

Tbh leeches are very resolvable problem. The only reason welfare leeches exists is because of a shitty implementation. Most socialist north European countries are almost leech free (if you don't count in politicians themselves).

People who STILL support communism seem to consist mostly of poor people and stoner artist who have no talent and think the government will pay for their mediocre work, when nobody else would under a capitalist system.

>>1832896

welfare leeches and slackers who sleep through their job hours

>>1832923

>poor people and stoner artist who have no talent and think the government will pay for their mediocre work, when nobody else would under a capitalist system.

And your point is?

>>1832894
If you decentralize socialism so much that every individual has his own personal socialism then you essentially ended up with capitalism again. If you don't inefficiency will remain, only on a smaller scale. The small socialist communities will also have to trade with each other. If they don't use a free market for trading then it's even more inefficient, so I don't really see the point of it all.

See the problem with communism is that it implies that every country has a "community"
Here in the US there is no "community"
Just a wide variety of people with different values.
Its expected, the US is a melting pot after all. Like European might value someone with good manners while here in the US nobody cares and Latin Americans value family while the US "again" doesn't care

>>1832905
>Determining what everyone is "entitled" to is probably impossible (and very much subjective) and a simple and efficient system like money seems just more appropriate for the real world.

Indeed, exact numbers cannot be hammered out, but the injustice in the system is clear. You have a producing worker who must partition the value of his efforts to a superior, merely because the superior has a subjective connection to the means by which the worker produces: property.

>Take electronics produced in third world countries, for example. What is the guy assembling all that stuff entitled to? Probably not to everything, because some other guy designed those electronic parts too. And someone else is responsible for selling it, for organizing things etc.

Yes, everybody plays a part, and everybody deserves what he is entitled to. But as I noted above, there is no reason that one participant in the process should receive such a disproportionate piece of the pie because of an abstract connection to the means of production entitles him to control the entire process.

Just plagiarize Popper.
Also,
>This thread
I love /sci/. You guys know more about philosophy than actual philosophy students, and you're far more articulate as well.

Are there any GOOD social sciences, or are they all useless?