Why slander hippies? The young, hip, green Euros are neo-Marxist social engineers willing to sacrifice future generations on the altar of anti-human environmental policy based on an unfalsifiable hypothesis derived from a computer model. The green religion drives European totalitarianism as much as neo-Marxist social justice. What wo…
Why slander hippies? The young, hip, green Euros are neo-Marxist social engineers willing to sacrifice future generations on the altar of anti-human environmental policy based on an unfalsifiable hypothesis derived from a computer model. The green religion drives European totalitarianism as much as neo-Marxist social justice. What worries me most is that hip, young, green SJWs on both continents have never experienced life under the Cold War and so imagine a limited nuclear exchange (ugh) is conceivable.
By the way, what separates "neo-Marxist social justice" from good old vanilla social justice? The neo-Marxists (whatever that means) raffle off copies of the 18th Brumaire and posters of Diego Rivera's Rockefeller deep-sixed portrait of Trotsky at the next Marxist-Leninist Meeting in Buffalo?
I use "neo-Marxist social justice" in the way New Discourses uses "critical social justice," and, rather than attempting to paraphrase it, I offer you a link to its definition: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-social-justice/
Briefly and over-simply, neo-Marxism refers to the revision of the concepts of Marxism by a few seminal theorists in reaction to the Communists' failure to persuade the working class to seize the means of production, from overthrowing the Bourgeoisie. This revision substituted "oppressed" racial and ethnic identity groups for the Marxist Proletariat and straight white men as the Bourgeoisie. An excellent extended definition of neo-Marxism can also be found in the New Discourses Encyclopedia of Social Justice: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-neo-marxism/
Karl Popper: "Falsifiability is a standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses that was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934)."
"Popper opposed falsifiability to the intuitively similar concept of verifiability. Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would logically require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim. On the other hand, the Duhem–Quine thesis says that definitive experimental falsifications are impossible[1] and that no scientific hypothesis is by itself capable of making predictions, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions."
Try on, for size, Duhem-Quine:
"...The Duhem–Quine thesis, also called the Duhem–Quine problem, after Pierre Duhem and Willard Van Orman Quine, is that in science it is impossible to experimentally test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions (also called auxiliary assumptions or auxiliary hypotheses): the thesis says that unambiguous scientific falsifications are impossible.[1] In recent decades the set of associated assumptions supporting a thesis sometimes is called a bundle of hypotheses."
Falsifiability is a standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses---not THE standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses. That is to say Karl Popper's falsifiability theory as a standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses is itself an "unfalsifiable hypothesis." Derived from a computer model or not.
"No scientific hypothesis is by itself capable of making predictions, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions."
So computer models alleged to demonstrate the long-term effects of greater CO2 emissions are as useless in predicting the future as observational hypotheses. I'm not surprised. This doesn't explain or justify why anyone should follow government-imposed measures intended to "slow global warming" or "climate change." Especially people like farmers in the Netherlands.
Why slander hippies? The young, hip, green Euros are neo-Marxist social engineers willing to sacrifice future generations on the altar of anti-human environmental policy based on an unfalsifiable hypothesis derived from a computer model. The green religion drives European totalitarianism as much as neo-Marxist social justice. What worries me most is that hip, young, green SJWs on both continents have never experienced life under the Cold War and so imagine a limited nuclear exchange (ugh) is conceivable.
By the way, what separates "neo-Marxist social justice" from good old vanilla social justice? The neo-Marxists (whatever that means) raffle off copies of the 18th Brumaire and posters of Diego Rivera's Rockefeller deep-sixed portrait of Trotsky at the next Marxist-Leninist Meeting in Buffalo?
I use "neo-Marxist social justice" in the way New Discourses uses "critical social justice," and, rather than attempting to paraphrase it, I offer you a link to its definition: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-social-justice/
Briefly and over-simply, neo-Marxism refers to the revision of the concepts of Marxism by a few seminal theorists in reaction to the Communists' failure to persuade the working class to seize the means of production, from overthrowing the Bourgeoisie. This revision substituted "oppressed" racial and ethnic identity groups for the Marxist Proletariat and straight white men as the Bourgeoisie. An excellent extended definition of neo-Marxism can also be found in the New Discourses Encyclopedia of Social Justice: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-neo-marxism/
Karl Popper: "Falsifiability is a standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses that was introduced by the philosopher of science Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934)."
"Popper opposed falsifiability to the intuitively similar concept of verifiability. Verifying the claim "All swans are white" would logically require observing all swans, which is not technologically possible. In contrast, the observation of a single black swan is technologically reasonable and sufficient to logically falsify the claim. On the other hand, the Duhem–Quine thesis says that definitive experimental falsifications are impossible[1] and that no scientific hypothesis is by itself capable of making predictions, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions."
Try on, for size, Duhem-Quine:
"...The Duhem–Quine thesis, also called the Duhem–Quine problem, after Pierre Duhem and Willard Van Orman Quine, is that in science it is impossible to experimentally test a scientific hypothesis in isolation, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions (also called auxiliary assumptions or auxiliary hypotheses): the thesis says that unambiguous scientific falsifications are impossible.[1] In recent decades the set of associated assumptions supporting a thesis sometimes is called a bundle of hypotheses."
Falsifiability is a standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses---not THE standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses. That is to say Karl Popper's falsifiability theory as a standard of evaluation of scientific theories and hypotheses is itself an "unfalsifiable hypothesis." Derived from a computer model or not.
"No scientific hypothesis is by itself capable of making predictions, because an empirical test of the hypothesis requires one or more background assumptions."
So computer models alleged to demonstrate the long-term effects of greater CO2 emissions are as useless in predicting the future as observational hypotheses. I'm not surprised. This doesn't explain or justify why anyone should follow government-imposed measures intended to "slow global warming" or "climate change." Especially people like farmers in the Netherlands.
No, it does not.