Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I have poked my nose in and lurked at RevLeft.org before.You should visit Revleft. It's a great place and I'm really glad to have been part of it as I learned a lot. But it's a war zone.
I would agree with this a lot, although sometimes there are very exceptional people who are wealthy. There is more than one aspect to it. If you are intelligent then becoming rich might be very easy for you. Poor people can also be arrogant, but they cannot afford to cause trouble. Its rare to find a genuinely, creative self-starter who thinks about others first. If I had money I'd like to think I'd do something good with it, but I also know that I would want to buy lots of things. I have met some people though who I think would make excellent wealthy people. Anyway, rich people die and their assets are divided. The problematic rich people are corporations, dynasties and things that seem immortal and constantly grow and gather resources to the point nobody else owns anything.I generally hate rich people. So arrogant and irresponsible (generally).
Welcome to the forum. I think your statement does not accurately reflect the attitude of Scientists. To discover things Scientifically requires submitting your thoughts to the questioning of others. The sieve of academic peer review helps to mitigate the subjective personality of the Scientist. There is no such thing to help with social ideas like Marxism. You simply try them out, and the results are unrepeatable. The only reason I pick at this point with you is that there are a lot of people who are reared to believe Science is magical or is in some sort of competition with faith. Nothing is further from the facts, because Science is a refusal to rely upon authority figures and impositions except for rational arguments. That is what 'Science' is. You can get ingrained Scientific beliefs, but there are ways these things get mitigated. It has to do with the community of scientists who judge each other very harshly, and there are occasionally mavericks too. Its nowhere near as subjective as faith or politics.Whilst criticising Communism as a 'religion' (and they are not wholly wrong in this regard as it begins with dogmatic premises known as 'dialectical materialism'), they are not willing to really engage with the problem of subjective belief in scientific ideas, and the fact that even if scientific ideas are objectively true, they remain the product of human activity and their validity is limited by it by our limits of our perception and of science and technology to make discoveries. To do so would be to admit that science (and indeed Marxism) are based on a form of 'faith' and that we can not be sure if our beliefs are 100% true.
there are very exceptional people who are wealthy
Science is not infallible though. History is filled with scientists who were right, but the community at the time dismissed their findings, and what was once believed to be hard science that is now debunked. There is also at times heavy pressure to produce results (rather than gaining observations and drawing conclusions), get published, and to not make your donors look bad. Science should perhaps fall under even more vigorous scrutiny that religion on the basis it has, in the Western world, more power to influence than religion. It isn't magic or superstition, but it is not without a degree of faith.Welcome to the forum. I think your statement does not accurately reflect the attitude of Scientists. To discover things Scientifically requires submitting your thoughts to the questioning of others. The sieve of academic peer review helps to mitigate the subjective personality of the Scientist. There is no such thing to help with social ideas like Marxism. You simply try them out, and the results are unrepeatable. The only reason I pick at this point with you is that there are a lot of people who are reared to believe Science is magical or is in some sort of competition with faith. Nothing is further from the facts, because Science is a refusal to rely upon authority figures and impositions except for rational arguments. That is what 'Science' is. You can get ingrained Scientific beliefs, but there are ways these things get mitigated. It has to do with the community of scientists who judge each other very harshly, and there are occasionally mavericks too. Its nowhere near as subjective as faith or politics.
Welcome to the forum. I think your statement does not accurately reflect the attitude of Scientists. To discover things Scientifically requires submitting your thoughts to the questioning of others. The sieve of academic peer review helps to mitigate the subjective personality of the Scientist. There is no such thing to help with social ideas like Marxism. You simply try them out, and the results are unrepeatable. The only reason I pick at this point with you is that there are a lot of people who are reared to believe Science is magical or is in some sort of competition with faith. Nothing is further from the facts, because Science is a refusal to rely upon authority figures and impositions except for rational arguments. That is what 'Science' is. You can get ingrained Scientific beliefs, but there are ways these things get mitigated. It has to do with the community of scientists who judge each other very harshly, and there are occasionally mavericks too. Its nowhere near as subjective as faith or politics.
I see what you are saying. Also Red Economist said: "The general position of Marxists is that Science is not a neutral reflection of reality, but is an 'ideology'. Ideas are a product of the mind but do still reflect reality, but only partially. Truth is therefore relative to the technology available to make discoveries. How ideas are organized is a reflection of how society is organized. Scientific ideas therefore contain certain bias which leads to re-enforcing political outcomes."Science is not infallible though. History is filled with scientists who were right, but the community at the time dismissed their findings, and what was once believed to be hard science that is now debunked. There is also at times heavy pressure to produce results (rather than gaining observations and drawing conclusions), get published, and to not make your donors look bad. Science should perhaps fall under even more vigorous scrutiny that religion on the basis it has, in the Western world, more power to influence than religion. It isn't magic or superstition, but it is not without a degree of faith.