• Funkytom467@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Dialectic can never be a science, you can’t apply the same methodology. Even when it’s material.

    However it is philosophy, and if your searching for some material reality then it’s ontology.

    Science too is a product of ontology, it’s a methodology created for this exact purpose and wich can be studied in this field.

    Saying physical properties are social abstractions sounds to me like social constructivism, which is epistemology, again philosophy.

    Social sciences can be soft science precisely when they are not dialectic and rely on the methodology of science.

    And to be clear, soft science is just a science that is based on a hard science, in which we don’t have enough work done to explain every emergent properties using fundamental properties of matter.

    Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.

      Quite like Marxism.

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          In that it’s an outdated economics theory… In fact, it was outdated when it was first published already.

            • marcos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              In that it ignored the previous half a century of (well tested) advances on the area and just made claims that were already known not to hold on the real world.

              • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Can you for one second elaborate on anything you’re saying? What did Marx ignore, and what doesn’t hold in the real world?

                • marcos@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  For example, the entire labor theory of value doesn’t hold up on the real world and Economics had already better explanations for the phenomenon it was trying to explain.