As a trained scientist,ie the empirical sciences in particular physics, it may seem that dialectics is useless. Well it does not do anything in that sense, it does not produce things or commodities or in itself ideas. It is best considered as an aid to discovering the truth about the real world.
Formal logic deals with fixed states but this is inadequate, but not useless, counting would be impossible otherwise.
Dialectics started formally for the early greeks with the idea that everything is in flux which contradicted the idea that everything stays the same.

Later with Plato and and Aristotle, it was more about finding the right question to obtain the truth of something. Here is a flavour of the myriad of questions
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~awalzer/rhet5775/Ar...equestions.html
The simplest truth of philosophy is that life is out there and it needs questioned.
Although there may be brain dead people out there, let us assume that the sphere of philosophy dos not allow for that.
Dialectics is fundamentally about framing questions, aimed at strripping bare the nature of our world. Marx is even more eager, the problem is not just to inerpret the world but to change it.

Aristotle invented formal logic.
Here we have a basic syllogismhttp://www.perseus.tufts.edu/GreekScience/...dana/LOGIC.html

If A is predicated of all B

and B is predicated of all C,

then A is predicated of all C.

So to give another definition of dialectics, it is the discussion of this syllogism as it applies to life and moreso how an entity of any sort develops. The entity Marx concerned himself was society, from primitive times to now to the possible future.

Hegel takes this discussion to dizzy heights.
He imagines life as the unfolding of an idea
Marx changes the subject matter to labour and brings that analysis to fruition in Das Kapital.
If you read study Hegel's Logic at the same time as Capital the parallels are undoubtedly there. At times Hegel even lapses ino materialism.

This is very useful if you want to study the history of the development of a particular entity in complex depth, but one cannot learn to swim by not jumping into the pool.
One has to deeply immerse onself in ones subject matter.

Nothing in dialectics is fixed in stone, it merely provides a framework or frameworks to comprehend a process, to see opposites at work and relations between them, to ultimately grasp the thing as an entirety ie bring about clarity.

Peacenicked (I am sorry, but I thought you were going to ‘explain’ the dialectic; all you have done is repeat the same old mystical nostrums):

Well, formal logic does not do this, since it is not a science. It studies inference patterns and if those patterns are about changing things, then it will study them.

Tense logic, for example, specifically does this.

But, even he believed things changed.

And formal logic has moved on since then; in fact 130 years ago it went through the kind of revolution that Physics went through in the 17th century. So, today. 95% of logic is less than 130 years old. Only antiquarians and those who do not know anything about logic bother with syllogisms.

You can find the details at my site:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2004.htm

Well, he mystifies the garbled logic around in his day (itself a bowdlerised version of Aristotelicn logic) as he does thought in general, and ‘derives’ conclusions not justified by his premises (if he has any that are comprehensible, that is).

So the “dizzy” bit is correct.

So we are constantly told (that part of dialectics does not seem to have been hit by the universal flux you speak of), but Hegelian jargon only gets in the way of Marx’s clearly stated Historical Materialism; Capital does not need it, and neither do we.

Now all, this has been thrashed out on earlier threads; you must have missed it.

Are you a physicist?

I wouldn't say that dialectics brings about true clarity in understanding the material world. I can understand that dialectics could help you to analyze Marx's works and understand certain concepts but besides that, I don't see much use for it.

Rosa, you might as well just link to your website all the time like redstar as you're only wasting your time with some of the dialecticians here though I'm sure that they feel the same about you.

Formal logic, not a science, since when? Since when was studying patterns not at the very core of science, As a physicist, comparing patterns, even abstract fixed patterns is away of intuiting the way things will develop.
Well i dont see much use for thinking if you dont want to think.
One way to think is to think historically and not dismiss the past that we have supposedly moved on from.
We have moved into is a reductionist postmodern environment that does everything to impoverish thought.
The fact that the bourgeios world is intent in destroying clear thinking does not mean we have to be part of it.
The use of syllogism cant just be overturned by pointing to the advances in modern thought.
And as Marx himself said Hegel has been kicked about like a dead dog. I do not dismiss formal logic just state it is inadequate. There is a problem between constancy and flux in nature, that is part of the dialectic.
There are all sorts of logic sure, but to argue that syllogisms are incomprehensible
is just plain unreasonable. Aristotle also explains some iregularities.
The reason Aristotle and Hegel are so important is partly aesthetical in that they prioritise the Universal, the Particular, and the Individual. However fuzzy, lateral or
specialised logic gets. There is absolutely no getting away from these terms as the medium which thinking is done and is the major framework, in all sociology.
Even some bourgeois minded scholars have to think in terms of groups, and categories of individuation to make any sense whatsoever.
The trick is to get to really know your subject.
Which also applies to Redstar, the trick is not to make assumptions about dialectics that are about reducing things to mere macarbre level of facts.

Well, science usually deals with nature and empiricism formulated in a mathematical language.

Pattern recognition, etc., is a very important part of math since there is neither empiricism nor nature involved in it

The point isn't to derive nature from math but the other way round, otherwise you're being Platonic (not to mention, a String theorist *shudder*).

So...when will you explain dialectics?

Science as a universal does not exclude maths nature or anything. The important thing is the historical approach. Something from the early childhod of human knowledge can become important today. The diameter of the earth was calculated 2000 yers before it was verified by modernity.

As to the explanation of dialectics, I have merely presented a foothold, if you want to go deeper feel free to go right to the belly. It is a subject i am very well researched on.
Dialectics is most concerned about the movement of knowledge,if you dont want to think why would you be concerned about that. Why not just stick with facts as immediate data that ought to be confronted.

No, it doesn't exclude it. What it does is it uses it.

However, math does not determine how nature works. If I deduced there were a gazillion dimensions, and through this I discovered how everything works, it would be irrelevant without empirical evidence.

Math is there to back science up, not as a replacement for science.

But that doesn't mean that the diameter of the Earth was determined by the calculation. It's only a guess (if there is no empiricism).

Math and empiricism go hand-in-hand, but as a rule empiricism trumps math.

But math trumps dialectics :P

OK, well first, how do you use dialectics?

This is just pure philistine nonsense. The whole world would be brain dead if it stuck to mere empirical facts.
Not to say that facts are not improtant, but how do new facts arise, is the empirical evidence there already? Speculation is an absolute necessity for science to develop. Proofs are nice but ideas that need tested just dont grow on trees they come from studying the history of the process involved. String theory maybe a flash in the pan, it is a series of guesses and they are making bigger and better particle accellerators to explore these guesses. Knowledge does not move by just sticking to the facts, that only does the opposite, thats what makes your position reactionary.

The dialectical method is to look at the history of a problem, and its proposed solutions,to find ways forward not to wait about for evidence for unvalidated theories.

Coming from a dialectician, I'll take this as the negation of the negation of "philistine nonsense".

And yet here we are!

I suspect that you are a sympathizer with the String theorists who have "deduced" the "inner workings" of everything by "pure reason", then?

Technically speaking, yes! That is, the empirical evidence is waiting to be empirically witnessed.

Or...what, do we make empirical evidence by pure whims? Our ideas determine empirical findings? Rather Platonic, don't you think?

"New facts" is a rather contradictory phrase...like saying "New old school" or "girly man". There aren't "new facts", but there are facts which are newly discovered.

It's not as though facts were "created" (unless dialecticians suddenly support the existence of "God" ).

I'd hate to burst your bubble, but throughout history every time someone pulls some radically different hypothesis from thin air, it delays the course of science for years.

Copernicus' work was based on the empirical inconsistencies of Ptolemy's system; Newton's work was based on the empirical inconsistencies of Aristotle's system (as empirically predecessed by Galileo's relativistic transformation). The list goes on and on.

Einstein's work was based on the empirical inconsistencies of Maxwell's equations and Newtonian mechanics.

Ideas come from attempts to explain empirical phenomena...this is what is popularly known as "Science".

The problem is that particle accelerators are for particles! Spacetime is not composed of particles ("gravitons" -- not that it's continuous either).

But based on the empirical inconsistencies of black hole mechanics inside the black hole there is a need to quantize gravity (so we can understand what happens inside a black hole).

String theory has mathematical inconsistencies, not to mention the scores of empirical inconsistencies. I think it's pretty safe, based on its logical contradictions, to say that it is wrong.

So by choosing spontaneity over facts I would become "revolutionary" in my epistemological position?

"Knowledge" is largely based on empiricism (bayesian inference, anyone?).

Try "inventing knowledge" and show me how, step by step.

So dialectics lacks materialism? That's good to know, but why isn't it moot yet if that's the case?

1)the negation of the negation. Yes it is a negation of your nonsense.

2)we are here? Where certainly not on this.


3)empirical evidence waiting to be empirically tested,

Waiting where?

Evidence does not wait anywhere, you need to have a theory that has an historical basis, speculation does not arise out of thin air it arises out of surveying previous probings, tested or not.
This is how normal scientific practice operates,
then you go on in a Bacon like rant about how knowledge develops from the weakness of previous theories, it is true to an extent but life is not that mechanical,things can develop by bringing things from other fields or tangentally or even accidentally, very old theories untested might bring new light.
The obessession with facts is what marxists call empiricism.
The accountants approach to science and political economy. What empiricists cant
handle is qualitative change, it does not seem materialistic to them it cant be measured by mere numbers.

Lifes rich tapestry is not linear sequenced and there is no evidence waiting, only idealistically.
Theories can be bold even brazen, they might be useless in one area and useful in others. As to string theory, it is not yet proven, it has mathematical roots but that does not make it untrue. It is not yet unproven. if your case is strong apriora perhaps you should enter a paper on the subject to MIT or somewhere string theorists might listen.
However I think your position is reactionary,philistine, mechanical and fundamentaly obscurantist to the real nature of the development of knowledge.

We are where, what the hell are you referring to?

Why, in my closet of course, with Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny

You're arguing semantics; "waiting" is a "metaphor".

Soo...

1. One needs a theory with a historical basis...
2. But one doesn't find a new theory based on the weakness of other previous ("historical") theories....
3. And we can't look anywhere else for theoretical help...

Well, I can point to one blatant contradiction of this "theory" of yours: loop quantum gravity.

It took particle physics and applied it to geometry What blasphemy!

Or maybe another example is needed? Like the application of statistical mechanics in electrodynamics? Oh right, Einstein's work on quantum physics.

Or the galilean relativity applied to Maxwell's electrodynamics. Einstein again.

Or the application of Bio-informatics to Historical Materialism?

I can go on and on and list the large number of exceptions to your "theory", which is in effect a "counter-example" thus "disproving" what you propose.

"Catastrophe Theory", "Cybernetics Theory", "Chaos Theory", "Control Theory", "Systems Theory", "Information Theory": all quantitative methods to handle (quite beautifully, I might add) "qualitative changes".

Look no further than the Santa Fe Institute for the resounding failure of "qualitative changes from quantitative changes" in science and social science.

Or UC Santa Cruz would be a better example?

They're all "empirical" methods; how "vulgar"!

You're right, Platonism is *self evidently* the logical, empirical, and only theory that can ever be true.

And you were speaking of "materialism"? In what sense of the word "materialism" compatible with your Platonism?

String theorists are a lot like Neoclassical economists: they don't listen.

The "Double Special" 'relativity' that's used by String theorists is (mathematically and empirically) nothing like real special relativity.

The introduction of an increasing number of dimensions is actually caused by the lack of a renormalization constant. When String theory is correct at an intuitive level, there will be an infinite number of dimensions; this is tragicomically absurd and the spatial dimensions (the infinity - 3 spatial dimensions) would be so tiny that it would be negligible (save at the sub-Planck scale).

It's a "beautiful" theory that "preserves" a classical symmetric view of nature; but its beauty does nothing to save it from being wrong.

For the last time: String theory is NOT science!

Besides MIT's an engineering school; they know nothing of theoretical physics. (No wonder they endorse String theory)

What you think is irrelevant; as you have yet to even explain dialectics (remember?).

As "reactionary" or "mechanical" my "obscurantist" position is, I am not the Platonist here. I'm the materialist one.

Whatever happened to explaining dialectics? Gone the way of the Hegelian?

This quite a rant.

1) we are here..........................you wrote it I suggest you find where you wrote it the beginning of your piece.

2) Waiting as a metaphor for not yet found, still I took it both ways. still is idealistic drivel


3) Nothing you said is at all relevant to what I said, you use known theories as examples of empiricism, that is cheating science. They are scientific theories evidated by empirical observations. you have no idea how they came into being.
They cerainly did not start off as facts but ideas that where based on historical insights.

I dont get where you get the platonism from is 'lifes rich tapestry' so near to holism to you that it cause you to vomit.

if anybody is not listening it is you.

you havent answered my points you have only created a diversion.
You have skill as a sophist and an obscurantist.

Not many scientists are empiricists but they all are empirical in their rigid devotion to accuracy, you clearly are not looking for a difference.
BTWDialectics can also be thought as the process of revealing obscurantism in human thinking.

I suggest you use the [*quote] [*/quote] buttons so I can understand what in my response you are responding to directly.

Yet dialectics is this wonder theory that is beyond explanation? So long as it doesn't examine reality, it should be "good".

And who would have thought looking at reality is "idealistic drivel"?!

You are telling me about cheating science? The fellow who tried to get rid of nature in science, the investigation of nature?!

If empiricism is "good enough" for science, I am willing to take the "vague" and "idealistic" methodology.

But your completely irrelevant point is...?

I don't know how theories come into being? As though you had some magical formula?

Oh right, dialectics - the inexplicable method that is "beyond words"

You said: Lifes rich tapestry is not linear sequenced and there is no evidence waiting, only idealistically.

What this means in the Vernecular is that "Lifes rich tapestry" - whatever that may be - "is not linear sequenced and" there is no evidence waiting, only waiting idealistically.

That's Platonism, not to mention vague, obscure, and ambiguous.

You grammars is destroying my brains.

Hey, I'm no dialectician, don't credit me with "sophistry" and "obscurantism".

Whatever happened to explaining dialectics? Or is this only a "diversion"?

What I have done was given you counter examples to your nonsensical and inconsistent assertions that ideas "fall from the sky" yet are "based on historical processes".

If you don't like that, then don't call it some philosophically esoteric term.

What are you maundering about?

I guess you must be right because of that, biologists obviously don't look at nature. Physicists, as I know from personal experience, don't look at nature. Neither do chemists!

Science is "beyond" nature. What a brilliant insight!

I assert this further, science works directly against nature ("negation of the negation" and whatnot).

Really, what scientist looks at data! Honestly!

A better question is what scientists care about accuracy? Obviously by your insight, none. Just ignore the work of every science since the dawn of time.

And it took how many posts to come to the subject of the thread? Only to be covered in one sentence!?

You assert that dialectics is this thats a cheap shot. It gives false credit and i am asked to defend it. Dialectics is not a theory.
It is a method of tackling processes from as many sides as possible. The demand
for all sidedness is a safeguard against mistakes.


is not the same as pressuposing a theory is empirically valid before it is even tested or in some way by necessity is empirically valid at all given moments. That would stifle thought and experiment.

Empiricism is a narrow focus on evidence. Dialectics is not a restrictive practice.
The basic idea is to plough deep into the qualities of a process so as to see how opposite tendencies interplay.It is a tool, a plug in, to analyses so to speak, that aims at clarity within an historical context.

Empiricism is not good enough for science. Empirical observation is a very good tool for testing. Dialectics is the art of posing the questions that are most relevant to development. people do it all the time when they are sizing up a situation.
The dialectial method is a sort of conscious sizing up. It may not be needed but it is designed to help.

As to life's rich tapestry not being sequentually linear, that is intuitive, and I think self evident. Poverty of thinking is more a one directional street.

Empiricism is a philosophical trend not a scientific method or theory, . It stays outside deduction, which is its real poverty, and rationalism: which tends to invite irrationalism or god through the back door.
Both deductive and inductive methods can achieve results.
You use this on string theory but you have no empirical evidence to say it is not a science. In this sense your argument is self defeating.


i hope that makes things clearer for you.

I

Peace:

From the start.

Where in Aristotle do you find him suggesting you test a single syllogism with an experiment, an observation or doing a survey?

Logic is the formal study of inference. Sure scientists use it, but that does not make it a science.

You only have to compare it with your own subject to see the categorical difference.

Sure, all sorts of metaphysical theories attached themselves to logic, but so they do to science. And we learnt to ignore them there.

Well, that cannot determine the nature of science or dressmaking would be a science. You are confusing logic with the psychology of thought. Now, there science can and does have a part to play. But, if logicians were scientists they’d do brain scans and psychometric testing.

Logic looks at the formal properties of language and studies valid inference. That is it.

If you want to call that a science, that’s OK, but then you will need a new word to distinguish it from say Physics, where experimentation is vitally important.

We do not do experiments in logic.

So calling it a science is not helpful at all.

I do not know what this has got to do with anything I said:

Much of modern philosophy is not post-modernist (sure those aspects influenced by continental thought are, but Analytic Philosophy (the dominant form in the USA, UK, northern Europe, and Australasia, etc), for example, is largely based around defending scientific realism, or some sort of realism or other).

Well you are like someone who says that you cannot overturn the good old mathematics that was around before the calculus.

Would you argue this way? To be consistent with your stance on logic, you would have to.

Sorry comrade, the syllogism is dead. In fact, it is hard to believe that you, a physicist, are arguing for the retention an ancient logic that has passed its sell-by date by at least 1000 years -- you will be arguing for Ptolemaic cosmology next!

The syllogism cannot handle hypothetical reasoning, mathematical reasoning (where relations are involved), ones that use complex scope ambiguity, multiple generality, complex negation, higher order quantification, among a host of other things.

It is wedded to a grammatical form (subject-predicate) found only in Indo-European language, and it is not even an important grammatical form (it was adopted by Greek theorists because it meshed with their aristocratic view of reality).

Modern mathematics would be crippled without modern logic, and that would have held science up.

Hence, the revolution in logic was pioneered by mathematicians sick of the limitations of the old logic. Without this, there would have been no non-Euclidean geometry (and hence no Relativity), no advanced number theory (connected with continuity), and hence no advanced calculus (and so no Quantum mechanics).

Your own subject would still be stuck in the past without the break-through in logic in the 1850's-1890's.

Computers for example, are based on the propositional calculus (invented by the ancient Stoics a few hundred years after Aristotle, (ignored by Hegel) and now fully formalised way beyond this basic level) for which the syllogistic logic would be useless.

Cling on to syllogisms, and computing would die.

Where did I say that?

They aren’t incomprehensible (I agree), they are just useless. Find me a scientist who has ever used an Aristotelian syllogism to discover anything, or test anything.

You are just advertising your lack of knowledge here, Peace. Quantification theory (the heart of modern logic) can do this far better than the old logic.

You can find the links to sites that will upgrade your medieval knowledge base at my site.

It is clear that this applies to your knowledge of logic, too.

From what you have so far said, you have based your ideas on material that is well out of date (and which material was very limited even when it was used -- which it wasn't in science since it is largely of philosophical significance, hence Hegel's fondness for it)

Rosa
If you are trying to tell me that deduction is not scientific,I must insist you are expressing a falsehood. You are either blind to real life or just plain lying.

here from marxism.org.
Deduction

Deduction and Induction are terms denoting opposite methods of reasoning. Deduction is the method of inference which substantiates a conclusion on the basis of a number of previously established premises by means of the application of laws of logic, rather than by drawing on experience. Induction is begins from a number of given facts and arrives at the principles exhibited in these facts, opening the possibility for deducing new facts or hypotheses. However, it should be kept in mind that cognition is impossible without both deduction and induction. Neither induction nor deduction can go more than a single step without the help of the other. Criticising formal logic, which rigidly separate Deduction and Induction, Hegel asks: “Where do the laws of logic come from? And where do the premises come from?”. Deduction and induction are a unity of broadly the same nature as analysis and synthesis


I suggest that thought is not part of your philosophy , you see life as bundles of empirical data.

Your initial premise is reductionist and postmodern

You should try reading Lukacs "The Destruction of Reason" . To see how irrationalism arose in the imperialist epoch.
Reason is nothing to with specialised modern theories.

If you start from the wrong premise, then the rest of your thinking falls like a house of cards.

Peace:

I did not say this; I acknowledged that scientists use logic, but the study of logic is not a science, since its results are not subject to experimental test.

If you want to claim it is a science, you most certainly can (who am I to stop you?), but then, as I said, you will need another word to distinguish logic from say Physics (where results have to be tested empirically).

How can you test these (taken from modern logic) empirically?

~[(P→Q)v(P→R)↔(P→(QvR))]
~[~(Ex)(Fx&~Gx)↔(x)(Fx→Gx)]

It would be about as crazy as trying to test commutativity in mathematics:

A+B= B+A

However, thanks for quoting from Marxism org, but from what they say there they do not know any modern logic either (so I suspect this might be affecting you), and what little ancient logic they allude to is clearly beyond them.

[I go through the egregious errors dialecticians make (including Woods and Grant) at my site; check out that link I posted earlier.]

You yourself need to look at books or sites that are at least up to date.

What would you think if I quoted flat earth scientists at you, or Ptolemaic cosmologists (there are those still around); you'd take me to task for not being up to date, at the very least.

Same here.

Well you suggest wrong. I am Ok with scientific theory, but not philosophical theory, for the reasons I have stated at this board, many times.

Why are you making stuff up?

I have no original premiss (except perhaps the truth of Historical Materialism).

Find one; I challenge you.

Done it (in fact I have read several hundred books and articles on dialectics and Hegel, etc.).

Lukacs is a very confused 'thinker'.

You need to address the points I made if your views are to have any credibility.

And stop making stuff up.

But you were going to "explain it"; and this hasn't been done yet!

How can you defend something you haven't explained?

What you have done is attacking the "idealism" of empiricism (which makes absolutely no sense); which is totally unrelated to explaining dialectics.

Then explain this "method" of "tackling processes" and show an example, show your reasoning for what you do with this method, and show that it is reproducible (that you and I both using dialectics on an agreed upon subject come to the same conclusion).

Yes! The point of empiricism is to look at reality so that one can verify a theory.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

By your vehement railing against empiricism, this leads me to suspect that you are a Platonist.

Well, what is the point of focusing on a subject without evidence?

I have given you half a dozen or so examples from science where empiricism has played role as a catalyst for theoretical advancement.

I'm not talking about naive empiricism, I'm talking about scientific materialism. It's not a "check list" of "empirical phenomena".

What do you propose to do? Disregard reality totally?

The "dialectical method" sounds like a bad method, largely from its inability to be reproducible.

Very much like a psychic claiming only s/he may speak to "the beyond" and no one else can duplicate it.

What garbage is that?!

Well, if you think it's self evident, why bother asking for any proof or examples?

The "poverty" is with your nonlinear nonsense; it's been over fifty years, and nothing has come from nonlinear calculus, algebra, or any other field of nonlinearity.

Do I have to do the math here to demonstrate it to you?

Deduction or induction...of what?

What are you deducing from? You must use induction prior to using deduction, otherwise you end up with tautologies.

Where do you use induction?

Egads, that dreaded thing! Empirical reality!

Well, I'm going on the mathematical and empirical inconsistencies of String theory.

As I pointed out earlier, which you so gleefully disregarded, the number of dimensions will approach infinity because of a lack of a renormalization constant.

That is to say, String theory uses an infinite number of dimensions. If you can't see the absurdity of this, you are no scientist.

That's based on empirical verification that there is a finite number of dimensions, and the mathematical verification from the lack of a renormalization constant.

Rosa and ComradeRed,

To take the entirety of both your positions(ie the land of propagating brain death),
let us start from nothing. What do induce I from nothing. The theory that there is something more than nothing.

Empirical data,but I cannot find how you measure that data. Imagine me cutting through the necessity of evidence to come up with such an idea. Is this an empty deduction to conclude I exist and why would I even want to look for evidence.


Both of you are trapped in empty syllogisms, data starvation and are profoundly ignorant of the history of philosophy.
ComradeRed
Where did you deduce that from?


Rosa
I would ask you and what grounds did these thinkers come to these conclusions?

How up to-date can an answer to that question be.

What objective standards do you use to prove that something from the past is false?

btw, both you have said nothing on any of my definitions of dialectics.


These can be found by sentences that start with the word 'Dialectics'

Selective consistency, eh? <_<

So you pull ideas from thin air?

P1. One deduces from premises.
P2. Tautologies can only be deduced to form tautologies.
P3. Tautologies are "always" "true" because they are all the same (via Church's alpha congruence).
P4. Without empiricism (induction, whatever), there are only tautologies. (How else can a premise be formed without relying on reality?)
C. From pure deduction, one deduces nothing from a given tautology.

P4 is largely pioneered by Hume's point "When one asks you to think of the a priori concept of a 'gold mountain' you take the a postereori concepts of 'gold' and 'mountain' and combine the two."

"But but but he was some zombie brain land man from some nether-world of epistemology!"

Irrelevant, all your maundering about the "brain dead" methodologies, or the "poverty" methods or whatever, turns out to be nothing more than non-sequiturs and fallacies. I'm "possessed" like that.


By the by, when are you going to explain dialectics? Or is this thread simply a negation of reason?