Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Is randomness natural? (really Marx)
Message-ID: <1249@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Jun-85 16:52:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1249
Posted: Thu Jun 27 16:52:03 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Jun-85 03:21:01 EDT
References: <371@iham1.UUCP> <946@mhuxt.UUCP> <> <505@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <963@mhuxt.UUCP>
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 54


>>>   Most of what Karl Marx said cannot be tested.
>>>   That which can be tested is wrong.
>>> 
>>>                             Patrick Wyant

>>> [Jeff Sonntag]
>>>     That which can be tested is wrong???  So why bother testing anything?
>>> I mean, if you can test it, it must be wrong, right?

>>[Paul DuBois]
>>That which can be tested has been found to be wrong.

>> [Richard Carnes]
>> This exchange is silly even by the standards of net.origins.  The
>> less Americans know about the thought of Marx, the more certain they
>> are we have nothing to learn from Marx.  If you want to attack
>> Marxism, please do it in net.politics.theory, where the subject
>> receives regular airing.

> [Jeff Sonntag]
>     Nobody here is attacking Marxism, Richard.

Quite right.  I was just commenting on the meaning of Patrick's
statement.

> If you're so anxious to
> defend it, why don't you go back to net.politics.theory where you're much
> more likely to find someone interested in attacking it.
>     And Paul - just what *is* your point?  Do you even have one?  Or do you
> just enjoy inserting ambiguity into scientific discussions? 

Patrick said:
>>>   Most of what Karl Marx said cannot be tested.
>>>   That which can be tested is wrong.

My point was simply to clarify what Patrick said:  most of Marxism is not
testable.  Some of it *is* testable, has been put to the test, and,
having been put to the test, has been found to be incorrect.  This has
nothing to do with what I believe personally.

You can ask him if that's what he meant, if you think this is
incorrect.

I do not think my statement was ambiguous.  I do not even think
Patrick's statement was unclear.  I think you are being either
deliberately contentious, or are trying to willfully misunderstand what
was said.  Perhaps you are not, but that's what it looks like to me.

-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois     {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"Photoplankton"                                                     |