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" |