That is all policies and political structures are testable and tested to see their effect on those three (or other suggested) factors. If a policy doesn’t reasonably work then it’s simply not continually employed. I’m curious to see what factors others think ought to be used.

It seems most political systems now were built without science in mind and utilize it as an afterthought to help develop legitimacy for policies individuals want. Generally politics across countries seems deeply emotionally driven and not fact driven. That is people have a feeling that an idea is a good idea and then they cobble together whatever they can to support that point without any unified measure of good or better. Ideally it ought to be the other way around, fact or evidence informed policy generation.

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    15 days ago

    Science is not independent of philosophy. There’s idealist science, metaphysical science, etc, all of which are wrong. There is no such thing as science without philosophy, because science is an attempt by humans to understand the world. Humans are all philosophers, as we all have a world outlook. By rejecting study of philosophy as it relates to science, you are ignoring preconcieved biases, rather than acknowledging them and correcting the misconceptions.

    This is why Marxism-Leninism is correct, and why all science must be done from a dialectical materialist standpoint.

    • Zephyr@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      I mean yeah the scientific method and the tools of science, namely mathematics are indeed branches of philosophy, so is aesthetics but that doesn’t mean science is aesthetics even though they both are philosophy. Now if the claim that Marxism-Leninism is “correct” aka is the most optimal form of governance for producing human wellbeing then of course a system dedicated to finding through scientific enquiry the most optimal means of governance will scientifically prove it is through all possible measurements. There’s no need to have feelings when we can have proof, quantifiable, measurable, repeatable proof. Once again science and specifically the scientific method doesn’t need hand holding, the process will derive the most optimal means of governance regardless of people’s seemingly infallible worship of this political system or that political system.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        15 days ago

        You’re still treating science like it’s not a process gone through by humans. Science once posited that race science was correct in order to justify eugenics. We need to be aware of our world outlook and correct it before we begin to use science, otherwise we come to incorrect conclusions and incorrect propositions. That’s my point.

        Marxism-Leninism is correct not because it is a “form of governance” (it isn’t) but because it’s a living social science grounded in scientific understanding of the world.

        • Zephyr@sh.itjust.worksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          15 days ago

          You’re correct, the best aspect of science is the self revision built into it unlike other systems. The problem with a lot of political philosophies is they suffer from the same blindness but don’t have a system that is ultimately self revising. Once again if what you are saying is true then it will be shown through repeatable measurement, and testing. There’s no need to depend on feelings when we can have facts. If Marxism-Leninism is the most optimal form of governance for producing human wellbeing then a system designed to discover the most optimal form of governance will reproduce it. Putting political philosophy before science is putting the cart before the horse, aka Marxism-Leninism is a good hypothesis we can test using a stronger mental construct called the scientific method.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            15 days ago

            I already said Marxism-Leninism is not a “form of governance.” The fact that you repeat this claim leads me to believe that you aren’t actually reading what I’m writing.

            Phikosophy, our world outlook, is already before science. The way we see the world and understand it determines how we view science and perform it. This is why vulgar materialists, as opposed to dialectical materialists, tried to prove race theory correct and thus advocate for eugenics. Science is not neutral. The world around us, the material world, does not care how we interpret it beyond how we change it. However, there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral observer, we all have preconceived biases.

            Marxism-Leninism is already scientific, the scientific method is a tool employed by it already. You’re trying to remove science from the context it exists in.

            • Zephyr@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              I think we’ve run afoul of two issues. How do you define Marxism-Leninism? Through which means do you know its correctness?

              If you know its correctness through implementation and then measuring the results then that’s science testing a hypothesis. For example I know my nose is between my eyes because I can measure through my senses and test that idea repeatedly until I have statistical confidence that’s the location of my nose. If for some reason the location of my nose changes then that information can be updated with testing and measurement most likely through my senses.

              If you know through some other means like spiritual revelation then it’s still the case that the concept will have measurable outcomes we can use to test and compare with other concepts to verify its correctness.

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                14 days ago

                Marxism-Leninism is an ideological framework. Essentially, it fronts dialectical materialism, the materialist conception of history, and Marxist political economy as correct. There is no one “Marxist-Leninist form of governance,” just as in real life there is no one universally correct form of governance. However, all of the component parts of Marxism-Leninism are correct, including dialectical materialism, which is the basis of correct scientific analysis and interpretation. It is not a replacement for the scientific method, but a way we understand the world.

                What you describe is broadly empiricism. The limits of pure empiricism are that, if we are being truly pure, we do not draw connections between linked phenomena. In other words, we do not assume gravity will be the same tomorrow as it is today, because we have not yet tested it. As the world is constantly changing on both a micro and macro scale, this means each test is in fact fresh, with fresh conditions. Empiricism, taken to the extreme, denies this understanding.

                Dialectical materialism expands upon empiricism by recognizing the interconnection of everything, and that knowledge is something continuous. As we test the world, we gain a better understanding of it, and therefore the world is always changing so our knowledge is always becoming outdated as long as we are not continuously testing and practicing. Through practice, we gain better knowledge, with which we can better predict what will happen.

                There’s nothing spiritual about Marxism-Leninism. Knowledge comes from practice, of course it does. However, without acknowledging that we all have a world outlook, this solidifies what might be incorrect, such as idealism or metaphysics, as has often happened in the field of science.

                • Zephyr@sh.itjust.worksOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  I see the issue now. I was operating with the common definition or the definition one gets when you search Marxism-Leninism. That being

                  Marxism-Leninism is a communist political ideology based on the ideas of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, focusing on a vanguard party, state-led economies, and the overthrow of capitalism. With the primary ideas of a vanguard party or a dedicated group of leaders guides the working class to launch a successful political revolution. Dictatorship of the proletariat, the working class holds state power to run society and block capitalist opposition during the transition to socialism. Democratic Centralism, decisions are made through open debate inside the party, but once a choice is final, all members must support it completely. Command Economy, the government takes control of property, industry, and resources to build a planned socialist system.

                  By any standard definition I can easily find it doesn’t deal with a process of discerning truth through measurement or testing as the scientific method does.

                  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    Those are all parts of Marxism-Leninism, and the basis of Marxism-Leninism is dialectical materialism. Here’s Lenin outlining the basics of Marxism in The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism:

                    The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defense of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.

                    Later on, he describes the philosophical section:

                    The philosophy of Marxism is materialism. Throughout the modern history of Europe, and especially at the end of the eighteenth century in France, where a resolute struggle was conducted against every kind of medieval rubbish, against serfdom in institutions and ideas, materialism has proved to be the only philosophy that is consistent, true to all the teachings of natural science and hostile to superstition, cant and so forth. The enemies of democracy have, therefore, always exerted all their efforts to “refute,” undermine and defame materialism, and have advocated various forms of philosophical idealism, which always, in one way or another, amounts to the defense or support of religion.

                    Marx and Engels defended philosophical materialism in the most determined manner and repeatedly explained how profoundly erroneous is every deviation from this basis. Their views are most clearly and fully expounded in the works of Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and Anti-Dühring, which, like the Communist Manifesto, are handbooks for every class-conscious worker.

                    But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel’s system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science—radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements—have been a remarkable confirmation of Marx’s dialectical materialism despite the teachings of the bourgeois philosophers with their “new” reversions to old and decadent idealism.

                    Marx deepened and developed philosophical materialism to the full, and extended the cognition of nature to include the cognition of human society. His historical materialism was a great achievement in scientific thinking. The chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics were replaced by a strikingly integral and harmonious scientific theory, which shows how, in consequence of the growth of productive forces, out of one system of social life another and higher system develops—how capitalism, for instance, grows out of feudalism.

                    Just as man’s knowledge reflects nature (i.e., developing matter), which exists independently of him, so man’s social knowledge (i.e., his various views and doctrines—philosophical, religious, political and so forth) reflects the economic system of society. Political institutions are a superstructure on the economic foundation. We see, for example, that the various political forms of the modern European states serve to strengthen the domination of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat.

                    Marx’s philosophy is a consummate philosophical materialism which has provided mankind, and especially the working class, with powerful instruments of knowledge.

                    It’s incredibly difficult to summarize an entire ideology in a short definition, especially one made by non-MLs.