@tendmote

Because you are a very intelligent human being who understands the subject matter of this discussion very well.

"Any person that manipulates their data or conclusions to fit their political agenda will not have much of a career in science."

They do have a very good career in cigarette companies and pharmaceutical research firms.

@oscarjd74

Wait a minute… you said that “Marxian economic theory… describes how economies develop in a rather neutral (= scientific) way and without preaching towards some desired outcome”, and then you said “use Marxian economic theory to figure out how to achieve this other outcome.” So the economic theory *is* about outcomes! Fortunately it is horseshit.

Also, @Putin33:

“If class antagonism and the mode of production doesn't drive history, what pray tell does?”

Why assume anything “drives” history? That’s a bias right there.

Finally, oscarjd74, I’m not against science, I’m against “””””science”””””, five-deep quotes representing deep skepticism, based on the fact that “Marxism the political program” comes with it’s own “Marxism the economic theory”; it’s a little weird to be both the subject and the method of inquiry.

"Wait a minute… you said that “Marxian economic theory… describes how economies develop in a rather neutral (= scientific) way and without preaching towards some desired outcome”, and then you said “use Marxian economic theory to figure out how to achieve this other outcome.” So the economic theory *is* about outcomes! Fortunately it is horseshit."

No, you're the one who is full of shit. If you know about nuclear physics, you can use that knowledge to build instruments to treat cancer patients, but you can also use it to build a nuclear weapon. The knowledge about nuclear physics itself doesn't prescribe how to use it. It's just knowledge, valid in either case.

Similarly you can use Marxian economic theory to try and build a socialist state, but you can just as well use it to manage a capitalist state. The theory is useful in either case.

"Finally, oscarjd74, I’m not against science, I’m against “””””science”””””, five-deep quotes representing deep skepticism, based on the fact that “Marxism the political program” comes with it’s own “Marxism the economic theory”; it’s a little weird to be both the subject and the method of inquiry."

Again you show that you have no idea what you are talking about. Political Marxism is not the subject of Marxian economic theory. The subject of Marxian economic theory is the economy (guess what... that's why they call it an economic theory).

The fact that some people, including Marx himself, have subsequently used this theory to develop a political agenda does not make that agenda the subject of the theory any more than nuclear weapons are the subject of nuclear physics. They are instead each just an application of the respective theories.

The thing that you don't seem to be able to get your head around is that while political Marxism was indeed inspired by Marxian economic theory, this is not true the other way around. And that is the reason that despite political Marxism having been proven faulty by history, Marxian economic theory has nonetheless remained a respected theory amongst economists of all sorts of political color. Although, as any other theory in science, there have of course been adjustments over the years as new knowledge was gained, i.e. Neo-Marxism.

"Political Marxism having been proven faulty"

That's an understatement!

"Marxian economic theory has nonetheless remained a respected theory amongst economists of all sorts of political color"

Economists of all sorts of political color are equally steeped in nonsense, and people *do* make decisions based on what they say.

Of course people make decisions based on what economists say. It is called informed decision making. It certainly beats making decisions based on the stuff you say as between yourself and even the most mediocre of economists, the one that's most deeply steeped in nonsense is obviously you.

Here I disagree. Bad information is worse than no information. Economists are paid to say *something*, so they do. People literally "buy it", then they proceed with their plans. People need to borrow the authority of """""science""""" to have credibility; nonetheless the slippery nature of social science means something suitable is always available. It is for this reason that I think people should have very, very low ambitions for their political and economic agenda.

Tendmote, there has to be a source of change in history. What is it?

@Putin33

"Tendmote, there has to be a source of change in history."

That is a very clear expression of bias. There does not have to be "a" source of change in history.

^ I should clarify, the scare quotes on "a" means there does not have *one* source of change in history.

"Here I disagree. Bad information is worse than no information."

I suggest you stop posting then... as all you are doing is spreading bad information.

"Economists are paid to say *something*, so they do. People literally "buy it", then they proceed with their plans."

If they work at a well respected university then no, they're not paid to say anything in particular. This is called scientific freedom. Scientists take it very seriously.

Nonetheless, a portion of scientists are indeed payed by interest groups (such as for instance the pharmaceutical industry, oh wait that's 'hard' science). Such scientists are required to make their affiliations public though. Anyone that reads their publications can take the possible bias into account, scrutinize their methods, search for additional information from independent sources, or derive the information independently themselves. Scientists/sources that are not affiliated with any particular interest group are deemed more reliable.

Such practices are common place in the scientific community because, you know, rather than being defeatist like you, they went and implemented proper procedures to deal with bias. For instance, although the field of Marxian economic theory was initiated by Marx, a wide variety of scientists have since contributed to it. In fact, the entire group of scientists that have contributed to it is so large and diverse that you would have to be an insane conspiracy theorist to believe that it is a biased theory.

"People need to borrow the authority of """""science""""" to have credibility; nonetheless the slippery nature of social science means something suitable is always available."

Sure, you can cherry pick scientific results and this happens all the time in politics. This is a problem with politics though, not with science, because as soon as you start cherry picking with a political agenda it stops being science. This is why you're better off listening to scientists than to politicians if you want reliable information.

"It is for this reason that I think people should have very, very low ambitions for their political and economic agenda."

Yes, that's what you keep repeating. You have however not put forward any explanation as to how "very, very low ambitions" would lead to a better outcome, nor have you put forward any plausible arguments for your premise that social sciences have a "political and economic agenda." As a matter of fact they do not. Political and economic agendas are the domain of politics, whereas the domain of science is the accumulation of reliable knowledge.

"This is why you're better off listening to scientists than to politicians if you want reliable information."

100% agreement! To that I would add, the more "hard" science than "soft" science, the better. Easier to establish what is actually correct.

"as soon as you start cherry picking with a political agenda it stops being science"

100% agreement! In fact it is the cherry picking of entire theories that I'm getting at here. People choose between Marxian economics, Austrian economics, Keynesian economics, *based on their political agenda*. The fact there hasn't been a way to perform an experiment that falsifies all but one of these theories even though they operate in the same domain indicates the malleability of the whole idea of """""science""""" here. These theories compete, provide for contradictory explanations of cause and effect, yet they're all available to lend authority to politicians decisions; in fact it's left to the political process to "bless" the """""science""""", since the """""science""""" can't seem to rule anything out.

Marxian economics lends a fraudulent certainty to the Marxist political philosophy. (There is an analogous fraudulent certainty for hardline Ayn Rand capitalism, but that's a different thread). History is replete with examples of hardline "isms" causing disaster.
Better to be modest, uncertain of our scientific basis, and unambitious.