Had an argument where someone tried to tell me historical materialism is “necessarily true” and therefore not scientific or useful. Only response I can think of is that dialectical materialism is a philosophical framework, and isn’t subject to the same rules of falsification as a hypothesis. It feels somehow unsatisfying.
Have any of you encountered this argument before? What do you say to it?
Well why would “x is necessarily true” mean “x is not scientific or useful”? I don’t see how especially the latter follows from the proposition. If anything wouldn’t DiaMat being necessarily true especially necessitate humans using it in all of their analysis?
If something is a necessary fact of life it would be nonsensical not to use it.
Sure, but Marxism is supposed to be scientific, right? Don’t our theories need to be falsifiable as a rule?
Is the proposition that every scientific hypothesis or system needs to be falsifiable itself falsifiable?
That’s what popper claims separates science from non-scientific disciplines.
Saying “there is a god” isn’t scientific because you can’t disprove it.
Saying, “everyone in the world is wearing a white shirt” is, because you could observe that being false. It puts the focus on real life, testable phenomena.
It’s just some JP shit, back when he started his bullshit career he went around trying to redefine truth and some idiots fell for it.