zlacker

In this case far-left mean groups that are opposed to objectivity and support adding bias to science. This is the 2+2=5 crowd. They can believe whatever they want, but this is not science and is born out of neo-Marxist ideology.

>>mgamac+(OP)
Where can I read more about this neo-Marxist ideology, that apparently borrows from Marx (certainly pro-science) to somehow become anti-science?

>>e12e+3o
Wait you think Marx was pro science? He denied the supernatural, but like all ideologies reality is secondary to dogmatism. Don't forget he was routed in Hegel.

See Lysenkoism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Marx's ideas were refined by Antonio Gramsci who offered social Hegemony as a means to achieve the utopia. To the extent that science is a sense-making part of society it must be taken over by pro-marxist/communist forces. It's the only way to assure the success of marxism.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/palgrave.cpt.93001...

>>mgamac+Vz
Using Lysenko as evidence that Marx was anti-science is kinda weird.

Stalin had thousands of Lysenko's critics imprisoned, I dunno how Marx would feel about that, but I have a feeling it wouldn't be particularly positive.

What does Hegel have to do with anything here? Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"...

>>skyyle+h61
>Adam Smith was also "routed in Hegel"...

Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations when Hegel was 5 years old, and died when Hegel was 19, and hadn't published anything yet.

>>eurlei+071
I had it the other way around, neat!

Lysenkoism still isn't evidence that Marx was anti-science.