Ontology talk:9k/RD/Q392 - Revision history

Reversedragon: number

2026-08-13T05:30:41Z

number

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:30, 13 August 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:
	<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">		<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">

	{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/STM\|tradition=\|Q=~~618~~\|Q2=~~618~~}}{{book\|Conspectus of Hegel's The Science of Logic}} (Lenin) / The abstraction of matter, of a law of nature ... all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm]		{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/MN/STM\|tradition=MN onto STM\|Q=18,78\|Q2=1878}}{{book\|Conspectus of Hegel's The Science of Logic}} (Lenin) / The abstraction of matter, of a law of nature ... all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm] [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/] / ({{9k\|RD/Q18,78}})

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>

Reversedragon: Conspectus of Hegel's The Science of Logic

2026-08-13T05:16:10Z

Conspectus of Hegel's The Science of Logic

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:16, 13 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=Most science not empirical\|User=RD\|E=Q392\|Contents=y}}		{{NextNineThousand\|PPPA=Most science not empirical\|User=RD\|E=Q392\|Contents=y}}
	== Main entry ==		== Main entry ==
	{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean~~"><!-- inactive:~~ {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}} {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ES~~}} -->~~		{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}"><!-- inactive: {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ES}} -->
	~~<!-- {{li\|start=y\|I=S1/MX\|tradition=\|Q=174\|Q2=174~~}} -->

	</~~li><li class~~=~~"field_geo" value~~="392~~" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">~~Most science is not done in reality / Most science is not done in the material world / Most science is not done in the field or in laboratories / criterion for identifying scientific revisionism, defining the failure to recognize correct models as revisionism -> sounds shocking at first but logically has to be true. textbooks and teachers present science to children like every scientific claim is always substantiated by testing it in the material world. but that leaves people with a really bad understanding of science by the time they have to actually go interpret complicated discusssions in string theory and quantum field theory which will take a long time to go to some kind of particle accelerator or highly indirect apparatus that was unusual in the early days of science and finally get tested. these days most claims in science actually get tested against highly accurate models of experiments instead of in actual experiments. that's what you actually do when you cross-check a new hypothesis against older equations and existing experiment teams — those equations and memories of experiments are models of experiments. and this is why I find non-Materialist interpretations of literature frustrating. the people saying that fiction is not internally consistent in a way where some claims (although not every claim) can be tested against coherent models of a fictional world's internal physics <em>may not actually understand real-world science</em>, because at the end of the day, taking your best coherent model of <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> and testing something against it and taking your best coherent model of current experiments to understand the universe and testing something against it are not actually all that different. unpopular opinion, building theories about fiction and trying to solve if everything is actually consistent shows you are building a good understanding of the real world. also, most science of historical processes and ideologies would not be done in the real world. if you understand how science truly works, then you'll understand how Marxism truly works and how meta-Marxism truly works. it's very possible I had to invent the category of meta-Marxism purely because people around the world don't understand that most Marxist "experiments" amount to thought experiments or peer review through the means of models of old experiments. I've always been confused why Marxism wasn't already meta-Marxism. why wouldn't Marxists test their models against each other for accuracy, and why would Marxists end up dividing into different competing versions of Marxism that become unfalsifiable?		{{li\|start=y\|I=S1/STM\|tradition=\|Q=392\|Q2=392\|h4= Most science is not empirical }} / Most science is not done in reality / Most science is not done in the material world / Most science is not done in the field or in laboratories / criterion for identifying scientific revisionism, defining the failure to recognize correct models as revisionism -><br/>
			sounds shocking at first but logically has to be true. textbooks and teachers present science to children like every scientific claim is always substantiated by testing it in the material world. but that leaves people with a really bad understanding of science by the time they have to actually go interpret complicated discusssions in string theory and quantum field theory which will take a long time to go to some kind of particle accelerator or highly indirect apparatus that was unusual in the early days of science and finally get tested. these days most claims in science actually get tested against highly accurate models of experiments instead of in actual experiments. that's what you actually do when you cross-check a new hypothesis against older equations and existing experiment teams — those equations and memories of experiments are models of experiments. and this is why I find non-Materialist interpretations of literature frustrating. the people saying that fiction is not internally consistent in a way where some claims (although not every claim) can be tested against coherent models of a fictional world's internal physics <em>may not actually understand real-world science</em>, because at the end of the day, taking your best coherent model of <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> and testing something against it and taking your best coherent model of current experiments to understand the universe and testing something against it are not actually all that different. unpopular opinion, building theories about fiction and trying to solve if everything is actually consistent shows you are building a good understanding of the real world. also, most science of historical processes and ideologies would not be done in the real world. if you understand how science truly works, then you'll understand how Marxism truly works and how meta-Marxism truly works. it's very possible I had to invent the category of meta-Marxism purely because people around the world don't understand that most Marxist "experiments" amount to thought experiments or peer review through the means of models of old experiments. I've always been confused why Marxism wasn't already meta-Marxism. why wouldn't Marxists test their models against each other for accuracy, and why would Marxists end up dividing into different competing versions of Marxism that become unfalsifiable?

	</li><li class="~~field_geo~~" ~~value~~=~~"392" data-dimension~~=~~"S2">~~The abstraction of matter, of a law of nature ... all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm]		</li></ol>

			== Quotes ==
			<ol class="hue clean {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">

			{{li\|start=y\|I=Z1/STM\|tradition=\|Q=618\|Q2=618}}{{book\|Conspectus of Hegel's The Science of Logic}} (Lenin) / The abstraction of matter, of a law of nature ... all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm]

	</li></ol>		</li></ol>
Line 22:		Line 27:
	-->		-->
	== {{int:hue-prototype-trads-or-fields/en}} ==<!-- en: Ideologies or fields -->		== {{int:hue-prototype-trads-or-fields/en}} ==<!-- en: Ideologies or fields -->
	<ol class="hue clean terse">		<ol class="hue clean terse {{int:hue-ixn-classname-ML}}">
	{{li\|start=y		{{li\|start=y
	\|I=S1/MX \|Q=92 \|Q2=92 }}{{TTS\|MX\|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism		\|I=S1/MX \|Q=92 \|Q2=92 }}{{TTS\|MX\|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism

Reversedragon: copy markup from Q174

2026-08-13T05:09:26Z

copy markup from Q174

New page

{{NextNineThousand|PPPA=Most science not empirical|User=RD|E=Q392|Contents=y}}
== Main entry ==
{{HueCSS}}<ol class="hue clean">


</li><li class="field_geo" value="392" data-dimension="S2">Most science is not done in reality / Most science is not done in the material world / Most science is not done in the field or in laboratories / criterion for identifying scientific revisionism, defining the failure to recognize correct models as revisionism -> sounds shocking at first but logically has to be true. textbooks and teachers present science to children like every scientific claim is always substantiated by testing it in the material world. but that leaves people with a really bad understanding of science by the time they have to actually go interpret complicated discusssions in string theory and quantum field theory which will take a long time to go to some kind of particle accelerator or highly indirect apparatus that was unusual in the early days of science and finally get tested. these days most claims in science actually get tested against highly accurate models of experiments instead of in actual experiments. that's what you actually do when you cross-check a new hypothesis against older equations and existing experiment teams — those equations and memories of experiments are models of experiments. and this is why I find non-Materialist interpretations of literature frustrating. the people saying that fiction is not internally consistent in a way where some claims (although not every claim) can be tested against coherent models of a fictional world's internal physics <em>may not actually understand real-world science</em>, because at the end of the day, taking your best coherent model of <cite>Dragon Ball</cite> and testing something against it and taking your best coherent model of current experiments to understand the universe and testing something against it are not actually all that different. unpopular opinion, building theories about fiction and trying to solve if everything is actually consistent shows you are building a good understanding of the real world. also, most science of historical processes and ideologies would not be done in the real world. if you understand how science truly works, then you'll understand how Marxism truly works and how meta-Marxism truly works. it's very possible I had to invent the category of meta-Marxism purely because people around the world don't understand that most Marxist "experiments" amount to thought experiments or peer review through the means of models of old experiments. I've always been confused why Marxism wasn't already meta-Marxism. why wouldn't Marxists test their models against each other for accuracy, and why would Marxists end up dividing into different competing versions of Marxism that become unfalsifiable?

</li><li class="field_geo" value="392" data-dimension="S2">The abstraction of matter, of a law of nature ... all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely (Lenin) [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm]

</li></ol>

== Related ==


== {{int:hue-prototype-trads-or-fields/en}} ==
<ol class="hue clean terse">
{{li|start=y
|I=S1/MX |Q=92 |Q2=92 }}{{TTS|MX|M.X.}} / meta-Marxism
{{li|I=S1/STM|Q=618|Q2=618}}{{TTS|STM|Stem}} / natural sciences
</li></ol>


[[Category:Next nine thousand (RD)]]