pg. 261 fast food nation

[great_unibrow]

'no society in human history worshipped science more devoutly or more blindly than the soviet union, where "scientific socalism" was considered the highest truth. And no society has ever suffered so much environmental devastation on such a massive scale.'

Comments

part 2

[great_unibrow]

To be honest your criticsim of Marx alarms me. I wonder what you have read of him to make you think so of him, (I am of the opinion that you should have a decent understanding of someone or something before making strong judgements and/or making an arguement of an idea of theirs). Everything that I have read of him praised him as at least an innovative thinker and critic of many of the problems with modern western life at the time and in the past. Whether or not we agree with his political/sociological/economic theories and ideas is another issue because here you openly call anyone who followed him stupid which I have trouble agreeing with. Obviously the Soviet Union was a mistake and so have many countries that have claimed to base their politics off of marxism as well but some still exist now too. Whether or not these countries actually embody Marxism is another arguement all together one I am not honestly prepared to argue well, (only off of secondary sources) fore I would need to read much more about Marx's theories and the exact systems and definition of the Soviet Union for example. If you are better educated on this subject I implore you to share your knowledge with me, (i do remember hearing somewhere that in fact that soviet russia embodied little of Marx's theories more of a Leninism or something like that.

'Poorly-done science?'

i think that one possible problem we might have in this conversation in clearly communicated is our definition of science. Looking it up quickly on dictionary.com the first definition reads:

1. 'a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.'

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation

the next couple of definitions go on to explain science as basically a branch of knowledge. How do you define science? I define science as more of a general concept with out concrete meaning. There is of course the word scientific with when used in certain ways makes me think of people in lab coats or the scientific method and people employed to try and figure things out. Science I guess then for me means trying to figure out how things work and what that means. i view it as a subjective idea that changes in meaning with each new topic/idea. I think that it is dangerous to think of science as some path that we are discovering over time or as a beast of its own devices or generally as a thing, I think it is a board combination of ideas, a way to classify things.

By these definitions marx's ideas were scientific because they involved observation and conclusion, no?
But than again I don't think that Schlosser really is concerned here with marx at all. This is your connection so if there is another way you'd like to take this discussion be my guest, I love discussion.

I don't know about a reprimand of science or thinking unscientifically, I don't think for one that there is a scientific way to think, i think one can think logically or with a degree of intellignce or lack of but scientifically is too board to comment on as a whole.

tell me about your first paragraph, what was this comment's logical end in your mind and how was it silly? I posed this because I thought it was interesting and I was hoping that someone might have something to say, maybe now you understand a little better, or at least what I think. As to your questions, I welcome them, questions are the best devices for discussion.

Also who is this i am writing too?

So in the end I have some questions too, i hope my discussion pleases you and I look forward to your response.