Liam Kofi Bright is a British philosopher of science who is an assistant professor or lecturer in the department of philosophy, logic, and scientific method at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He works primarily on formal social epistemology, particularly the social epistemology of science
But my baby-brained understanding of "utilitarianism" says communism is good, yet I don't think Mr London School of Imperialism Apologia agrees with it.
This guy is, somehow, a social epistemologist, and if you read between the lines he's using the standard Kuhn/Popper synthesis everyone gets taught is "real" science if you don't take a HPoS course.
Kuhn's experimental work is fine, but his framework of science as a series of Paradigms is undialectical and doesn't really grasp the complexity of the contradictions and how they are resolved in science-as-social-activity.
Yes, indeed. But saying you know shit about epistemology and then masterfully show how shit you are at it makes me wonder why even say you are good at epistemology specifically to begin with.
Why not just:
"Yeah I do the philosophies and let me tell you bombing the third world if anglo pigs don't get enough treats is good and ethical and very philosophy"
I've read them (Hayek is better tbh) and I've even had the sobering experience of reading Rand ("Imagine a person who fled the USSR before they could make them fully literate try and explain Nietzsche as explained by half understood letters from his Nazi Sister")
They're possibly useful in triggering deeper thought though.
Holy shit:
WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU DO FOR A LIVING THEN
average anglo philosopher cannot read books, all they know is utilitarianism, twerk, call things "continental" and lie
But my baby-brained understanding of "utilitarianism" says communism is good, yet I don't think Mr London School of Imperialism Apologia agrees with it.
Popper/Kuhn brain is a powerful drug.
I know how Popper is responsible for these brainworms - but how is Kuhn implicated?
This guy is, somehow, a social epistemologist, and if you read between the lines he's using the standard Kuhn/Popper synthesis everyone gets taught is "real" science if you don't take a HPoS course.
Kuhn's experimental work is fine, but his framework of science as a series of Paradigms is undialectical and doesn't really grasp the complexity of the contradictions and how they are resolved in science-as-social-activity.
My guy is a professional poster
more like Liam Kofi Dull lmao gottem
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Yes, indeed. But saying you know shit about epistemology and then masterfully show how shit you are at it makes me wonder why even say you are good at epistemology specifically to begin with.
Why not just: "Yeah I do the philosophies and let me tell you bombing the third world if anglo pigs don't get enough treats is good and ethical and very philosophy"
deleted by creator
I mean, the most likely thing is that he is the most typical kind of anti-marxist, an anti-marxist that has never actually read Marx.
deleted by creator
Tbh, am not reading Mises nor Friedman nor any other of those lizard court jesters.
I don't work at the philosophy factory tho.
I've read them (Hayek is better tbh) and I've even had the sobering experience of reading Rand ("Imagine a person who fled the USSR before they could make them fully literate try and explain Nietzsche as explained by half understood letters from his Nazi Sister")
They're possibly useful in triggering deeper thought though.
Am not reading "let poor people die" apologia. I don't want to "debate" what must be silenced with rifles.
They are all court jesters of pedophile lizards, usually pedophiles themselves, or just insufferable chinless white nerds at best.