First, state communists kill anarchists. That's history.
Second, the Soviets were incredibly dogmatic about science because they used it to justify their materialist ideology. They promoted Lysenkoism (fake genetics) to conform to Marxist doctrine. That's literally the opposite of epistemological questioning.
Third, claiming Kuhn and Popper were Soviet mouthpieces is unhinged. Popper wrote "The Open Society and Its Enemies" as an anti-communist text. Kuhn taught at Harvard, MIT, and Princeton. They were Western academics, not agents.
You've gone from defending naive scientism to claiming anyone who critiques it is a communist propagandist. That's McCarthyism, not an argument.
No, it's not. Like I said this isn't worth responding to, but people who actually look into the history will understand what I'm saying.
The problem you're facing is you don't believe in any sort of objective reality so you're acting as if ideas are about which team you're on instead of how they relate to the truth.
The difference between you and me is I've focused on what you've written and you've called me every name in the book despite not knowing what you're talking about.
We see your other posts where you're asking why murdering your enemies isn't okay and promoting conspiracy theories. I don't have to imagine who you are, you've told us.
First, state communists kill anarchists. That's history.
Second, the Soviets were incredibly dogmatic about science because they used it to justify their materialist ideology. They promoted Lysenkoism (fake genetics) to conform to Marxist doctrine. That's literally the opposite of epistemological questioning.
Third, claiming Kuhn and Popper were Soviet mouthpieces is unhinged. Popper wrote "The Open Society and Its Enemies" as an anti-communist text. Kuhn taught at Harvard, MIT, and Princeton. They were Western academics, not agents.
You've gone from defending naive scientism to claiming anyone who critiques it is a communist propagandist. That's McCarthyism, not an argument.