So if a scientist write a bad article to popularize their theory, but then go forwards to upgrade their theory without popularizing it, you will hold, as someone interested in their theory, accountable only of the popularization or actually the strong upgraded theory?It doesn't matter... There is a manifesto to clarify the agenda they call communism, first of its kind, since it is etymologically consistent with the denomination, it is communism or nothing is. If the communists can't get a clear conception of what communism is, then let's not pretend otherwise.
Because I'm not going to strawman the author of the theory I'll choose the later, but free to you to contradict your own political system by strawmanning someone you're not that interested in, because deception and consensus would suddenly be better than the actual consistency of a theory.
I don't think so, I will never understand most of the sciences, but for the experts in the field there's no deception in the complexity of the phenomenon, there's deception to the novice.The harder it is to understand a phenomenon, the more vulnerable to deception and oblivious to consistency. The consensus is a force that is made of average ability for consistency in a group. So the more complicated the issue the more it aligns with the politics of the most deceptive.
And we could take many example of politics which are deceptive not from their complexity, but actually from the sheer will to provoke deception so to gain a temporary consensus from the people. There's an apparent complexity in the current administration of most countries, but actually it's just more something of a clusterfuck than complexity because inconsistent.
But maybe we agree on this, I don't think that there's a problem between us here.
Two example. Climate change is a complex phenomenon which is brought up as something consensual among experts, it gives to the appreciation of the public something which is confirmed by many experts. The consensus is something very important for experts when they plan to popularize a scientific knowledge to the non-experts of the field.? No. Unless you mean the consistency of someone depends also on others not agreeing to destroy that person.
Second example. We have many conception of the world which are socially constructed which continue to act on our everyday life, those are consensual opinions, but if you come to have a complete different understanding of something which goes against the consensus, you end up alone and unable to interact with a part of the social world.
Unless we have a very different definition of consistency and consensus, those are two example where consensus and consistency largely cross the consecrated field of expertise and the one of politics, and are normal if not healthy.
Well, it depends, if the theory hold to the critic, the theory find itself more consistent from the trial, but it may fail to be occupied by a new one which will turn to be more consistent, until it's being replaced by a new ones. But then it's not a critic anymore as it has been countered.?? To be successfully critical is to raise the level of consistency. If an opinion can be proven absurd, then it is not the most consistent opinion anymore.
Also a theory can be very consistent but with limits which should not be crossed.
Also, when we haven't a better theory, we may use one with weaknesses, and then we can manipulate this theory informed from its weaknesses, and that's also not problematic.
Actually many theories are known to have many limits, what's important is to never forget those limits, thus to be aware of the current critics which contains the theory where it's useful and efficient, and keep it away from the phenomenon it would produce only biased or outright wrong results.
I can prove you that quantum physics is absurd in the case of cooking, it doesn't turn that quantum physics is less consistent, or even more consistent, we need to trace the continuity between the theory and its critics. That's also an important part of critic.
But here again, I don't think we disagree that much.
I don't understand the: "it can't be true that nothing is meant to last forever."Then it can't be true that nothing is meant to last forever. This is the limit of your concept and by extension your epistemology.
Epistemology is made of the talent it takes to analyze itself, in other word, you can't possibly grasp the epistemology of the more talented. Such talent is not developped by manipulating oneself in relation to symbols but actual events. Making sense out of symbols is a byproduct of such abilities, whereas post structuralism and the crisis in academic research are a byproduct of a lack thereof. As far as I'm concerned, I have concrete skills and innovations to back me up by a huge margin. Epistemologically speaking, I'm thus and still part of the solution ; the litterature you study is part of the problem.
And no, we have many epistemologies coming from post-structuralist conceptions, post-structuralism is an epistemology by itself actually. We're doing science from it, even physicians are beginning, and have actually began for awhile, even as precursor of the social sciences. Wether we begin with the first relativist theories of physics, or from the Gödel's incompleteness theorems, both those case have ended the objectivist and positivist epistemologies dear to the modern scientists. Philosophers have tried to keep the positivist approach longer, despite some precursors, like for example Nietzsche or Wittgenstein, but ultimately, they're also giving up.
Some post-structuralists went too far, definitely, and we're beginning to see many alliances between the materialists and post-structuralist approaches, not so much as a coming back to the old epistemologies, but to better understand what the mostly positivists approaches were blind to, and what they got right. This is symptomatic of a critic, and can only reinforce the materialist approaches as we're seeing its limits in comparison to the more and more consistent post-structuralist approaches.
There's nothing to lose from criticizing an epistemology or a theory as long as we're able to discern the continuity between the position being criticized and the ones criticizing, both, in the end, forming two fields able to cooperate, and knowing the limits of eachother.
And indeed, modernity is part of the solution, I'm not an advocate of ruptures, I'm an advocate of continuity, even during revolutions, wether scientific or political. But, and maybe we disagree here, as a user of post-structuralist epistomologies in my, hopefully, future field of expertise that is social anthropology, I have to advocate for those epistemologies. Or my work is for nothing as it would means I wouldn't be able to produce consistent knowledge. I lose far too much with just a materialist approach as I lose the sight of its limits. Thing is, we have already many example that the post-structuralist approach works, so I'm quite confident with all this