That's the goal.

How can it be scientific if it makes no falsifiable assertions?

Historical materialism and dialectical materialism are both falsifiable.

We can start with materialism first, if you want.

More broadly.

Then hone in onto the falsifiable of Marx's theory on society and the material world.

Where do you want to start?

What do you think falsifiable actually means?

Give me an example of a falsifiable hypothesis

and explain why it's falsifiable

Every scientific theory must be falsifiable, which means, able to be disproved.

Again, when you say explain why **it's** falsifiable, which theory do you mean?

Marxism is not a single theory.

I just mean generally, give me a hypothetical hypothesis that illustrates falsifiability

just so I know you understand the concept

Sure. Evolution for example could be falsified if it was found that mutations did not occur. It would disprove natural selection.

Ok, so you've failed in two spectacular ways

@Deleted User historical materialism is explained by dialectical materialism. So it is a single theory.

One is that lack of evidence is never what falsifies a statement

@Firefly#9983 They are interrelated, but it is hard to explain it to a complete newbie.

@Deleted User Yeah, apparently Holocaust revisioning started amongst the left-wing French circles is what I was told on the main leftypol discord.

Might be related to huge anti-zionism and etc.

@National Trotskyist you know what else I find hilarious is that ethnonationalism was one of the primary platforms of the Soviet system

@Mimic King#0692 I never said that a lack of evidence was the same as being disprovable, at all. Falsifiable means that a discovery can be made that makes a hypothesis untenable, like my example shows clearly.

I find it hilarious because both holocaust revisionism and ethnonationalism are considered FASCIST NAZISM by the nu-left but are really classically leftist positions

@Deleted User one is based on another. It is a specific relation. It is just different areas. Logic is more abstract theory. But is united with less.

but you're wrong @Deleted User

a lack of evidence is never what shows that a hypothesis is untenable

@Firefly#9983 Okay, thanks for the correction. Maybe I should just focus on materialism first.

I don't see that in his post as all.

What he said hasn't got anything to do with a lack of evidence 😒

@Mimic King#0692
>a lack of evidence is never what shows that a hypothesis is untenable
I agree with you! How am I not clear?

for a hypothesis to be falsifiable, there must be a condition whereby evidence to support the claim CAN be discovered

So saying that "lack of fossils" would falsify evolution and natural selection is completely nonsensical

"Falsifiable means that a discovery can be made that makes a hypothesis untenable"
That's what I said numbnuts.

Right, meaning, contravening evidence, not a LACK of evidence

EXACTLY

a lack of evidence just means the hypothesis is unproven

🤔

it doesn't mean the hypothesis is unfalsifiable