Dialectic can never be a science, you can’t apply the same methodology. Even when it’s material.
However it is philosophy, and if your searching for some material reality then it’s ontology.
Science too is a product of ontology, it’s a methodology created for this exact purpose and wich can be studied in this field.
Saying physical properties are social abstractions sounds to me like social constructivism, which is epistemology, again philosophy.
Social sciences can be soft science precisely when they are not dialectic and rely on the methodology of science.
And to be clear, soft science is just a science that is based on a hard science, in which we don’t have enough work done to explain every emergent properties using fundamental properties of matter.
Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.
In that it ignored the previous half a century of (well tested) advances on the area and just made claims that were already known not to hold on the real world.
For example, the entire labor theory of value doesn’t hold up on the real world and Economics had already better explanations for the phenomenon it was trying to explain.
Dialectic can never be a science, you can’t apply the same methodology. Even when it’s material.
However it is philosophy, and if your searching for some material reality then it’s ontology.
Science too is a product of ontology, it’s a methodology created for this exact purpose and wich can be studied in this field.
Saying physical properties are social abstractions sounds to me like social constructivism, which is epistemology, again philosophy.
Social sciences can be soft science precisely when they are not dialectic and rely on the methodology of science.
And to be clear, soft science is just a science that is based on a hard science, in which we don’t have enough work done to explain every emergent properties using fundamental properties of matter.
Psychoanalysis is an outdated philosophical theory, so indeed just a scam now.
Quite like Marxism.
In what manner?
In that it’s an outdated economics theory… In fact, it was outdated when it was first published already.
In what way?
In that it ignored the previous half a century of (well tested) advances on the area and just made claims that were already known not to hold on the real world.
Can you for one second elaborate on anything you’re saying? What did Marx ignore, and what doesn’t hold in the real world?
For example, the entire labor theory of value doesn’t hold up on the real world and Economics had already better explanations for the phenomenon it was trying to explain.