[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 983 KB, 1458x1977, Trofim_Lysenko_portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19692199 No.19692199 [Reply] [Original]

I want to learn more about Lysenkoism and neo-Lysenkoism. Are there any books on this particular subject? Was Lysenko rightfully condemned for propounding pseudoscience or was there some actual merit to his theories?

>> No.19692207

>>19692199
dunno bro he looks like a chad so whatever he says is automatically true

>> No.19692208

The Lysenko Affair by David Joravsky
https://ia800900.us.archive.org/3/items/TheDialecticalBiologist/Lewontin_-Levins_the_dialectical_biologist.pdf

>> No.19692213

>>19692199
Still more convincing than trans "science."

>> No.19692223

>>19692213
Trans science is testable, verifiable and falsifiable (although in current political atmosphere only in principle)

>> No.19692225

>>19692223
Anything which is falsifiable is not worth taking seriously

>> No.19692234

>>19692225
>Anything which is falsifiable is not worth taking seriously
Yes that's very true, that's why I believe in souls and reincarnation
Thinking falsifiable theories are good is pure reddit

>> No.19692252

>>19692234
It has nothing to do with those two things. Falsifiability is pure contingency. What it means is: My hypothesis/theory could just as well be false; there is nothing absolute or necessary about this result. In other words: Falsifiable = neither necessarily true nor false. Plato would refer to "falsifiability" as "opinion", the realm of sophistry and speculation about non-Being. It's just ironic that "falsifiable" has somehow become a good word, as though it somehow lends strength to someone's view.

>> No.19692496

>>19692252
All human conceptions about reality are essentially "opinions". I mean, do you think yourself God or something? Empirical reality is not something which can be comprehended by us in terms of "facts", and anyway, it's not sciences' job to make objective statements about reality come from on high, it's about attempting to come as close to the truth as possible.

>> No.19692588

>>19692199
Stalin himself didn’t think Lysenkoism was true. In 1948, while editing Lysenko’s monumental speech, he circled “the sciences have a character of class conflict” and mocked it.
>ha ha ha
>what about mathematics?
>what about evolution?
Stalin liked Lysenko because he was a perfect “middle cadre” (younger generation from a humble background who was energetic and enthusiastically Bolshevik), brought polarization to scientific institutions (cutting down on “bourgeois internationalism”, like communicating with Western scientists), and gave positive short-term results while promising more (though obviously Lysenkoism delivered long-term catastrophe by undermining biology and purging brilliant talent due to their “politics”). Russia was a biology powerhouse before Lysenko took over.

>> No.19692787

>>19692588
>Stalin himself didn’t think Lysenkoism was true
Lysenko won out against the geneticists because Stalin sided with him since he promised he could increase grain yields rapidly

>> No.19693583

>>19692199
I know of a book called Lysenko's Ghost but I haven't read it yet.

His theories however were retarded. Some say epigenetics proves him right but they don't know what pure bullshit he was spouting. Things like oh if we give this rye some different nutrients it can turn into grain. He also though DNA and mandelian genetics was basically fake news even though we more than enough proof of it at that point.

Also stalin did support him. He tough the science and class struggle thing was stupid but Lysenko promised him more food and gave him a lot of people to purge and he probably believed him to an extent since he even modified some speech from lysenko introducing the idea.