There is a phenomenon known as confirmation bias which impels us to seek examples that are consistent with our preconceptions. The believer in Dialectical Materialism has learned the three "laws" of Opposites, Negation, and Transformation, and then has no difficulty in finding endless examples that seem to prove the "laws". If you heat water enough it turns into something different, steam; that's an example of the Law of Transformation. which states that if you change Quantity [temperature] then Quality is changed [liquid into gas].) The problem is that dialectical materialism can't tell you why the change occurs at 212 degrees, nor can it tell you whether or not steam will change into something else basically different if you heat it even more. But you naturally seek examples that prove what you want to believe anyway. This is the same sort of thing that occurs when we try to find literary works confirming statements from neuroscience. We want to believe, and so we do. But I must ask: the cosmology of Paradise Lost is quite out of date, but does that mean the poem is thereby "wrong"?

I suggest you pick up a modern, basic science text and bring your understanding past the year 1900.

What ARE you talking about? Two points where being made: those who set out in search of evidence for their preferred theory tend to find it, and that the empirical inaccuracy of literature needn't be counted against its splendor. Which of these observations did you plan to debunk with a modern, basic science text?

You're just mad because I said somethng unpleasant about the "scientific basis" of Marxism.

Um, actually no. Most scientific hypothesis are eventually disproven. Through the replacement and refinement of inaccurate models our understanding of the world advances.

There are no "three laws" or any other such bullshit. A concept works or it doesn't. That is the fundamental distinction between the arts and sciences.

The fruits of scientific inquiry have materially benefited society. Thus the scientific method has been legitimized. Unfortunately, various philosophers and artists have stooped to misappropriating scientific concepts and language to bolster their credibility. This book sounds like another sad example of such theft.

The argument can be made that science has both benefitted and endangered society. Science just is what it is, and scientists tend to be curious people who neither practice their craft or censor their work specifically in terms of its potential effects on society. I have every kitchen machine ever made, but in fact, I don't know that my life is better than that of the lady who makes her torillas and salsa on refined granite. I just live in the culture I live in the best I can. Science , art, and philosophy are things human do, and the instict to integrate various types experience into some new experience characterizes human life.

No matter how refined her granite, the life of the lady with the tortillas life likely sucks by any measure you could choose to use.