Pannekoek’s theory of science

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

It seems to me that the only sensible use of the word 'truth' is to mean 'in accord with reality'.

But this would mean that 'object' and 'knowledge' would be identical, and that 'knowledge' would be a 'reflection' of reality.And this use of 'truth' can't account for changes in science's view of what's true, at different times. This use of 'truth' would never allow a change in 'truth'. But we know science says that x is true at one period, and then says that x wasn't true at another.Truth must relate to 'knowledge' not 'object'.

DJP wrote:

I've looked through Pannekoek again and he seems to be using the word in this sense.

But Pannekoek says that "substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., … are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena".Thus, for Pannekoek there is a separation of the 'substance of natural phenomena' (object, reality), 'creative mental activity' (subject, social humanity), and the product of the this interaction 'substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc' (knowledge).If 'knowledge' is the same as 'object', why would Pannekoek (and indeed Marx) stress the necessity for 'active production'?The view that object and knowledge are identical is positivism, or the sort of materialism that Feuerbach espoused, and that later Lenin (influenced by Engels) tried to resurrect.'Truth' is an attribute of 'knowledge', not the 'object'. If it's an attribute of 'object', then 'truth' can't have a history or be a social product (and thus, humans being fallible, 'true' can be shown to be 'false'). What's 'true scientific knowledge' can change. The history of science is littered with 'truth' changing. This can only be so if 'truth' is a human product. Why would Pannekoek and Marx focus on humanity and its activity, if the object itself tells us what is true? Surely passive observation and induction would then be the method of science?

[Anonymous]

The following is from a non-forum user, Lyla Byrne. (presumably NOT to be confused with LBird )”yeah djp is right. And LBirds either/or’s are much the same thing in different words. A different take – a useful different perspective but not describing something different. Personally i rely on common usage of language unless it is shown to be wrong. i.e. if something that was held to be true in the past is scientifically proven to be untrue – then it was always untrue/false – folk just thought it was true. They didn’t realise that it was only what they thought – they thought they knew, but they were wrong. ‘Think’, ‘thought’, ‘believe’ etc. are not words that mean that knowledge has necessarily been achieved. It may have, or not. They might have been right – but it turns out they were wrong and so on. This use of/meaning of the word truth fits in with the whole sense of language.  I think that the usefulness of this for describing reality is indespensible to science/reason/healthy intelligent life. It is true that what was thought to be a scientific proof may (which does not mean necessarily will) turn out to contain some error – but again, as we see here, language can deal satisfactually with that eventuality as it is (with meanings as they are). Again we would have to reassess the matter, perhaps having to admit that for now we don’t know (which is equivalent to saying we don’t know the truth) about that particular matter. All the applications of this kind of thing is why science – and particularly it’s honest and careful practice in all areas including philosophy is so essentially important. i think that the problems in LBirds post may at least in part arise out of trying to go along with marx’s attitude that humans are not part  of nature. i don’t think marx actually says that in those words – but he talks about nature as if it is separate from us/we are separate from it.N.B. just as an aside, the statement that “‘the truth’ is something that can change” is not necessarily true according to itself. And ‘there is no truth’ is, according to itself, definitely false – or at least meaningless.  If we mess with the meaning of the word ‘truth’ we enter the realm of nonsense. not a bad thing perhaps now and then, but probably best to be aware of what we are doing.”

[LBird]

Lyla Byrne wrote:

Personally i rely on common usage of language unless it is shown to be wrong. i.e. if something that was held to be true in the past is scientifically proven to be untrue – then it was always untrue/false – folk just thought it was true. They didn't realise that it was only what they thought – they thought they knew, but they were wrong.

But 'today' will be 'the past', sometime.If something has been 'scientifically proven' to be true today, the same thing can be 'scientifically proven' to be untrue tomorrow.So, 'folk just thought it was true', but now they would know that it is untrue. Or is it? Once 'folk' accept that 'true' today can be 'untrue' tomorrow, it logically follows that what is 'untrue' today, can be 'true' tomorrow. In fact, 'folk' would be faced with a potential series of flip-flops between 'true' and 'untrue', ad infinitum.We have to have a theory of cognition that allows us to account scientifically for these changes in 'truth'. And that can't be done by an appeal to 'reality' as a source that speaks for itself. That would be to follow Stalin's method of 'diamat'. The object must be interrogated by humanity.Further, 'relying on common usage of language' is surely a conservative method? In any society, what's 'commonly held to be true' is ruling class ideas.

Lyla Byrne wrote:

…marx's attitude that humans are not part of nature…

I'm not sure which philosophy you're coming from with this, Lyla. I'm a Marxist, and I think Marx saw humans as 'natural humanity'.I'm assuming that, on this site, that I'm discussing with Communists, mainly Marxists, about a theory of cognition. If you are a Marxist, and interested in the development of the philosophy of science throughout the 20th century, we will be able to discuss and explain further. This will take us through Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Einstein, Lenin, Pannekoek, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, with especial focus on the ideas of Critical Realism and Bhaskar and Archer, and several commentators like Schaff, Chalmers, Collier, Rovelli, Callinicos, Ollman and Marks.This is certainly a long way removed from 'common sense' ideas within society. My main aims are to defend 'science', to explain its method (as opposed to what it is supposed to be), and hopefully contribute to building a Communist view of science, a science that would be under democratic control, is all its aspects.I'm genuinely interested in this topic, and I'm keen, not just to learn, but also to share some of the fruits of my reading, hopefully to circumvent to a large extent the years of reading for other comrades. If I can provide a shortcut for comrades, I'll be happy.Anyway, as my main present concern is 'cognition', do you have any thoughts on that issue? I've already given some links to reading, especially Schaff.Oh yes, and DJP is wrong, I'm afraid.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

DJP is wrong

What does "is wrong" mean? Is it the same as stating something that is not true?

[twc]

ParodyLBird and his UFO “scientific” mentor believe science operates as follows:“bourgeois” scientific practice — if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the theory,“marxian” scientific practice — if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the experiment.The key difference is: their science rejects theory before evidence; our science rejects evidence before theory.What Actually HappensIn practice, scientists operate in both ways (1) and (2) under different circumstances.When they are engaged in normal science, scientists employ (2) with utter conviction. The purpose of scientific theory is to guide human practice. Science, as social life generally, would be impossible if humans lacked a reliable guide to action.Since theory provides that guide, experience must be interpreted in its terms. We do this scientifically by determining mentally concrete instances of a scientific theory’s abstract principles by means of its abstract formal determinism [roughly (2)].Normally that works fine, just as our daily-life abstractions deliver us concrete guides to negotiating the world.However, when scientific abstract determinism fails us, and forces us to increasingly torture it into determining instances that match observation which no longer make much sense to us — i.e. when observational anomalies mount — a serious crisis starts eroding away at confidence within the scientific community.We sense that something deep down is wrong with our science’s structure. Its abstract principles and its abstract determinism are no longer working in harmony for us. We appear to have exhausted their scope [lifetime]. Our theory is ceasing, in as yet unknown ways, to be a reliable guide to practice. It must be overturned by practice, but how?Then begins an astonishing period of revolutionary science, in which scientists engage in (1). In such periods, consciousness consciously subverts itself. This is the stuff of conviction in the world.Collapse of Classical [Newtonian] PhysicsIn terms of Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a band of physicists ceased engaging in normal science — for which they lived and died by the current theory (or loosely by the Current Paradigm) — and engaged in revolutionary science — a response to crisis which drove them to rethink the Current Paradigm from its very foundations in light of disturbing counter evidence, while simultaneously being held in check by every fibre in their intellectual bodies compelling them to salvage as much of the mightily successful past as they could.As superb example of a Hegelian negation-of-the-negation, the Modern physics that arose out of the crisis, and resolved it, contains Classical physics as its limiting cases. Conviction in the world is restored, but from a new standpoint — new abstract principles and new abstract formal determinism. New conviction.A negation-of-the-negation reassures us that we are entering a new phase of the same process.Logician of science Karl Popper (who purported to despise scientists who weren’t permanent revolutionaries without really making it clear how they should actually go about working productively in normal life in such a fundamentally destructive fashion) has been hailed by adherents as “revolutionary” relative to Kuhn, precisely because Popper — like you, LBird — knows no other science than (1).Of course, Marx, Kuhn, Gould [Punctuated Equilibrium Darwinism] all recognized that (2) was the norm, and that (1) was the dialectical exception [the nodal point of phase transition]. Just as stasis is most certainly the norm under capitalism today.ImagineIf your and your mentor’s (1) versus (2) scientific practice were a correct description of actual scientific practice…Your “bourgeois” science [physics, chemistry, mathematics, …] would stagnate theoretically into impractical quagmires [as their theories would be continually jettisoned in the face of counter evidence].Your “marxian” science would stagnate practically into abandoned theoretical swamps [as all counter evidence would be continually ignored].Is this the two-dimensional Ronald Reagan theory of their and our science you want to foist upon socialists?The whole point of Kuhn’s book was to point out how devastating a scientific revolution (1) is to the norm because, by challenging core principles and practice of (2) that formerly made the world meaningful, it shakes conviction in the scientific community’s collective enterprise.IncommensurabilityYour mentor harbours an unshakable belief that compels him to deny (1) because there’s considerable counter evidence to his unshakeable belief. So he also denies that Einstein and Planck made scientific leaps which remain theoretically incommensurable with Classical physics, while he daydreams that Modern physics can be harmoniously reconciled with Classical physics through dogged adherence to Classical physics by (2).Your similar adherence to “permanent revolution” (2) leaves you sitting quite comfortably alongside the evidence-dismissive apologists for creation [intelligent-design] science, tobacco-lobby [no-causal effect] science, global skepticism [it rained yesterday] science, theology, Leninism…If we are to engage in a discussion of a “socialist theory of science”, we need to know whether you still hold your earlier avowed position as being identical to your mentor’s UFO-defensive “theory of science”.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

What does "is wrong" mean? Is it the same as stating something that is not true?

Are you asking me about my personal opinions, or about scientific methodology?If no-one here wants to read, think about and discuss 'science', and just fall back onto 'common sense' and 'what folk believe', that's OK by me. I'll leave it alone.After being recommended  Assiter's article by you, ALB, and having posted some thoughts on it, I'm not sure why you haven't started to discuss the article.Or, indeed, Pannekoek, Marx, Einstein…I'm reading (and listening to) things being recommended (and I've even ordered the Pannekoek book YMS mentioned), and I'm commenting on those recommendations, but no-one seems to be raising their contributions beyond 'common sense' views (ie. bourgeois views) of 'science'.DJP even posted from a site that says 'science starts from observation and generates a theory'. This is induction, and has been shown to be nonsense regarding scientific method since, at least, Popper in the 1940s.It's starting to feel similar to when I try to discuss 'political economy' with non-communists, and people just quote from mainstream (ie. bourgeois) textbooks like Samuelson about 'economics', value being 'what the individual consumer will pay', marginal utility, theory of the firm, etc. And when I mention 'exploitation', they say 'that's not economics and the art of the distribution of scarce resources, it's ideology!'.Isn't it strange that communists can see beyond bourgeois ideology in 'economics' yet not in 'science'?Is it worth me continuing, comrades? Serious question. Is anyone gaining anything at all from these discussions?I'm not here for 'a fight', or my 'ego'. I'd like to learn more myself (many of the books I've read are still a mystery to me), and help to circumvent a long process for comrades, if possible, by summarising and explaining.But if we're going to do so, we really do have to move on to discussing, say, Pannekoek's works, rather than just employing 'common sense', or making snide remarks (and that's leaving out the personal attacks of twc, over two threads).

[LBird]

Some more food for thought.

Joseph Dietzgen (quoted in Pannekoek, LAS, p. 36) wrote:

“By means of our thinking we have, potentially, the world twofold, outside as reality, inside, in our head, as thoughts, as ideas, as an image. Our brains do not grasp the things themselves but only their concept, their general image. The endless variety of things, the infinite wealth of their characters, finds no room in our mind”.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch03.htmDietzgen here suggests that the ‘endless variety of things’ have to be selected from, by humans actively choosing. The selection parameters are to be found in the human theory that is employed by scientists, prior to the examination of the ‘data’, of which there is an ‘endless variety’. Science does not proceed by the disinterested collection of data, from which a theory is formed. That is the discredited method of ‘induction’.As for the form of ‘materialism’ espoused by those who think that ‘knowledge’ is a reflection of ‘object’, that is, that object and knowledge are identical, we have:

Anton Pannekoek, ibid., wrote:

The spiritual and the material phenomena, mind and matter together, constitute the entire real world, a coherent entity in which matter determines mind and mind, through human activity, determines matter.

The ‘real’ is not simply ‘matter’, as for materialists, like Feuerbach. Marx himself condemned the notion that ‘matter’ is simply accessible through a positivist science, and noted that ‘ideas’ could not be ignored in their active form:

Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, I, wrote:

The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism…

Here, Marx stresses the ‘active side’, just as do Pannekoek, Dietzgen and Einstein. Theory comes first, in a scientific method. This theory is then ‘actively’ employed by humans in their practice upon the existing external world, to produce ‘knowledge’. The method of 'praxis', theory and practice.But, unless we consider humans to be infallible, there always is the possibility that ‘knowledge’, not being a simple ‘reflection’ of the object but an entity actively produced by society, can be ‘untrue’, when compared with a later ‘knowledge’ produced by a different theory tested against the external object.Science can produce two pieces of ‘knowledge’ that are both ‘true’, and yet they can conflict. This is not surprising, given Einstein’s view that ‘It’s the theory that determines what we observe’.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

What does "is wrong" mean? Is it the same as stating something that is not true?

Are you asking me about my personal opinions, or about scientific methodology?If no-one here wants to read, think about and discuss 'science', and just fall back onto 'common sense' and 'what folk believe', that's OK by me. I'll leave it alone.

I don't know why you are so touchy about this. I was trying to make a general philosophical point about your "theory of truth" and to tease out how you distinguish between a "true" and a "wrong" statement.

LBird wrote:

After being recommended  Assiter's article by you, ALB, and having posted some thoughts on it, I'm not sure why you haven't started to discuss the article.

Because I've not yet re-read the article and was out all day yesterday helping to run a Socialist Party literature stall. But I will contribute something later on the SPGB Education Bulletin I mentioned.PS. I hope that quoting that Anderton bloke doesn't mean you believe in UFOs. Please tell us that you don't and that this was just an unintended own goal.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't know why you are so touchy about this.

Perhaps I owe you an apology, ALB, but I'm getting 'touchy' because of a lack of considered replies, and the seemingly general resort to 'common sense' approaches to the issue of the philosophy of science (especially cognition). I've posted numerous quotes from Marx, Pannekoek, Einstein, Dietzgen, et al, over a number of threads both on this site and elsewhere, and yet there seems to be no taste for an informed discussion by communists. I'm touchy and surprised.

ALB wrote:

I was trying to make a general philosophical point about your "theory of truth" and to tease out how you distinguish between a "true" and a "wrong" statement.

And I'm trying to discuss social understanding of science, including how we distinguish between 'truth' and 'the object'. This is not about 'a general philosophical point' or my opinions about another comrade's post. Or indeed 'statements'.

ALB wrote:

Because I've not yet re-read the article and was out all day yesterday helping to run a Socialist Party literature stall. But I will contribute something later on the SPGB Education Bulletin I mentioned.

Can you provide email copies of this bulletin (and any earlier relevant ones)? Or publish it on this site, which would be best.

ALB wrote:

PS. I hope that quoting that Anderton bloke doesn't mean you believe in UFOs. Please tell us that you don't and that this was just an unintended own goal.

This is the most worrying thing yet. I give a quote, from some bloke I've never heard of, who's words just happened to pop up when I googled Einstein's famous quotes, and I assume that everyone will focus on Einstein's words, which are central to the issue. What Anderton said, though, is exactly what most people think when confronted with Einstein's ideas on science, so I left them in as context, so that other comrades could see that most people would react as they normally would do, to such a 'revolutionary' statement.I'm a Communist, trying to defend science, looking to the SPGB for comradeship, and some clown, who keeps pestering me, tries to ignore what's being said, and drags all eyes to 'UFOs', insinuating I'm a 'weirdo'.And even given the endless quotes from Marxists, including Marx himself, the 'UFO question' takes centre stage. It wasn't an 'own goal', but the 'intended' irrelevant point-scoring of a [censored].Yes, ALB, I'm too 'touchy'.

[Anonymous]

Reply from Lyla Byrne to post #18 from LBirdI have covered your first point in my post in general and particularly in what is in brackets below ‘It is true that what was thought to be a scientific proof may (which does not mean necessarily will)turn out to contain some error’i.e. what was thought to be a scientific proof may be proved not to be. This is an example of noticing a mis-take. This does not mean that there are no genuine proves. Nor does it mean that  true-takes do not remain so (that truth can change).Re.  what Marx calls ‘man’ and ‘nature’ – if you are familiar with Marx you  should know what I am referring to.I admire some of Marx’s work, and I recommend common ownership and democracy as being, with regard to evidence, probably necessary for a healthy future for humanity. What I would also call a humane future. But I do not describe myself as a Marxist for a number of reasons. I have some philosophical differences. Actually I think that being any anybodyist is quite dangerous as it tends to idolization – in which the persons tends to want to go along with what their idol says regardless of reason/science/logic – which are all essential to each other.If you are genuinely interested in science then you should know that just saying DJP is wrong doesn’t cut it. – Although I suppose it would according to your ‘truth can change’ theory – which is perhaps why you talk about this theory it as if it is true (already proven). I presented a logical and reasoned argument about why DJP is right – which contains points which all support each other. You did not read and think about this properly as you came back at me with something that I had already covered as noted above.I am very wary of any attitude that disrespects common sense as a whole. Of course what is held to be common sense in a world so influenced by the capitalist mode of production is a mixed bag and we have to be discerning. Capitalism isn’t the only problem of course – there is the potential for error in general. But the same goes for those who are presently known as philosophers. I mean we also need to be discerning about their work.  Much of the difference is just a matter of terminology anyway; but it has to be said that they generally use the common sense meanings of words. If veering away from that – to make sense – a philosopher needs to explain how he is using a word differently.  If this works and is useful it may then be taken up as the common meaning. This is part of how language develops.It is quite clear that the arguments for common ownership and democracy appeal to common sense on a genuine health/wellbeing based level. – Not a financial profit and supporting an economic hierarchy based level – a  level that is deceptively promoted as being what is needed for genuine/real/true health/wellbeing.If you are genuinely/really/truly interested in science then let’s see a scientific (logical and reasoned) argument about how DJP is wrong. [Although according to you if he was wrong yesterday he could be right tomorrow – or even already.]According to your theory a proof is not actually possible because without holding that there are logical truths that we can rely on – premises and conclusions and so on – and that it is true that words have and retain certain meanings in an argument – allowing a shared knowledge that is at least sufficient for understanding sentences – then reason is not possible. Although you may say something with all sorts of words in it and name drop philosophers – this of itself does not mean that you are necessarily proving anything or even that it makes sense. So there is no need to be afraid.i will have to leave this to others for now. i have to concentrate other stuff that i am doing – if i finish something relevant to any of the matters arising i will try to make it available here. i’m asking Rob (pfbcarlisle) to not send me any more links for a while so i don’t get tempted.

[Anonymous]

pfbcarlisle wrote:

Reply from Lyla Byrne to post #18 from LBird i'm asking Rob (pfbcarlisle) to not send me any more links for a while so i don't get tempted.

We'd love to tempt you Lyla; please join the forum 

[LBird]

Lyla Byrne wrote:

If you are genuinely interested in science then you should know that just saying DJP is wrong doesn’t cut it.

I didn't 'just say'.DJP posted a link to a site which argued 'observation, then theory', so I posted a quote from Einstein 'theory, then observation'.DJP hasn't come back on this, to say whether they still agree with outdated induction (observe data, then form theory), or would like further discussion on Einstein's method (which is backed up by philosophers of science, like Lakatos).

LB wrote:

But I do not describe myself as a Marxist for a number of reasons. I have some philosophical differences.

That's fine, but you'll have to specify which ideology it is that you're using. Unless, that is, you're going to argue that you don't employ an ideology, which most people will know is a standard component of conservative ideology (that is, to deny it is an ideology). Perhaps you're not a conservative, but then you can explain which ideology it is that you use. We need to know this in an ideological debate about 'science'.I'm open about my ideological influences – Marx, Dietzgen, Pannekoek, Lakatos, Schaff, to name a few. But others are not so keen to expose their influences, especially regarding the philosophy of science. Most make do with bourgeois 'common sense'.

LB wrote:

i will have to leave this to others for now. i have to concentrate other stuff that i am doing – if i finish something relevant to any of the matters arising i will try to make it available here. i'm asking Rob (pfbcarlisle) to not send me any more links for a while so i don't get tempted.

That's a shame, but I understand.

[Anonymous]

Sadly, not a return (or join-up) from La Byrne, but she has asked me to edit her reply in post no.25, which I've done.

gnome wrote:

pfbcarlisle wrote:

Reply from Lyla Byrne to post #18 from LBird i'm asking Rob (pfbcarlisle) to not send me any more links for a while so i don't get tempted.

We'd love to tempt you Lyla; please join the forum 

[LBird]

Perhaps I can illuminate my difficulties with this topic.If we were discussing 'economics', would it be acceptable for posters to reply with 'common sense' arguments about 'value', not having read anything about Marx and his theoretical approach, or to deny the validity of a discipline called 'political economy' as being ideological, unlike that of 'free-thinking economists'?Or to provide links to 'neo-classical' threads as answers to questions about the 'labour theory of value', or to refuse to say where one's 'economic' ideas about the 'market' have come from.Would it be acceptable to just say 'we all need money, it's always existed, and always will', without an explanation of why they think this?As I've said, I find it strange that Communists, having already realised just how 'ideologically brainwashed' we are in this society about 'individual consumption', seem unable to apply the same lesson to 'science'.Of course, if anyone isn't a Communist or a Marxist, then it all becomes clear!

[DJP]

LBird as far as I can work out the only thing we are disagreeing with is your adherence to a cultural relativist definition of 'truth'.I have no disagreement with the quotes from Deitzgen and Pannekoek that you have been posting, though you seem to reading them through the prism of cultural relativism. After all theories do colour how we observe the world…I too share an interest in philosophy of science and epistemology (theory of knowledge), but whilst you are in favour of applying the standards of cultural relativism to science I am not.What I would like to know is why or how you think relativism is the communist position? Can you not see the anti-communist tenancy in this position, it would seem to render the project of historical materialism useless since one needs to clearly distinguish between truth and fictions…I'll try and give a better reply to some points raised later..

[Author]

Posts