[ALB]

It was NOT Albert Einstein who wrote:

The German idealist philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte circa 1800 did say “If theory conflicts with the facts, so much the worse for the facts.”   The Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs in his “Tactics and Ethics” (1923) echoed the same quotation.

Apparently Lukacs did say something like this, but not the whole phrase, only the last part "so much the worse for the facts". At least this is how Leszek Kolalowski in his Main Currents of Marxism (not regarded, I know, as reliable as some here because he is an anti-communist) summarises Lukacs's view:

Quote:

Thus Marx's theory of revolution and socialism can be based only on a global understanding of society that cannot be achieved by any detailed, factual analysis. This is why opportunists and revisionists always appeal to facts, knowing that there is no logical transition from facts to the revolutionary transformation of society. Empiricism is the ideologjcal foundation of revisionism and reformism in the workers' movement. 'And every orthodox Marxist who realizes that the moment has come when capital is only an obstacle to production and that it is time to expropriate the exploiters, will reply in the words of Fichte, one of the greatest of the classical German philosophers, when vulgar Marxists adduce "facts" that appear to contradict the process: "So much the worse for the facts!'" (Tactics and Ethics, p. 30).Lukacs does not appear to have used this phrase elsewhere in his attacks on empiricism, but his attitude on the point remained unchanged. In History and Class-Consciousness he emphasizes that a theory which simply takes account of facts as they are directly given is, by the same token, locating itself within capitalist society. But to understand the meaning of facts is to situate them in a ‘conrete whole' and to discover the 'mediation' between them and the whole, which of course is not directly given. The truth of the part resides in the whole, and if each part is properly examined the whole can be discerned in it. (p.999) 

Personally i'm not too keen on Lukacs (too much of a Hegelian for my liking and also a super-Leninist with his theory that the party can encapsulate the consciousness of the whole working class), but the wikipedia entry seems unfair and would seem to be an attempt to discredit all Marxists as dogmatists whereas, as far as I can see, Lukacs was making the (valid) point (that we've been discussing here) that you can't understand isolated facts outside the context of the whole of which they are just a part.I don't know if Fichte was trying to make a similar point but I'm afraid German Classical philosophy is not my cup of tea.

[ALB]

Whatever the final outcome (which hopefully won't be more bombing, i.e more destruction, more deaths, more refugees), it's good to see the warmongers being outmanoeuvred at every turn for once.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

'Science' claims to produce, by a socially-neutral method, the 'truth', by 'discovery'. This 'discovery method' is claimed to produce 'scientific knowledge' which is 'true', once and for all.Pannekoek (and Dietzgen) claim that this can't be done, and I agree with them.

So do I, though I'd prefer to say that this is not what "science" does even if some think that it is. To tell the truth, I don't think that this is what science these days claims to be doing either.

LBird wrote:

One's choice of 'cognitive method' makes clear which 'method' one is using in science.

This is a play on the word "method".  We are all agreed (I think) on the theory of what knowledge is (a description of a part of the passing world of phenomena) but what we don't seem to be agreed on is the method by which to decide if a description is adequate, maybe because you won't be drawn on what you think this is.

LBird wrote:

The issue of 'relativism' (as I've already said) can only be addressed, I think, once we have some 'agreement', because the form of that agreement will be used to build an answer to the concerns of those (like me!) who don't agree with 'relativism'.

Ok, assume that you've got agreement and set out your refutation of "relativism".

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

So, logically flowing from this statement, ALB, you accept that:17th century conceptions/scientific knowledge/truth of 'sun/earth' dynamics were 'true', then;but that 'truth' is not 'true', now, from 21st century conceptions/scientific knowledge/truth of 'sun/earth' dynamics;and that, in the,say, 24th century, our conceptions/scientific knowledge/truth now will potentially be 'untrue' from their conceptions/scientific knowledge/truth?Thus, 'truth' is dynamic, social and has a history.'Truth' is not a fixed, one-off, reflection of 'reality', which science produces by a neutral method.If you can agree with this clarification, ALB, I think that we've come to some point of agreement.

Not so fast !Your statement above about 17th century "scientific knowledge", eg of 'sun/earth' dynamics, origin of 'humans', etc being true would only be valid if the "scientific method" is also variable and relative. Is this what you are claiming too? If you are, this would be a recipe for rampant relativism.As you know, I've suggested not using the word "true" (which does, as you say, refer to knowledge and not the world of phenomena) and using something like "valid", "adequate"or "able to predict more accurately". But sticking to your language, you are right: "'Truth' is not a fixed, one-off, reflection of 'reality'". But why add "which science produces by a neutral method"?Surely, the sort of "truth" Dietzgen, Pannekoek and we here are talking about is also produced by some agreed method? Which is what DJP is trying to get you to say what it is. Me too.

[ALB]

We have already had a thread discussing EP Thompson, including his theory of class consciousness, that will be relevant here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/e-p-thompson

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I'd like to thank twc for their expressed support, on this issue of 'truth' being a dynamic social construct, and not a static 'mirror reflection' of reality.

I second that vote of thanks.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

The alternative that you and DJP propose, that ‘truth’ is located in the ‘object’ and thus, once ‘known’, is a final ‘truth’, just doesn’t accord with Pannekoek’s (or indeed Dietzgen’s) expressed views.

I don't recall saying that or anything like it. It is not my view. Scientific knowledge (what you call "truth") is never final. There is, however, an interesting question, which you don't face, of when can a theory be accepted as temporarily "true", i.e. accepted as the best (most adequate) description for the time being of some set of phenomena, and what are the criteria for deciding this. Why, for instance, is Darwin's theory of evolution considered more adequate than Creationism?

LBird wrote:

When I say 17th century views were ‘true’ then and that now they are not, you counter that they were obviously ‘false’ then. But this depends on you believing that what we know as a ‘truth’ now is the datum point for eternity, that ‘truth’ now is the measure of ‘truth’ then.

No it doesn't. It merely implies that current theories are (to use your terminology) "truer" than those current up to the 17th century, not that today's theories are eternally true. I don't see anything wrong in judging what people in the past believed by today's (temporary, partial, relative, non-absolute) understanding.

LBird wrote:

This can’t be done using a Pannekoekian model of cognition. He says that our ‘conceptions’ are ‘products’, not a ‘mirror’ of ‘reality’, which they would have to be, to sustain your view of ‘truth’. He specifically says that, what you identify as ‘truth’, is an ‘unbounded stream in perpetual motion’.

That's what I say too. The only "absolute truth" is the never-ending, ever-changing stream of phenomena, past, present and future. I don't know who you are arguing against but it's not me. Sounds as if it could be Comrade Strawman.

[ALB]

I agree that anyone who takes on responsibility for adminstering capitalism will have to act, and take responsibility for, against the interests of capitalism. So it doesn't matter whether they are saints or psychopaths. Even so, I can't bring myself to say that Benn (or anyone else) was as bad as Thatcher. After all, when she snuffed it, all of us here danced on her grave including Steve even though this was quite illogical.

[ALB]

dweenlander wrote:

I am an autonomist by inclination, and somebody struggling to find common ground between post-Marx Marxist theory and the history of working class practice by intellectual predilection.

Post-Marx Marxist theory? Sounds like an interesting subject for another, separate thread.

[ALB]

Hrothgar wrote:

The 'game' or 'test' is ridiculous and thoroughly disingenuous.  It does not present racial categories and is deliberately designed to confuse people and, in doing so, undermine any sense of racial identity in the minds of the suggestible. 

Sorry you didn't find it useful to identity who your grandchildren should and should not be allowed to play with and later choose as sexual partners. The good news is that they will probably make up their own minds, as they should. The last laugh will be on you.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Lenin, M and E, p. 290, wrote:

These perfectly clear materialistic propositions are, however, supplemented by Dietzgen thus: “Nevertheless, the non-sensible idea is also sensible, material, i.e. real…. The mind differs no more from the table, light, or sound than these things differ from each other” (p. 54).  This is obviously false. That both thought and matter are “real,” i.e., exist, is true. But to say that thought is material is to make a false step, a step towards confusing materialism and idealism.

[my bold]If ALB and DJP don’t agree with Pannekoek or Dietzgen, then that’s fine. But then they must say who they do agree with. Lenin, here, on the 'material'?

This crossed with my last post. I agree with Dietzgen not Lenin, of course. As Pannekoek put it in that 1937 article:

Quote:

The human mind is entirely determined by the surrounding real world. We have already said that this world is not restricted to physical matter only, but comprises everything that is objectively observable. The thoughts and ideas of our fellow men, which we observe by means of their conversation or by our reading are included in this real world. Although fanciful objects of these thoughts such as angels, spirits or an Absolute Idea do not belong to it, the belief in such ideas is a real phenomenon, and may have a notable influence on historical events.

In other words, thoughts, etc are just as much a part of the "real world" as physical, tangible things.I'm afraid I am unable to resist pointing out that Pannekoek's view here excludes the concept of "non-observable reality" …..

[ALB]

Just re-read part III of Pannekoek's 1937 article "Society and Mind in Marxian Philosophy":http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/society-mind/ch03.htmBrilliant stuff. I agree with every word of it.I am more Pannekoekian (or just as Pannekoekian) than thou.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

The SPGB is quoting Lenin as an 'authority', now? Lenin?

Don't be silly. Of course not.I was just referring you to more information (more likely, misinformation) about Bogdanov and placing him in his political and historical context.  You really ought to follow up on Bogdanov because he does seem to have put forward a theory similar to yours, including (I think) the view you (I think) were going to develop that the "subject" is social and that  how "reality" is perceived is a construct of the social mind. Hence the possibility of a social mind at different times and/or places interpreting "reality" differently and so having different, even contradictory, concepts of what is "true".

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

You're not participating in a discussion of 'cognition', but merely insisting that what I'm saying can't be correct, without any evidence from Marx, Pannekoek or Dietzgen, to back up your opinions.

That's an odd statement as which theory of "cognition" is correct cannot depend on quotes from Marx, Pannekoek or Dietzgen. All quotes from them would show is what they thought about the matter but we're not arguing about that. Or are we? If we are, if you claim that they held that, for instance, creationism was once true in any sense then it's up to you to show this. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.I'm sorry you didn't find helpful what I said about Bogdanov (and I only quoted Kolakowski guardedly simply to give an idea of Bogdanov's ideas. No need to buy the book). In Materialism and Empiriocriticism Lenin devotes a two whole chapters to Bogdanov:http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/four5.htm#v14pp72h-226http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/six2.htm#v14pp72h-322Apologies for Lenin's style of arguing, but I see that one of his insults to Bogdanov is to call him a "cognitive socialist".

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I've tried to take this discussion forward, by being open about my sources, by quoting Marx, Dietzgen and Pannekoek,

As far as I can work out your views are nearer to those of Pannekoek's contemporary, Alexander Bogdanov, rather than those of Pannekoek himself even though both took the ideas of Ernst Mach as a starting point.According to Leszek Kolakowski in his Main Currents of Marxism Bogdanov held that:

Quote:

… the validity of the results of cognition does not consist in their being ‘true’ in the usual sense, but in the help they afford in the struggle for survival. We thus reach a position ol extreme relativism: different 'truths' may be useful in different historical situations, and it is quite possible that any truth is valid only for a particular epoch or social class. (pp.709-10)

and

Quote:

In a pamphlet entitled Science and the Working Class (1920) and in other writings Bogdanov proclaimed the slogan of 'proletarian science'. Marx, adopting the standpoint of the working class, had transformed economics; it was now time to recast all sciences in accordance with the proletarian world-view, not excluding, for example, mathematics and astronomy. Bogdanov did not explain what proletarian astronomy or integral calculus would be like, but he declared that if workers had difficulty in mastering the various sciences without long, specialized study it was chiefly because bourgeois scientists had erected artificial barriers of method and vocabulary so that the workers should not learn their secrets. (p. 714)

I can't vouch for the accuracy of Kolakowski's account since most of Bogdanov's writings have not been translated from Russian except that the pamphlet Science and the Working Class is available in French and the quip about "socialist proletarian" is unfair (Bogdanov is constrasting the bourgeois and proletarian attitudes to science, the former being individualistic; the latter collectivist).In any event there seems to be a similarity between the views Kolakowski attributes to Bogdanov and the views you have expressed here. Nothing wrong with that of course. Bogdanov seems to have been an interesting person and someone who both stood up to Lenin and recognised that Bolshevik Russia was state-capitalist.There was an article on him in the April 2007 Socialist Standard:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2007/no-1232-april-2007/bogdanov-technocracy-and-socialism

[Author]

Posts