DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Yeah, whether we should regard "uniting the 'natural' and 'social'" as 'taking it too far', is the essence of our differences, DJP.As a Communist, I think it is necessary to find a unified scientific method. I think Marx thought this, too.
You're getting me wrong again. My question is not should but does.If I have an engineering project to complete I don't think that the methods of the MCH are going to be of particular use to me.But, on the other hand, if I want to understand how and why the project is taking the particular form it is then the MCH is the tool to use.
ALB wrote:You should have come to the talk last night on "What is History?" where the point was made that it is even more evident in history-writing than in the "natural sciences" that what is happening is that people are selecting from an array of empirically-established perceptions to construct a picture of what did happen. Of course the picture so constructed has to bear some ressemblance to the evidence.Though I guess in the natural sciences the overall validity of the picture can be more easily tested. In the social sciences predictions and theories have a direct influence on future outcomes. For example, if someone predicts that a period of extreme inflation is coming people may act in such a way as though it where like a self fulfilling prophecy as it were.
ALB wrote:One of the passages from Marx and Engels that the speaker quoted was this from the German Ideology:Quote:The premises from which we begin are not arbitrary ones, not dogmas, but real premises from which abstraction can only be made in the imagination. They are the real individuals, their activity and the material conditions under which they live, both those which they find already existing and those produced by their activity. These premises can thus be verified in a purely empirical way.Yes, you could be right. This method is equally applicable to the "natural sciences". Not sure that Marx said so anywhere did he, but I could be wrong.
I'm not sure what I think of that quote. Would it not be "naive realism" to think that "real individuals, their activity and the material condition under which they live" can actually be a "premise"? I'm not sure that passage really makes sense.Premises and premises I don't see how you can insert real individuals into one's head without severe injury!
LBird wrote:The MCH is 'science'.I think you're taking it too far here..Explain how the materialist conception of history enables us to dig stuff out of the ground, process it and arrange it in such a way as to enable us to have this discussion in the format we are having.
LBird wrote:The subject interacts with the object (as Marx, Dietzgen, Pannekoek, etc. argue) and so knowledge must contain traces of 'subject'.I'd agree that is true.
LBird wrote:To argue otherwise, that knowledge contains no traces of subject, is to argue that knowledge is only object (or parts of it). This is naive realism or positivism.But no-one has argued this.What I'm trying to get at, in order to try and understand what you've been putting forward, is your method for testing the truth or factual validity of knowledge (with the understanding that human knowledge can only be partial, not the 'absolute truth'). You've only really hinted at it so far…
LBird wrote:'Accepting general realism or materialism' means it is acceptable for Communists to accept 'naive realism' and 'positivism', which are 19th century-based ideological views of 'science', and would also allow Uncle Joe's 'Dialectical Materialism' in, too.Since truth is only a social construct how do you know this is true?
LBird wrote:The sun/earth relationship has a history. To argue that it is, on the contrary, a 'True Discovery', is to take the 'Historical' out of MCH. Thus, we are left with a Static 'Materialist Conception'.Will please stop picking on poor comrade strawman.
LBird wrote:Yes, but what comprises the 'MCH'? I think what I've been arguing is entirely compatible with the 'MCH', and that yours and DJP's views about the sun/earth relationship is not.In all the years I have been reading Marx / Pannekoek / Deitzgen I have not come across a single reference that makes use of "truth" in the cognitive relativist way that you do. If fact Deitzgen says the flat opposite. So now the burden of truth is on you. Provide evidence that what you are claiming is in line with these people. That Pannekoek quote you keep repeating does not.Does Pannekoek in "The History of Astronomy" say that it used to be true that the sun went round the earth? Is there anything in Marx, Pannekoek, Deitzgen about creationism being true?I have little more time for this as I'm afraid what you're putting forward is another wild goose chase and distraction from the real tasks that are necessary for the propagation of socialism.I'm going to repeat a question posed by twc
twc wrote:please show us just one instance of any piece of substantial scientific work performed by any natural or mathematical scientist which should, in your opinion, have been rejected but instead survived scrutiny merely because the scientist and the profession “believed in private property in the means of production”.This is the real acid test. If you can't answer this then I think you have nothing substantial to say. But then if truth is a social construct it probably doesn't matter.
ALB wrote:Do we know when and where yet? This could be an interesting debate as, if they believe their own election promises (which of course in private they may not), SPEW should logically be defending the proposition that it is possible to redistribute income within capitalism so as to benefit the wage and salary working class,Not as far as I know, I don't think it's been decided yet. AK has a blog here: http://akliman.squarespace.com/ or I would have thought it would be publicised through MHI.Yes Kliman will be speaking against SPEW who do take the position you have suggested.
The only reason you may wish to log out is if someone else uses your computer and you think they might go onto the website pretending to be you.The visitor statistics are gathered through google analytics and they won't know who is logged in or who isn't.
LBird wrote:The 'law of gravity' is a human construct.I thought you said you where a realist? In that case the concept that is "the law of gravity" also has to refer to something that is real in the universe. Therefore the "law of gravity" is not just a human construct but also something real in the world. I don't see how you can claim to be a realist and disagree with this statement. Unless I've misunderstood what is meant by "realism"…
LBird wrote:Would you like, finally, to describe your theory of cognition, or is 'common sense' profound enough for you?See post #117 for a position that I would broadly agree with.
LBird wrote:DJP wrote:You are stating a cognitive relativist position here. This is quite a popular position in the Bourgeois university and runs counter to Deitzgen, Marx and Pannekoek, if you read them carefully enough.How 'careful' is 'carefully enough'? I've just quoted Pannekoek.
Yes you have quoted him, but it seems to me you have misunderstood.He is not saying that truth is a social construct but that what is "true for" a certain group of people in a certain time is. But when we talk about "true for" we are not talking about truth but beliefs..In the quote you used I guess there could be some ambiguity as to if he is talking about theories or entities, but this can be settled by looking at the whole of his work…
LBird wrote:Would you care to explain how we have access to ‘real things’ with a neutral human activity? Just use ‘our senses’?I've never claimed such a thing. Again see post #117
LBird wrote:In a Communist society, the notion that theories would not be ‘truth evaluable’ would be nonsense, because ‘truth’ and ‘theories’ are human creations, and thus would be under the control of our society.Perhaps then we can meet on the top floor of a multi-storey car park and discuss the best way to test the 'truth' of the law of gravity.You are stating a cognitive relativist position here. This is quite a popular position in the Bourgeois university and runs counter to Deitzgen, Marx and Pannekoek, if you read them carefully enough.See the Deitzgen quote I posted earlier.
LBird wrote:‘Instrumentalism’ assumes a humanity that accepts ‘black boxes’, perhaps like ‘the market’. Communists wouldn’t accept such a concept; we assume humans can understand our society and its products. ‘Black boxes’ are for ruling classes, and their class-based purposes.I suspect that instrumentalism is a form of naïve realism, as far as I can tell.Instrumentalism is the exact opposite of realism. Realism takes the contents of theories as real things existing in the world, instrumentalism takes them as useful fictions for making predictions about the future.
An interesting twist to the original story. Apparently the font they used on the vans was used without permission and its designer isn't too happy…http://www.designweek.co.uk/news/home-office-accused-of-illegal-font-use-on-illegal-immigrants-campaign/3037179.article
Here’s a map showing countries by the year that they legalized homosexuality. With that I don’t think it can reasonably be argued that the development of capitalism is the development of sexual persecution. Click on the image to make it bigger.
Earlier on in the discussion an SPGB education bulletin on science was mentioned. It has now been transcribed and uploaded here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/study-guides/science-and-socialist
