[DJP]

LBird wrote:

DJP, that video is a superb illustration of the theoretical preconceptions all humans have, and which necessarily determine selection. Thanks.There is no passive observation of the object. 'Theory determines what we observe'.

I don't think the video actually does illustrate that, but it is a good analogy and it does clearly demonstrate that our perception does not work like a video recorder. A selection bias is not the same thing as a theoretical preconception, "I better concentrate on the white players" isn't much of a theory after all.If you like that there's a book called the "Invisible Gorilla" which explains this and many other cognitive biases. Critical thinking should involve not only being aware of logical fallacies but also these kind of cognitive biases.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Just make sure you know which political ideology the organisers espouse, and get some basic definitions from them about what they mean by 'science', 'mind', 'rational', 'morality', etc., etc.

Well, I could do but that wouldn't affect the truth or falsity of any claims they make!Much of this will come from behavioural science and behavioural economics. Homo Economicus is dying out in the universities, that's the advancement of science for you!

[DJP]

A good illustration on how selective our perception is. Watch in full screen for best efffect:

[DJP]

The quotes are all well and good, but I don't know who your highlighted passages are aimed at since no-one on here has expressed any kind of dualist philosophy?

[DJP]

Brian wrote:

Again its so obvious that your attraction towards Schaff is bordering on idolatry and therefore you are not applying critical thinking in a robustic manner towards him.  

I don't think this is fair. Complex issues like this do require a more extensive background reading than can be gleamed from reading a few forum posts. LBird says he is impressed by Schaffs theory of cognition and agrees with it, that is fair enough. The trouble is Schaff's work is hard to find and not available online. So most of us can't discuss Schaff, hence the references to Deitzgen and Pannekoek. You don't think we are Deitzgen or Pannekoek idolizers do you?

[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Perception trumps reality!!If it indeed “truth” coalesces with your politics, the Sun does goes around the Earth – the maths will prove it!   http://www.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-about-brain-ever Now the issue is how we combat such ideas

 What you are talking about are cognitive biases, this area of research has only really taken off in the last 20 or 30 years. It seems evolution has equipped us with brains that primed for jumping to conclusions and liking to be proved right.There’s been quite a few bestselling popular science books on this topic in the last few years, my favourites are “Thinking, Fast and Slow” by Daniel Kahneman and “The Invisible Gorilla” by Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons.People who are discussing ideas should be as aware of these as they are logical fallacies.

[DJP]

To brush up on the larger general background issues of these questions I've been looking through the rather good Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Here are some articles which will be of interest:Truth:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/Physicalism (materialism)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/Social dimensions of scientific knowledgehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/

[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

DJP, can you make a pamphlet out of the discussion? 

No, I don't think that is a good idea.If comrades want to volunteer proof reading I could reissue the two Deitzgen books that where put out by Kerr, though this would be quite a project…

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

By the way, does anybody know whether it was Einstein or Popper who coined the saying "theory always precedes observation".

It seems to be Popper, and as he was an anti-communist this should be rejected outright! 

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Why don't you just f**k off, you dim b*st*rd.

Come on, this isn't debating. Let's all play nicely http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/discussion-of-kants-philosophy-in-russia-ends-in-gunfire/2013/09/16/cf609472-1ebb-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Theories don't emerge from data. Theories define their data. Selection is inescapable, from an infinite stream of sense-impressions from the object.

The second and third sentences I agree with but the first is false.Many theories have emerged from data, though of course you need a prior theory to be able to take data in the first place.Remember much of science is not induction or deduction but abduction. Finding the most plausable explanation from an incomplete set of observations.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts wrote:

History itself is a real part of natural history – of nature developing into man. Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.

[my bold]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

Perhaps so, but we are still a long way off!

[DJP]

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.

[DJP]

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! 

[DJP]

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.

[Author]

Posts