[DJP]

Adam Smith was not a natural or mathematical scientist…

[DJP]

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…

[DJP]

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.

[DJP]

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.

[DJP]

He's coming to the UK soon to debate with SPEW; we should try and nab him too.

[DJP]

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.

[DJP]

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"…

[DJP]

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

[DJP]

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.

[DJP]

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

[DJP]

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.

[DJP]

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

[DJP]

OK fine, but that still doesn't explain how the facts of astronomy are relative to one's position in class society.And was Pannekoek a bourgeois scientist or a proletarian one? I'm guessing he was employed by the Dutch state…Like it or not but it seems to me you are a cognitive relativist….I agree that the content of a theory (it's facts) does determine what is observed and what is disregarded, but the absolute truth of the matter lies not within the theory itself or within those professing but out there in the real world, in nature. Whether or not we can ever fully grasp this truth is another matter…

[DJP]

Albert Einstein wrote:

Science without epistemology is – insofar as it is thinkable at all – primitive and muddled. However, no sooner has the epistemologist, who is seeking a clear system, fought his way through such a system, than he is inclined to interpret the thought-content of science in the sense of his system and to reject what does not fit into his system. The scientist, however, cannot afford to carry his striving for epistemological systematic that far…. He therefore must appear to the systematic epistemologist as an unscrupulous opportunist.Albert Einstein, Philosopher-Scientist, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp p.684Quoted in Beyond The Hoax, Alan Sokal

[DJP]

Maybe it's me being thick, or I've missed one of your posts but please then do explain how this fits into your model i.e. what your criteria for evaluating truth is.Apologies if you have to repeat yourself….Do you agree or disagree with anything I said in post #122?

[Author]

Posts