[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I supose it's arguable that one can know without ideas: dogs know things, and yet have no ideas: but I think that's arguable, since we're still talking about, essentially, mental states, and the property of being a mental state.  Both ideas and knowledge are parts of the mental domain. I can't see "knowledge" being f any other stuff than matter or ideas…

I thought this thread was about 'science and Communism'.How the hell does 'dogs knowing things' play any part in this discussion?I still can't fathom why there is so much resistance.Seriously, what's the point of posting stuff like this?What are you hoping to achieve?Driving me away?

[LBird]

I never thought it would be so difficult to get some agreement on 'theory and practice' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'theory' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'practice' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'matter' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'ideal' produces 'knowledge'.Just good, old fashioned, 'theory and practice produces knowledge'.I simply don't know where to go from here, comrades.

[LBird]

DJP (reflecting YMS), wrote:

Like has been said C=B…

But it doesn't.C=A+B.Unless this is accepted (that 'knowledge'='reality' practiced on by 'ideas'), then we will continue to 'talk past' one another.I can't say it any simpler, comrades.If one wants to argue 'knowledge'='ideas' (ie. C=, then we are not proceeding together.If 'practice' = '+', then the formula C=B leaves out 'practice'.Unless we subscribe to 'knowledge' emerges from human practice (which means human ideas) upon 'reality', then there's no point going any further.This relationship is at the heart of 'theory and practice'.Theory must exist. (B)It must be practiced.(+)Practice must be upon something.(A)Theory and practice produce knowledge (C)A+B=C (or, B+A=C)This disagreement needs to be sorted out, or we'll continue to misunderstand what each other is saying.

[LBird]

I've been trying to think of a explanation for this problem which might work.If we call material A, ideal B and knowledge C, thenA+B=C; orB+A=C, which is the same thing.The fact that A existed for millions of years before B, is neither here nor there.At that point, when there was no B, neither was there C.So, when just A existed there wasA.When B came along, and only then, there was a possibility of C.old A + new B = possible CC is not a copy of A.C requires both A and B; or B and A; this is the sameAs Marx, in the Theses on Feuerbach says, A+B=C. Materialists insist A=C, or C=A.Idealists insist B=C, or C=BRealists insist that C=A+B, or C=B+A.For those interested, A=object, B=subject, C=knowledge,and the plus sign is 'practice'.Hope this helps, comrades.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why not call it 'idealism', which by your logic is equally acceptable?

It's not equally acceptable according to "my logic"Idealism means that "reality is predominantly mental or otherwise non-physical".How does that equate with"everything is material or depends on or arises out of the material."?But anyhow how is "Reality is just such a collection of entities endowed with causal powers that come from their inherent nature" any kind of improvement?

You missed out the key part of my quote, DJP.

LBird wrote:

DJP, why call something that gives the 'material' and the 'ideal' an equal status, 'materialism'?Why not call it 'idealism', which by your logic is equally acceptable?

You’d just agreed with the equal status of ‘material’ and ‘ideal’.

DJP wrote:

ALB wrote:

Actually, I agree with the substance of this, i.e (1) that Marx won't have held that everything is material or physical and (2) that material and ideas have the same status. In which case the argument would seem to be about what to call this view, which I'm sure could be eventually settled.

I agree with both points one and two.

Either you agree ‘that material and ideas have the same status’, or you don’t.If you do, you can’t claim either that “that "reality is predominantly mental or otherwise non-physical" (what you call Idealism) or “that "reality is predominantly physical or otherwise non-mental" (what you call Materialism).This is the whole point: ‘real’ means ‘material and ideal’ or ‘ideal and material’.You are trying to agree with ‘real’, but insisting (illogically) on ‘material’.This isn’t just a matter of words, although ALB is right, that ‘realism’ doesn’t have to be what this approach is called, but the use of the term ‘materialism’ must be confronted, because of its history and implied meaning. Its history is Leninism, and its implied meaning is that the ‘material’ takes prominence.I don’t think you would have any time for Leninism, DJP, but I think you are a ‘physicalist/materialist’, because you keep saying so.But ‘realism’ is not ‘materialism’. Realism gives equal weight to the material and the ideal.

Brian wrote:

I have to disagree which is why I've suggested making a distinction between CR and 'Critical Materialism'.

I think Brian is on the right lines, in his response to DJP, but again I have to disagree with his suggestion, because it retains the word ‘Materialism’, for the reasons already outlined. ‘Materialism’ is a dangerous hangover from Engels’ usage, which fed into Lenin’s.Of course, it doesn’t have to be ‘Critical Realism’ (it could just as easily be ‘Critical Whatsit-ism’), but I can guarantee that if the term ‘materialism’ is involved, those physicalists like DJP will agree with the use of the term, but disagree with its meaning.‘Real’ means the ideal and the material have the same status. To agree with this means a rejection of the ‘material’ having a special status.We have to get away from the ‘idea’ that ‘matter’ tells us what it is. That’s why ‘materialism’ is a form of Idealism. It replaces ‘god’ with ‘matter’, and both are outside of human control. The proletariat (and thus post-rev. humanity) can have no external master.

DJP wrote:

Materialism doesn't mean that everything is material but that everything is material or depends on or arises out of the material.

If we go with this definition, we’ll soon find a minority telling us what the ‘material’ is. This formula simply does not give ideal and material the same status, and it is anti-democratic.Marx insisted that our ‘knowledge’ of the world is both ‘ideal’ and ‘material’. It requires a method of ‘theory and practice’, which means the application of the ideal to the material. Perhaps ‘Critical Practicism’ captures this, for Brian?

[LBird]

DJP, why call something that gives the 'material' and the 'ideal' an equal status, 'materialism'?Why not call it 'idealism', which by your logic is equally acceptable?

[LBird]

moderator1 wrote:

My sincere apologies to LBird for any inconvienence the blocking caused and I thank him for bringing this matter to the forums attention. And I appreciate there was no grudge intended on his part.

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

1) Marx wasn't a 'materialist', in the accepted meaning of that term (everything is 'material' or 'physical'); I've explained this, and think that the term 'idealist-materialist' captures Marx's position far better, if one reads his Theses on Feuerbach.2) The realm of the 'real' includes material and ideas. Rocks and value have the same ontological status.

Actually, I agree with the substance of this, i.e (1) that Marx won't have held that everything is material or physical and (2) that material and ideas have the same status. In which case the argument would seem to be about what to call this view, which I'm sure could be eventually settled.

Yes, the 'name' is neither here nor there. The important thing is to recognise the substance.

ALB wrote:

But what's all this about "non-physical causal powers" and Bhaskar? Where do they fit in?

My advice is to leave Bhaskar out of it, for the moment anyway, and just regard him as one proponent of CR.I'm trying to get us towards an explanation of 'non-physical causal powers', but I think a few more steps of explanation of CR are required.If you can accept that Marx's 'value' is an example of 'non-physical causal powers', then the explanation about CR might be easier to understand and agree with.If one holds to 'materialism' or physicalism, and the suggestion that anything about 'ideas' is 'idealism', then most of what CR holds will be rejected, out of hand, as 'idealism'.

[LBird]

I have to presume that you're taking the piss, now, Vin.The alternatives are too depressing to even contemplate, never mind mention.Anyone else wish to discuss some basics of Critical Realism, that I outlined earlier?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

By the way as you may have guessed I'm new to the philosophy of science but keen to learn where science is going wrong in your estimation. So if you can convince me you are at least halfway there.

It's not 'my estimation', Brian, but science's estimation since Einstein. As Rovelli says, Newton was wrong.So, I don't have to 'convince you'. Science should have already done that. If you're not already convinced, you're wasting your time on this thread.We can't continue to simply say "well, it works!" and leave it at that. Humans demand explanation.If you're happy with the explanation "well, it works!", then you're in the company of those who defend capitalism.The fact that capitalism kills millions in wars and starves billions, does not show that it doesn't work. It 'works' for bosses, and if 'bosses are inescapable', as most workers think, then wars and starvation are the price that must be paid by workers. They accept their lot, and 'material conditions' will not change that.We have to ask, what does 'works' mean? And for whom?This is criticism of the current state of affairs, not acceptance of 'what works'.The belief that 'physics works' is not good enough.Communism must mean explanation, and explanation for the masses.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

This is the starting point of a unified science for the working class.

 

LBird wrote:

Vin doesn't believe in a unified science

But it's pointless merely saying 'unified', if everything else of substance you write on the issue says 'separate'.I'm forced to conclude either than you don't know what 'unified' means, or that you separate out what you say you do from what you actually do; ie. that you're a conscious hypocrite, or unconsciously following scientists, who do the same thing.My best guess is that you don't understand the implications of 'unified method'. I'm not being insulting, but honestly trying to understand why I'm spending hours trying to explain to comrades what they themselves are writing.It's not doing me any good.If you think a unified method is possible, outline the method for understanding rocks and value. Or physics and sociology. You can't keep writing about the separation of physics and sociology, if you say you want a unified method.If the MCoH&C can form this basis, how does Capital explain physics?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Vin has admitted that he thinks that ‘physics and sociology’ are of a different methodological order (no matter Marx’s thinking about ‘unity of science’), and that ‘physics’ provides a model for ‘sociology’ to follow. He also thinks that ‘physics’ leads to ‘Truth’ and that there is a method for getting at this ‘Truth’ of nature, if not of sociology.

 Have I said this somewhere in this thread?? You have made this up.  And I am again spending time defending a position you attribute to me.  

I can't keep doing this, Vin. I've spent ages this afternoon giving you chapter and verse with quotes of your words.If you think there is something specifically where I'm doing you an injustice, then spell it out, but after you've re-read your own posts on these issues.The only real answer, Vin, is to move things forward, and if you really think I'm making this all up, then simply drop out of the thread. Perhaps all will become clearer, with more detailed discussion.Forget my 'caricature' of your position. What do you think of my outline of CR?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

So why not just ditch CR and call it Critical Materialism?By the way as you may have guessed I'm new to the philosophy of science but keen to learn where science is going wrong in your estimation. So if you can convince me you are at least halfway there.

Two answers.1) Marx wasn't a 'materialist', in the accepted meaning of that term (everything is 'material' or 'physical'); I've explained this, and think that the term 'idealist-materialist' captures Marx's position far better, if one reads his Theses on Feuerbach.2) The realm of the 'real' includes material and ideas. Rocks and value have the same ontological status.So, the 'Critical' is fine (it plays the same role, perhaps, as 'historical' in 'Hist. Mat.'), but retaining the 'Materialism' is a massive mistake, given the Leninist appropriation of Engels' 'Dia. Mat.', which is complete tosh, and its history within the Communist movement: 'materialism' means 'Leninism'.Thus, for now, at least, I'd support 'Critical Realism', as opposed to 'Dialectical' or 'Historical' 'Materialism', as the name for our Communist activity within 'science'. Of course, the name could be changed, and indeed the content might be changed, but at the rate this thread is advancing, we'll all be dead before we get to any substantive discussion about the 'philosophy of science' and address your 'keenness to learn'.

[LBird]

I won't bother to reply, yet again, to YMS, because I've done all this before, and if YMS can't find the answers, I don't give a shit.

[LBird]

  

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird you have yet again attributed ideas to me that I don't hold. This means that before I can deal with your arguments I have to first deal with your false accusations.This is frustrating and time consuming, so I am afraid I will have to leave you to decide what I think, because you either do not read what I say or you are deliberately misrepresenting me.

But I’ve attributed to you ‘Kuhn’s paradigms’ and a ‘singular approach’, and refusing to regard ‘social science’ as a model for ‘physical science’.

VM, post #444, wrote:

LBird wrote:

I look to Lakatos' 'research programmes' which are multiple (as you say) and competing, all of the time. There isn't a period of 'normal, dominant, singular paradigm'. This means a pluralistic approach of competing theories. Thus, I argued that this ideology is the more radical and critical.

my bold.No thanks! That is the state of social sciences today and social illnesses are on the increase.The revolutionary approach is that the 'paradigm' of MCH and C must be adopted by the vast majority of workers. This is not exclude dissent as it will be a democratic decision of the community.

So, you’ve mentioned ‘Kuhnian paradigm’, in the singular, and pooh-poohed ‘social sciences today’.

VM, post #446 wrote:

I have simply put forward my views. The only 'science' that isn't functioning or working is social science and you want to transfer that confusion to the natural sciences.

Again, you claim ‘social science’ isn’t working (and because you don’t say ‘natural science isn’t working’, it is implied that ‘physics’ is working), and as you rightly say, I wish to ‘transfer’ a social science method to physical science (in an attempt to find a ‘unified method’) and you call this a basis for ‘confusion’, then you must believe that ‘natural science’ is either separate or, if you wish to follow Marx’s ‘unifying’, then ‘natural science’ must form the basis of ‘social science’.

VM, post #435, wrote:

LBird wrote:

How does the MCH&C explain 'rocks' to us?

I don't need it to. I need it to increase our knowledge of history and how we can help change society: How we can solve war, hunger, crime etc. But then I have already made that clear.

Here, again, you clearly don’t with to ‘unify’ the study of ‘rocks’ and ‘history/society’. You wish to ignore ‘rocks’ and deal with ‘war, hunger, crime etc.’, and you claim that the MCH&C forms this basis. Thus, this ‘method’ is not on a par with the ‘physical sciences’.

VM, post #435, wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'd argue that Marx's method of 'economics, history, etc.' has been proved the more successful.

It has not been successful, because of the nature of the social science method. It will be successful when social science becomes 'scientific' by accepting the communist/socialist/marxist paradigm/research program/theory or what ever we wish to call it. But then I have already said that….How can you possibly say that social science has been more successful than natural science!Where are our greatest acheivements? Curing social diseases such as war, poverty, hunger, crime, mental illness? Or physical diseases?

Once again, the emphasis on the difference between ‘social’ and ‘physical’ scientific method. The emphasis on ‘a single paradigm’. The  claim that ‘natural science’ has been ‘more successful’, when everybody knows that the fact that ‘something can be done’ is not the same as explaining why it has worked. In fact, we know that ‘natural science’ is very poor at explaining things to humans, and we are forced to rely on ‘complex maths’ or meaningless texts using obscure concepts, which don’t actually explain anything to most people.Since we are Communists, and claim that the proletariat can develop and take control of the means of production, we must have a ‘science’ that explains itself to the vast majority of people, if we are to have democratic control. If democratic control of knowledge is not a central concern of one’s ‘science’, then I suggest that one isn’t attempting to build a ‘science’ for humanity, but merely to retain an old elite science for experts. This has political implications.And, indeed, ‘social science’ has been ‘more successful than natural science’. Marx’s explanations of the reality of capitalism form a model for explanation within the natural sciences, as Marx himself hoped it would. The only reason this isn’t clearly recognised throughout society, is because we live in a bourgeois society, which rejects Marx’s scientific explanation of society, his claim that it can form the basis of ‘humanising nature’ and his belief that ‘knowledge’ of society and nature is the business of our whole society, not a few ‘elite experts’ and academics.Now, Vin, due to your very comradely support during my ‘ban’, I’ve taken a lot of time to illustrate all this again for you. I’m not going to do this every time for you, or for anyone else at all.If no-one can follow the implications of their own arguments, then we might as well finish now.I ask again, does anyone want to discuss my outline of CR, as given in post #398?

[Author]

Posts