[LBird]

YMS wrote:

AFAICS, the CR model is a refinement (or reinterpretation) of existing practice that would leave nothing changed. We're not going to abolish investigation of nature and the unknown.

Your comment, about 'leaving nothing changed' is unsupported by any evidence. It's an opinion, but it would have to be justified by argument.And who has suggested 'abolishing investigation of nature and the unknown'!I'm constantly forced to assume that whenever anybody asks about 'science' and its hidden methods, those who already identify personally with those dodgy methods always assume that the critics are about to herald a new Dark Age, in which books will be burnt, 'scientists' decapititated, and 'priests and gods' reinstated as 'authorities for knowledge'.Why can't those, like you, who seem to know something about science, actaully engage with the arguments, and stop throwing up your hands, and scaremongering, and shouting 'The Vandals are almost upon us!'

YMS wrote:

I've already stated my general concerns about CR, from your precis and what I read on Wikipedia.

Well, you haven't actually addressed anything that I've written, just provided links and stifled a shout of 'The Vandals…'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

If ALB, Vin and YMS have managed to move to a reasonable tone, and actually ask meaningful questions, and supply further details, how come you've remained in the 'sneering' mode?

I fail to see what is unreasonable about asking a question after someone has made a statement.The last few questions I have asked are pretty simple and if you have a robust theory should be easily answered..We're just discussing abstract ideas, there's no need to take it personally…

[reluctantly] What do you think about my outline of CR, DJP?

[LBird]

I certainly first came across Lakatos in Callinicos' book 'Marxism and philosophy', when I was still baffled by these issues and a SWP member! A long time ago, regarding both!

YMS wrote:

…in practical terms, for most scientists, I doubt this changes the day job.

Is that an approach that you'd take to discussing Capital and value? Surely this is a philosophical discussion, to help us to understand the process of science?And it's already been pointed out, by Kuhn and Lakatos not least, that scientists actually don't even know what they are doing, so they're the last ones to look to for 'practical' answers!What do you think of my outline of CR, YMS? Do you agree with it, or not? Both in the sense of my explanation, and in the sense of it as a theory?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

we need to discuss human theory first, rather than external reality.

Unless you presume telepathy how is another's theory not also a part of external reality?

If ALB, Vin and YMS have managed to move to a reasonable tone, and actually ask meaningful questions, and supply further details, how come you've remained in the 'sneering' mode?Do you have a personal problem, which prevents you thinking critically and responding decently, of which I'm not aware?Do us all a favour, and buck your ideas up.Or, god forbid, reveal your own ideology, which I already know that you won't.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBirdI have had some thoughts on aspects of the scientific method you talk of.Have I got this right?The natural and physical sciences need to adopt a scientific method involving competing theoretical perspectives, paradigms or research programs (whatever the proletariate settle on) instead of a single dominant theory. Indeed as the socialisl sciences do today? 

That's OK as far as it goes, Vin.But, to accept that as a method, science must assume that 'truth' is dependent upon human 'theory', rather than that 'reality talks to us, and tells us what it is'.This is a fundamentally critical approach to all science, and I think it is suitable for the democratic proletariat, in its attempts to build for a future Communism.In effect, the method says "Bollocks" to the Leninist notion of a 'special consciousness' that the party can have, but workers can't. That is its political importance at present. Later, once Leninism has been 'seen off' as an option for our class, its importance will be in its challenge to bourgeois authority (in politics, economics, and physics, to name a few).What do you think of my outline of CR, Vin?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

[PS, comrade, how about moving on to discussing Critical Realism, and its usefulness (or otherwise) for the proletariat when discussing scientific method?]

OK, what is the "reality" that the "realism" in the name is referring to?

Since, logically, in the method of 'theory and practice', we have to address first our 'theory' behind our attempts to identify "what is reality", we need to discuss human theory first, rather than external reality.This must be true, unless one has access to a method which allows reality to 'speak for itself'.Do you want us to allow 'reality to speak for itself'?Can you please say whether you a) understand my outline of CR; and b) whether you agree with it?If you either don't understand or don't agree, we can discuss it further.

[LBird]

Can we move the discussion on to Critical Realism (as outlined in my earlier post), please comrades. I don't think there is anything to be gained by going over ground already covered, and for which I've provided answers, and about which I've asked questions that have been ignored. Let's leave it behind us, and make progress.I'd like this thread to proceed to see if we can find a 'unified method' for all the sciences, which I believe Marx thought possible, and I believe that many bourgeois (in the sense of 'not Communist') thinkers have already pointed the way.Is my explanation of CR sufficient for it to be taken forward, or would comrades like a few more examples, first?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

You won't believe this, but when I said that whether 'the sun goes round the earth' or 'the earth goes round the sun' is a 'truth' that depends upon which society is saying it, some, employing bourgeois ideology, denied it!

To continue the banter, how, then, can it be said that Newton was wrong, as somebody wrote last night?

ALB, post #399 wrote:

I should perhaps clarify that I agree with your point that the mind plays an active role in understanding nature and that the categories into which it classifies nature are in the mind not in nature.

[my bold]Unless you argue that Newton's 'mind' (which I think you agree is the source of the social and historical belief that 'the earth goes round the sun') is infallible, then it must be possible that he was wrong.All I'm doing, ALB, is pointing out the inconsistency when people accept the 'theory-ladenness of facts', but then insist that there are 'theory unladen facts' which do not depend upon social and historical 'mind'.I'm also assuming that you accept that Newton's mind was also a social and historical creation by his society.If we Communists are going to hold to the bourgeois belief in 'individual genius' and 'True Knowledge' as the basis of the scientific method, 'eternally uncriticisable', fair enough, but it should be openly declared by any who hold to this ideology, that they are following the bourgeoisie regarding 'science'.And the person who said Newton was wrong was the working physicist, Rovelli.I'm merely the humble messenger (who always reveals his sources), for Rovelli, Pannekoek and Marx – don't shoot me, ALB![PS, comrade, how about moving on to discussing Critical Realism, and its usefulness (or otherwise) for the proletariat when discussing scientific method?]

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Not meaning to be funny, but who are the bourgeoisie who have been saying this "for centuries"? Until a hundred years or so ago I would have thought that most of the bourgeoisie would have thought that "the Truth" was to be found in the bible — the Protestant ethic and all that. In any event, as you point out, whoever has been saying this is wrong, as is now widely recognised in bourgeois as well as socialist/communist circles.

Oh, it is 'funny', ALB!You won't believe this, but when I said that whether 'the sun goes round the earth' or 'the earth goes round the sun' is a 'truth' that depends upon which society is saying it, some, employing bourgeois ideology, denied it!Actually, 'truth' sits within 'knowledge of an object' and not within 'the object' itself.Of course, whereas the religious found 'Truth' in the bible, the bourgeoisie find 'Truth' in nature.For the former, truth is revealed in the bible, and can't be criticised; for the latter, truth is revealed in nature, and can't be criticised.Both hold to ahistoric, asocial 'Truth'.However, Marx argued that 'truth' is a social and historical product by humans, not something revealed to us (whether by the book or by neutral method), and, like Pannekoek, thought that even the 'laws of nature' are a social and historical product by humanity, not a reflection of 'reality as it is'.I'm glad we're sharing jokes now, ALB. It's so much more comradely.

[LBird]

I thought I’d begin today by trying to outline the basics of Critical Realism, for any comrades who are unfamiliar with CR. As usual, there is no substitute for actually reading deeper into these necessarily skimpy outlines, but I always think that it is a central role for Communists to try to explain, to other workers, complex ideas in far simpler terms than academics do. Much of what bourgeois academics write is intended, not to explain, but to hide, as part of their elitist ideology. I do think that Communists have a didactic role within the class, but this is a two-way relationship. If the class shout “Piss off, and come back when you’ve thought of a way to explain it better, in a way that we can understand!”, I would recommended this as the scientific method in action for the proletariat, when dealing with professors (or, indeed, with Communists). Science, in every discipline, must be explained and be accessible. This attitude must be at the forefront of any movement which claims to be the forerunner of the organised revolutionary proletariat, whose final aim is the democratisation of the means of production. Democracy, by its very nature, demands widespread understanding of all issues, whether these issues are classed as political, economic or scientific.The four key concepts in CR are: components, structures, levels, and emergent properties.A component is a building block of a structure.A structure is a set of components organised in a specific way, that is, a set of components in particular relationships to each other.A level is a certain set of structures which are themselves related to each other. The key points here are: a) that structures can themselves as act as components for higher level structures; and b) that components can be examined as structures formed from lower level components.Emergent properties are properties, attributes, powers, etc. that only emerge at a certain structural level. This means that the ‘emergent’ does not exist at the component level of that structure. One can’t break up the structure in search of the origin of the property, because it isn’t there. It exists as part of relationships. This applies at all levels, too. Higher and higher levels of structures have properties emerging at each level, which can’t be reduced to a lower level structure or component, and certainly can’t be reduced to some notional ‘lowest’ level component, because, according to our concepts, any so-called ‘lowest’ level component is always a structure, too.Some example would obviously help here, for those comrades entirely unfamiliar with CR, and for whom the above outline is a bit ‘dry’.Perhaps an example of a structure is a car. Notice, that I have chosen this as at a structural level for my explanation. This structure is made up of components, like engine, wheels, seats, etc. But these components are themselves structures, too, and I could have chosen to use any of them as a structure, rather than as a component, within my explanation. An emergent property of a car is speed. But this only exists at the car structural level, and examining the seats, wheels or engine for speed won’t reveal it. If these components are laid out, unstructured and unrelated, on a garage floor, they do not contain ‘speed’. Similarly, if cars are brought together in a specific structural relationship called traffic (that is, the structure ‘car’ is now acting as a ‘component’ for a higher structure), other properties emerge which don’t exist at the car level, like a ‘jam’. A hundred cars spread out over a city do not constitute a ‘traffic jam’ (with its lack of speed); it’s only a jam if the cars are brought together in the same street at the same time, in a certain relationship. A ‘jam’ does not exist at the car level, nor at the seat level.Four points: I think that CR can help explain scientific issues in both physical and social science; CR is the imposition of human theory upon the world (not 'induction' nor 'practice and theory') and thus follows the slogan 'theory and practice'; CR is essentially ‘relational’; CR is bound up with ideology, and it is anathaema to ‘individualist’ or ‘reductionist’ thought. In all these ways, I think CR is compatible with Marx’s views on science and nature.Science necessarily focuses upon a certain level: this is a human choice, not something that a structure forces upon the human. Perhaps the next stage is to show how this theory can be applied to help us to understand both rocks and value (ie. both physical and social phenomena), as I’ve already insisted that a ‘unified method’ must be able to do.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

The question I was raising was not incompatible with your view that there is no such thing as an ideology-free science. I was just questioning whether the ideology had always to be a class ideology. You yourself say (I think) that in socialism/communism this will not be the case.

I glad that you seem to be agreeing with me, that ‘there is no such thing as an ideology-free science’. I think that this is an important step for all Communists to recognise, on the road to undermining bourgeois authority within science. We can’t criticise something which produces The Truth. The bourgeoisie don’t have a value-free, neutral method which allows them to simply ‘discover’ the world. Humans are an essential part of creating our knowledge of the world, of ‘humanising nature’, as Marx put it. I think we should start from the assumption that all science, in this society, has class ideology, and examine it on that basis. Clearly, within a non-class  society, this can't be the case.

ALB wrote:

I was just asking whether, for some things, this could not be the case under capitalism too. (Incidentally, I prefer to think that the physical science biology is also class-ideology based).You haven't answered this

I thought I had. Whether any ‘science’ is ‘class-based’ is to be examined, rather than assumed.

LBird, post #385 wrote:

I prefer a scientific method that openly examines 'theory' first, and then puts it into practice, and then votes on the results to see whether they are considered 'socially true' or not.Using this unified method, it is up to the proletariat to decide, after scientific investigation, whether any 'science' produced by the bourgeoisie is 'true' for us, too. Perhaps it will be, in some areas of science, perhaps it won't be, in other areas of science.

I’m interested in the issue of method, rather than trying to imagine what objections the proletariat might come up against bourgeois ideas within any particular scientific discipline, from physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, politics, to history, and every other discipline in between. Why treat physics any differently from sociology? Unless one has already assumed that physics and sociology are sciences of a different methodological order?Is physics a 'special' science? The bourgeoisie have been saying it is, for centuries, and that its method alone produces Truth. We know since Einstein that this isn't the case, as Rovelli admits, that 'Newton was wrong'.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

You haven't acknowledged yet, Vin, that you're employing Kuhn's ideology of 'paradigms'.I've already explained to you that I don't use this ideology; I openly say that I use Lakatos' 'research programmes'. And I've already said that 'research programmes' compete with each other.

I outlined my position and my ideological assumptions  in posts #374 and #378 aboveI do not use Lakatos I use a socialist/communist ideology so therefore I do not accept 'research programmes' as valid.  Nor do I use Kuhn's paradigm. In my search for a unified science I have adopted a form of 'paradigm', inspired by Kuhn, which I apply to distinguish bourgoeis social science from marxist social science. Once I have isolated the marxist paradigm, I can work within in it to outline and understand a unified marxist scientific method.I do believe I have stated clearly that the MCH is my ideological starting point in understanding scienceOnly a starting point I know. 

Two problems, Vin.On the issue of 'frameworks', if you employ Kuhn's ideas, there is a usual period of 'normal' science, and 'revolutionary' science is the infrequent occurrence. Thus is it a theory of stability and consensus. Surely the similarity to conservative thinking is obvious?On the contrary, the usual status of science employing Lakatos' ideas is 'competing' and thus 'disagreement'. Thus it is a theory of change and argument. Surely the similarity to Marx's thinking is obvious?This, I think, makes Lakatos the superior theory, for Communists, for understanding how the history of science has happened.Secondly, the MCoH does not provide a basis for understanding both 'rocks' and 'value', which I said earlier must be the case for a unified method, in Marx's sense. Your claim only works if you, like ALB, subscribe to the bourgeois theory of the separation of 'science' and 'arts' (physical and social sciences). I do not follow this theory, and think we should try to find a methodological basis to science which is unified.I think that Critical Realism can provide this unified method. I see the MCoH as an instance of CR. In other words, the Marx's MCoH is based upon CR, and that Marx was a Critical Realist, and this is what he means by 'historical materialism'.I'll outline the basics of CR, if there is some acceptance of the need to find something which unifies physical and social science.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Lbird Why is ALB 'individualist' and boureois when he is 'personally' convinced but you aren't when you personally 'prefer'I emphasise this is a serious question of clarification.

No problem, Vin, I take it as 'serious question'.To be 'convinced' is not to be 'open', and ALB's belief in the separation of 'science' from 'sociology' is an ideological belief, which he's learnt from our society. But he doesn't declare where he 'learnt' this, and so leaves us with the impression that it's his individual opinion.When I 'prefer' something, I'm recommending it to the proletariat for a vote, and I openly tell the proletariat where I've got my ideas from (Marx, Pannekoek, Schaff, Lakatos, etc.).So, my scientific method is 'democratic' and 'exposed', whereas ALB's is 'personal' and 'hidden'. The latter is a bourgeois method.

VM wrote:

Also, would a proletarian scientific method be an uncontestable paradigm, once established. and will all alternative methods be rejected as 'boureois'Again this is a serious request for clarification.I ask out of genuin confusion at the way you present your position.

You haven't acknowledged yet, Vin, that you're employing Kuhn's ideology of 'paradigms'.I've already explained to you that I don't use this ideology; I openly say that I use Lakatos' 'research programmes'. And I've already said that 'research programmes' compete with each other.So, from my ideological point of view, your ideological question about 'uncontestable' is meaningless, because my ideology, similar to Marx's, sees 'contestability' as at the heart of science.From this point of view, there can never be an 'uncontestable paradigm'. It is a meaningless question, because 'paradigms' don't exist, and 'contestability' is eternal.Lakatosian 'research programmes' are multiple and competitive. This means that any given 'r. p.' can always be criticised, and the proletarian method demands 'criticism', not 'Truth'.This is similar to 'democracy', which demands disagreement, debate and voting, to achieve a temporary position. But any vote can always be overturned. 'Decisions' are never final, but can always be revisited, when a new policy is proposed, especially in changed circumstances.Our political and scientific methods be be unified.[PS. please state which scientific ideology you are following, Vin. If it's Kuhn's, we can discuss it, if you want.]

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Anyway, my main point is that you are unfair and in fact insulting (hence some of the acrimony shown to you)

Here we go, the Stalinist-like rewriting of history. Just like any other so-called "workers' party".I keep explaining things, in great detail, in as simple terms as possible, trying to help others with very complex issues, and keep getting personally attacked for it.So, having BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY AND INSULTINGLY, I proceed to THEN SHOW ACRIMONY.

You've gor me wrong again. It wasn't you I was saying was being acrimonious but some of your critics.  Read what I wrote again. And  you've just done it again — unfairly insulting us (and me) by calling us Stalinists. A change, I agree from your usual insult of Leninist but still not very helpful.

[my bolds]I can read 'what you wrote'.You wrote 'you are unfair'.Then I wrote 'I was treated unfairly first'.But your 'main point', implying 'unfairness' originated with me, wasn't the truth, was it?In fact, I if may ask you to follow your own advice 'and read what you wrote', you'll see that you order the events as 'my unfairness, followed by SPGB arcrimony', whereas the true order of events was 'SPGB unfairness, followed by my acrimony'.Perhaps 'Leninism and Stalinism' are incorrect: perhaps it's just simple illiteracy.I though that we might have moved on from 'tit-for-tat', and simply deal with the meat of this discussion, but I thought wrong, eh?After all, I'm not demanding that the SPGB confess their sins and repent, before I engage with it, so why should I have to listen to its attempt to wriggle out of its misdemeanours, by blaming me  for 'unfairness'?Either get on with discussing what I'm writing about the philosophy of science, or just leave the thread to die. I'll soon get the message if there are no replies after a few posts.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

So I was talking not about an "ideology free physics' but about a 'class ideology free physics'. In other words, assuming agreeiment with you that there is such a thing as bourgeois and proletarian economics, history, sociology, etc bur raising the possibility of at least some "class-free" science. You might not agree with this position (you probably won't) but at least it would shift the argument away from being over the basic premises to their application.Personally, I'm convinced (in fact I already held this view) that there is a bourgeois and a proletarian economics, but not that there is a bourgeois and proletarian astronomy. Try to convince me that there is but showing me where the two types of astronomy differ.

ALB, you're jumping the gun, just a little bit.This thread is about 'science and Communism', as a part of which I want to try to establish whether Marx is right to argue for a 'unified scientific method', ie. a method that applies to all science, not just the bourgeois belief in 'physics as model method', which all other sciences must follow.So, your 'method' here is to ignore, and not openly examine, the ideological basis of 'astronomy', and assume, up front, that 'astronomy' from the perspective of the proletariat is identical to 'astronomy' from the perspective of the bourgeoisie. Note: no scientific examination, just assumption.So, if this is your attempt to discuss 'scientific method', and offer yours as a model for all sciences, it follows that when we move to economics or sociology or politics, we must start with the assumption that, if the bourgeoisie have already done it, it must be correct, because they are sciences, too, and the bourgeoisie have a neutral method for determining truth.Thus, your method leads to us following the bourgeoisie,rather than criticising it.I prefer a scientific method that openly examines 'theory' first, and then puts it into practice, and then votes on the results to see whether they are considered 'socially true' or not.Using this unified method, it is up to the proletariat to decide, after scientific investigation, whether any 'science' produced by the bourgeoisie is 'true' for us, too. Perhaps it will be, in some areas of science, perhaps it won't be, in other areas of science.But, we will have employed a 'unified method', which Marx thought possible, and I do, too.You, in contrast, as I've already pointed out, follow the bourgeois ideology of the separation of science (eg. physics) and arts (eg. sociology), and assume the former is 'proper science and eternally true', and don't apply this assumption to 'functionalist sociology'. Thus, your method is not unified.Furthermore, 'personally' you're 'convinced'. Since when has individual opinion been the basis of science?

[Author]

Posts