LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
D'y'know, the hired prize-fighters of the bourgeoisie in academia couldn't put up as good a rearguard action, against any radical, critical thought about 'science', as this site has done!Sidetracking, 'misunderstanding', personal abuse, acting 'stupid', pretended agreement to lull me into unawareness and then renewed attack, forgetfulness, tag-team constant barrage in taking turns, 'could you just explain again, LBird' obsequiousness……it's a lesson to us all in delaying tactics. Fabius Cunctator would've been proud of you, legionnaries of Rome, against the blandishments of the Hannibalistic barbarian LBird!"He aims to burn Rome, lads!"
YMS wrote:What are Lakatos' "multiple research programmes"?I've already pointed out the relevance of this, twice, I think.Vin follows Kuhn's 'paradigms' and 'normal-revolution-normal' sequence. This means a single 'paradigm' is usually dominant, and dissent and disagreement are played down. Thus, I argued that this ideology is the more conservative and accepting of the status quo.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.If you wanted me to outline what Lakatos meant by a 'reseach programme', why didn't you ask that question when I was discussing 'hard cores', etc.? And in fact, I'm pretty certain that I've talked about 'protective belts', positive and negative heuristic, etc. on another thread, to which you were party.To me, for the purposes of this thread, the discusion of CR is far more important. I've only been diverted into R.P.s in response to Vin's reference to Kuhn's paradigms, which he seems to accept as 'true' (as opposed to ideological).'Side-tracking' appears to be a general method, within the SPGB.
YMS, Vin, it seems that I don't share your assumptions, and, as I've said, I've already explained why I don't.Perhaps it's time for you to ignore my further thoughts about 'unity of method' and CR?I don't think it will be fruitful for any of us.
OK, I'll move on soon, if there are no more questions about CR.I can't stress enough to comrades that if:a) one subscribes to an ideology that assumes a methodological separation of physical from social science; orb) one subscribes to Kuhn's ideology of 'normal' science usually following a single 'paradigm'; orc) one doesn't subscribe to Lakatos view of multiple 'research programmes'; ord) one doesn't think that Critical Realism is even worth discussing and taking forward; ore) one doesn't broadly follow Marx's ideas on science; orf) one's tag is DJP;then I don't think that you'll get anything further from this thread. I intend to take it forward on that basis. So, put simply, comrades, unless you subscribe to a-f above, and ask questions based upon those assumptions, I'll be ignoring your posts. I think that I've answered all the relevant questions about a-f, and so I'm not prepared to continue to go round in circles.But, I'll only post on CR if at least one comrade asks for me to do so.If not, we can finish here.
Vin Maratty wrote:To solve social ills the working class needs to adopt the marxist paradigm of the MCH and C and rejecect the bourgeois method of competing theoretical perspectives.Two problems here, Vin.How does the MCH&C explain 'rocks' to us? If you say it doesn't, then you must logically be saying that physical and social science are methodologically different. This conclusion goes against Marx's belief in the unity of science, which is the ideology that I use.If there are no 'competing theoretical perspectives', there must be one 'theoretical perspective' which tells us 'The Truth'. Can you tell me what this is, because to me it sounds like the political ideology of Leninism, that 'The Party is always Right'? [to clarify, if there is claimed to be 'one true perspective', the Party will claim to have it. This is a political issue, Vin]
VM wrote:As Kuhn and others have suggested this leads to the paradigm with the most powerful supporters being adopted and used by scientists.But I've already said that I think that Lakatos supecedes Kuhn, and explained why I think that. You haven't explained why you still employ Kuhn's ideology, in light of what I've said, about it being the more conservative theory of the two.
VM wrote:LBird you only quoted part of my post. I also suggested that the natural sciences could move forward but the answer is not to apply the demonstrably failed methods of economics, history etc.But, Vin, according to philosophers and physicists, it's the 'natural sciences' which have 'demonstrably failed methods'.I'd argue that Marx's method of 'economics, history, etc.' has been proved the more successful. And thus, his method (which I'm arguing is similar to CR) is the one to be applied to both social and physical science.
YMS wrote:Yes, that is my opinion…So, you're not actually going to read my CR outline, and engage in any discussion?
Vin Maratty wrote:I believe that marxist science does not involve applying the methods of the present capitalist non-science of society to the natural sciences but on the contrary it invloves applying the methods of the natural sciences to the social sciences.This is an arguable position, Vin.The trouble is, it's the position argued by the 19th century positivists, who thought the 'physics' model should be extended to every area of human knowledge. You must've heard of von Ranke, and his plea to historians to 'simply show how it was'? [Carr refers]Your position of "applying the methods of the natural sciences to the social sciences" is precisely what has been undermined by Einstein (ie. by 'physics' itself).Marx argued, on the contrary, that we should apply the methods of the social sciences to the natural sciences.Thus, our task is to find a unifying method which can be employed upon both value and rocks.
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…'.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
