LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Both Kuhn and Lakatos argue that science works within frameworks of ideas, and that the results of scientific investigation only make sense when related to those ideas. They both base their theories upon what scientists actually do, rather than what scientists say that they do. This is one of the fundamental fruits of scientific investigation, that is, the study of ‘human scientific activity in a society’, by philosophers during the 20th century: we now know that scientists are the last people to ask, and listen to, when we want to know ‘what science is’ and ‘how does science work’. In effect, physicists had been fooling both us and themselves, since Newton. Rovelli’s quote about this realisation dawning on some physicists, like himself, backs this up. This is the historical context of why 19th century thinkers, who slavishly followed ‘science’ as a model for gaining ‘true’ knowledge, have lead us up the garden path: this includes, unfortunately, Engels, and those worshippers of ‘elite, expert’ science, today.One of the concepts that Lakatos introduced, and which contrasts with Kuhn, is the notion of a ‘hard core’ within any ‘research programme’. By this, he meant a ‘central core’ of ideas which are not falsifiable by experience. This, of course, goes entirely against the grain of the ideology of bourgeois science, which insists that ‘individual sense experience’ is at the core of science.For us, this means that some vague notion of the ‘material’ world telling us what it is, and that the ‘material’ precedes human ideas, is shown to be methodological wrong. The most advanced bourgeois philosophers of science have, since the 1960s/70s, finally let the cat out of the ‘scientific methodology’ bag: ideas precede practice, and practice can’t necessarily falsify ideas (it can some, but not others). This is merely a restatement of the position of Marx from the 1840s: that ‘theory and practice’ is the basis of the scientific method, not simple ‘practice’ (or passive observation), or ‘theory emerging from practice’ (by induction from the ‘objective facts’), but a method of ‘theory (first) and practice (second)'. This is not ‘practice and theory’, which I’ve heard some comrades argue, that neither theory nor practice have priority, but can be mixed and matched. That is methodologically incorrect.I intend to go on to discuss what our ‘hard core’ should consist of, that is, what ‘ideas’ should precede our scientific investigations of the physical and social world. I’ll proceed if no-one objects to what I’ve argued so far; but if comrades are still unsure, I’ll provide some quotes to back up my assertions. I’m aware I’m making some big jumps, but given the context (internet discussion with limited post size), I’m presuming some familiarity with some of these ideas about bourgeois philosophy of science. If anyone isn’t familiar at all, and want some further explanation of what I’ve said in this post, or simply want to challenge it, please go ahead. Of course, if challenged about my ideology of science, I’ll ask for the ideological basis of the challenge, in turn. Please accept that my efforts are directed to giving comrades some familiarity with these issues, and that there is no substitute, eventually, for reading more widely and at length. I want to generate some enthusiasm and curiosity about ‘science’ and its political dimensions, rather than dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. I think that this discussion is of fundamental importance for every Communist, given the tremendous (unchallengable?) authority of ‘science’ in helping to legitimatise bourgeois rule.
Vin Maratty wrote:How natural science and social science can have a unified method? I can only think of Kuhn's analysis.Yes, I know you employ Kuhn's theories, but even so these do not cover the 'unity of science' issue, anyway, but only 'paradigms' within physics. His whole thesis rests on the transformation from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. For Kuhn, there is successive periods of normal-revolution-normal.I think Lakatos' theory of 'research programmes' is better on this issue. In effect, where Kuhn sees a dominant paradigm emerging and the settling down of physics into a new routine, Lakatos argues that this is not what happens in science. He argues that 'research programmes' work in parallel, together, and compete all the time, whereas Kuhn's paradigms work in series, one after the other, and one triumphs.So, I prefer Lakatos' 'competitve programmes', which seem to me to be far closer to Marx's theories about eternal 'clashes' of ideas, as opposed to Kuhn's conservative theory of eventual single paradigm, and long period of stability.So, I don't look to Kuhn for a lead, on these issues, but Lakatos.But, this still does not address my question about a suitable method for understanding both rocks and value.I'll have to return to this, perhaps tomorrow, if you (and anybody else) are interested in developing further an approach to a 'unified scientific method', that Marx believed possible.
Well, you haven't really answered my question, Vin.
LBird wrote:So, I ask, how does 'the Materialist Conception of History and Capital' explain how we go about, for example, 'understanding a rock'?Much, if not all, of your post I probably agree with.But, it still does not cover the issue of the scientific method concerned with the physical world, which is what I'm asking about. I'm asking this question because I seek to give a grounding to Marx's notion of a 'unified scientific method', and thus that method must be able to cope with both 'rocks' and 'value', for examples.I can't stress enough that this is a genuine question. I don't think that you can answer it, which I don't blame on you, but on the Communist movement (of the last 130 since Marx died) not preparing workers to answer such questions.That is, I regard this 'lack of answer' as a failing, a socio-political failing, of a movement, not the failing of any individual, especially you.I've put some thought into this, to try to wrestle with the issue and to try to come up with a suitable answer. I definitely haven't got a definitive answer, perhaps only the barest outlines of a very tentative one, but I'd like to take everybody forward on this, perhaps only to hear some fatal objection to Marx's notion of a 'unified scientific method', but perhaps to help develop one collectively.To me, Communism is much more than a mere 'economic-political' theory, but is the basis of a whole new way of life for humans on this planet, and so must have answers ready regarding the 'material' world, as much as the 'social' world.
SocialistPunk wrote:So, I thought it might be interesting to set up a thread inviting party members and non party members alike, to share their experience of what brought them into contact with the party.I came into contact with the SPGB through reading ALB's and alanjjohnstone's contributions to 'economics' discussions on the LibCom site. I was impressed with their arguments against various brands of 'market socialism' and 'money economy', and arguments for 'free access' socialism.On further delving, I was also impressed by the commitment by the SPGB to democracy within the workers' movement, and opposition to Leninism/Troskyism and 'democratic centralist/cadre' parties. This was because of my entirely negative experience in the SWP.I was banned by LibCom, not least because of my fundamental disagreements with 'individualist anarchism', so here I am.To be truthful, I'd never even heard of the SPGB (I don't recall, anyway, so if it was mentioned in passing in conversation over the years, it made no impression upon me – just another 'sect' amongst the thousands one hears about, I suppose).So, my contact was entirely due to the internet. But, I was already a convinced Communist, so I was already open to persuasion.
Vin Maratty wrote:Surely the Matarialist Conception of History and Capital are the basis for a working class science? We have a non- bourgeois historical analysis and a non-bourgeois economic analysis of capitalism.OK, reasonable starting position, Vin.So, I ask, how does 'the Materialist Conception of History and Capital' explain how we go about, for example, 'understanding a rock'?I want to reassure you, Vin, that I'm not being 'funny' here, I'm asking a serious question, and I think that you'll be unable to answer it. It would be a reasonable response to say "But the MCoH&C are not meant to 'explain rocks'!", and you'd be right.But that means that the MCoH&C can't provide the basis for a 'unified science' (at least, not in the form most people think of it).I'd argue that the MCoH&C are an example of a deeper theory and method. But, I'll wait for your reply, in case you surprise me.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:For god's sake, what bit of 'all science is ideological' don't you all understand?In socialism is it likely that there will there still be bourgoeis and proletarian ideologies?If not, what type of ideologies can we expect in a classless society?
Isn't it enough, Vin, on this thread, to get agreement that 'all science is ideological', and discuss how that affects our class's view now of 'science', rather than divert into the perhaps long-off future?For example, if 'science is ideological', doesn't that give us a basis for the idea of a 'unified scientific method', as Marx thought possible? That is, physics and sociology can be both 'scientific'. Think what a boost that will give to the status of our sociological analysis of today's society, that is, class analysis, if it can be shown to have equivalent validity to physics, and claim the status that physics enjoys as 'truth' in the eyes of wider society. Because that is what I think is at stake, and I think that bourgeois philosophers of science have opened up this possibility for us, with their own criticisms of 'physics as Truth'.At the moment, most people regard physics with the same authority and certainty as it had in the 19th century, that it produces 'truth', whilst social science is just 'mere opinion'. This is 'common sense' at the moment, even though it goes against the findings of science. Surely an attack on the certainty of 'science' will also undermind all those other disciplines that claim to be aiming for 'objective truth', like neo-classical economics?We have to find a basis for science which is acceptable to our class, because the basis, built up over 300 hundred years by the bourgeoisie, has dissolved, as even the religious are aware.Your question is a reasonable one, but for another thread.
ALB wrote:I can see that there can be, and is, bourgeois economics, sociology,. history, psychology but don't see why there has to be, or is, bourgeois physics, chemistry, biology.I've already dealt with this, ad nauseum. You are following BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY in separating 'arts' (or 'social science') from 'science' (or 'physics'). You haven't dreamt this all up by your INDIVIDUAL self. You are mindlessly repeating 'RULING CLASS IDEAS'.Marx argued in favour of a UNIFIED SCIENCE, of both physical and social science, into one human science. I, at least, if no-one else does on this site, FOLLOW MARX on this. That is, because I'm a Communist, not a Liberal.
ALB wrote:It is not as if you completely rule out a "class-free" physics, etc since you take the view that this will be the case in socialism/communism.But I do rule out 'ideology-free' physics, as I keep saying, because, according to bourgeois science, it's part of the human condition. All societies employ ideas to understand the world. Science employs ideas to understand the world. Humans employ ideas to understand the world. THERE IS NO IDEOLOGY-FREE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.
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.Not only that, I try, time and again, to reset the clock, and try to resume some 'comradely' discussions. And every time IT GETS THROWN BACK IN MY FACE.Finally, the 7th cavalry arrives! ALB and alanjjohnstone! I celebrate, and assume, now, at last, we can have a grown-up conversation!But… no, it's just more of the same. Same asking of questions, same answers from me, same ignoring of those answers.Me: all science is ideological.DJP: what forever? YesVin: what, if I wear blue? YesYMS: what, if I use logs? YesDJP: what, if I eat strawberries? YesVin: what, if I'm alone? YesYMS: what, if I get a degree? YesDJP: what, if I know a professor who does physics? YesVin: what, if the bourgeoisie are defeated? YesYMS: what, if I go to the moon to do science? YesFor god's sake, what bit of 'all science is ideological' don't you all understand?
alanjjohnstone wrote:Shouldn't we go beyond words and connect with emotions by creating political "images" of our position where people relate without requirement of adopting the language of an ideology.In my opinion, ajj, this would be a move from rationalist thinking into romanticism.I'm afraid I've had enough of all this, now.I had hopes that you and ALB, at least, would be worth engaging with, but nothing I'm saying seems to have any effect with anyone connected to the SPGB.Last point: we either adopt an ideology consciously, or adopt an ideology unconsciously.You're making a serious philosophical mistake to go in search of 'non-ideology'.Thanks for having me.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBirdThank you for the continuation of the one-way lecture. I am afraid I remain an ignorant buffoon wallowing in my ignorance at the feet of the ‘science messiah’, with the rest of the proletariat. As you say, we are like the Shakespearian monkey. Eventually we will all randomly write the works of Karl Marx. Or in my case Fred Engels.Vin, once again I've treated you with respect, and spent some time trying to give you a 'way in' to some very complex issues, and tried to put our differences aside.But, once again, I've had it thrown in my face.I am forced to conclude that you really are 'an ignorant buffoon'.I should go back to taking the piss, but I've wasting enough time (again and again and again) with the SPGB.Continue to wallow in ignorance, you bloody fools.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Do we require all the baggage that we carry with us? Or can we travel towards our destination much quicker with a much lighter ideological load?You're falling for the 'objectivist' myth, ajj.There is no such thing as 'a much lighter ideological load'. Science tells us that an 'ideological load' is inescapable for humans.If we pretend to ditch a 'load' that we are conscious of, we don't suddenly lighten our burden. We simply replace our 'load' with someone else's 'ideology', but now we are worse off for being unaware of it.Thus, you're, in effect, suggesting ditching Communist ideology, and loading up with bourgeois ideology.This is why our discussion on this thread, about scientific method and Communism, is so politically important.And you haven't responded to my earlier post, when I described how the notion of 'objectivity' is an elitist 'ideological load', and that it is a feature of Leninism.So, we've three choices:1. Be 'objective', and be a Leninist;2. Ditch conscious socialist ideology, and take on board, unconsciously, bourgeois ideology;3. Openly declare our ideological load, which is the scientific method appropriate for the class conscious proletariat.
ajj wrote:We can all agree that the thread is a total irrelevance if it is not all about our class and our relationship to it which cannot be in the sphere of lofty exchanges in philosophy but about practical application of that philosophy …and the only way way disputing interpretations will be resolved is putting things to the actual test. Arrrggg…i'll be shot at dawn for being an empiricalist now…testing won't be neutral…I think you can see that the thread is not a 'total irrelevance', except to those who wish to avoid talking about politics in science, and want to adopt either Leninist or bourgeois ideology.At least your final joke shows that you are aware of the difficulties!
I’ve decided to try to use an analogy, for Vin and any other comrades who are having difficulty with the ideas being discussed on this thread, about the nature of ‘science’.No doubt Vin hates any sort of talk about ‘Thatcherite economics’, and will contrast them unfavourably with ‘Marxist economics’. But the same sort of ideological prefix can be attached to science, too, as much as to economics.If we look at the views of those who oppose me, like DJP, it’s not too difficult to see in their arguments a focus on ‘individuals’ (at the expense of the ‘social’) and a high regard for elite, academic, specialist, ‘scientists’ (at the expense of ‘mass, democratic, participation’), and a respect for a ‘fixed Truth’ (at the expense of ‘critical, historical, social, changeable truth’).For the individualist, elitist, the lover of ‘objective Truth’, ‘there is no alternative’ to the knowledge that they produce. For the social, democratic, the critic of existing truth, there is always an alternative to the knowledge that they produce.So, Vin and the others, if you think of ‘science’ as being of two types: Thatcherite and Socialist, just like economics, which type would you look to for guidance?The Thatcherites infamously told us that ‘There Is No Alternative’ (TINA, as Thatcher was derided), and that is just what the ‘objectivists’ would have us believe about their ‘objective scientific method’ and its production of so-called ‘objective truth’. They say that ‘There is no alternative to what nature tells us’.But we Socialists disagree. ‘Nature’ never tells us anything. We know this from the results of science since Einstein. Nature is always interrogated by humans, and thus it only answers the questions that we pose. Our questions are always social and historical, and thus so are our answers. These answers, whilst ‘scientific’, are not ‘The Truth’. So, we argue that there is always an alternative to a ‘scientific’ answer, and that this recognition forms the basis of critical thought and method for humans.That’s it, in a nutshell, Vin.The choice is between Thatcherite economics and science, or Socialist economics and science.There is no ‘objective’ economics or science. Those who say that these human activities are ‘objective’, are hired prize fighters of the bourgeoisie, whether they are conscious of it, or not. And many aren’t, yet.But you can be, Vin. I hope this helps, comrade.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:So, I never mean 'individual' when I say 'subject'. A 'subject' is, in effect, a 'society/social group' (including a 'class').That just sounds one-sided and non-dialectical. Do you think medicine should be administered to social groups and not individuals?
What has 'administering medicine' got to do with the production of scientific knowledge, and the epistemological relationship between object, subject and knowledge?As for dialectics, I see this as Engelsian quackery.You seem determined to focus on 'individuals', DJP. Is this a function of your liberal ideology? It's certainly nothing to do with class analysis or Communism.Your continued presence on this thread baffles me, DJP. You don't appear to want to learn, but just to mystify and complicate matters. I can only presume that it's an inherent part of your elitist scientific method, which wishes to hide knowledge from workers, and thus retain an authority over them.
ALB wrote:Oh, that's clear enough but i thought that the distinction you were trying to draw was between "socially subjective" and "individually subjective". I see, though, that you think it's a distinction between two "socially subjective" points of view which are equally "right".You've probably forgotten the substance of the discussion we had (last year?) with twc et al, about Schaff and object, subject and knowledge. During that, I defined the 'subject' as a 'social individual', which is I think in line with Marx's thinking on the issue. So, I never mean 'individual' when I say 'subject'. A 'subject' is, in effect, a 'society/social group' (including a 'class').And yes, since 'right' is socially defined, then two societies can have differing opinions on what is 'right' or 'wrong'. So, I do think that two 'socially subjective' points of view can be equally 'right'.
ALB wrote:I'm not prepared to be so indulgent towards "the bourgeoise (or anyone under their influence" who claim that socialism is impossible. I can see where they are coming from but, as far as I'm concerned, they are just plain wrong.Well, since 'right' and 'wrong' are socially-defined, they must be located within a social group's thinking. I agree with you, and think that they are 'plain wrong', but that's because of my 'ideological perspective', which I think i share with you, rather than any 'universal' or 'objective' notion of right/wrong.
ALB wrote:However you describe this, socialism is possible whether or not they agree or whether or not they like it. It is not just a matter of opinion or of class position. I don't know why you are reluctant to admit this and find a way of saying so not even one which avoids the word "objective".This, I'm afraid, is where I disagree with you. It is a 'matter of opinion'. The opinion of the class conscious proletariat. Once we talk of 'objective', we are compelled to claim that some group of humans have unmediated access to the Truth. This has been disproved for physics, never mind sociology!In history, whenever an elite group of humans have claimed to have an access to The Truth/objectivity, an access denied to the majority, they've used it to dominate the majority. 'Knowledge is Power', eh?For Communists, this is a vitally important position to take: we must insist that we don't have any special access to 'The Truth', and must argue that 'true' is socially-defined, and that, being democrats, we insist the 'truth' can only reside in the perspective of the class conscious proletariat (which, after a successful revolution, will be the majority of humanity).This is all a question of authority, legitimacy and power.'Objectivity' smells of 'elitism' throughout history.I hope that I've clarified my ideological position on 'objectivity', for you.Whether you agree, is another issue. Clearly, if you don't, I'll go on to ask you to outline your ideological belief about 'objectivity'.
Hmmm… 'real', now, eh?Is there no end to your diversions?God forbid you'd answer the question about 'objective facts'. At least ALB is entering into the enquiring spirit of things.
