[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Rovelli wrote:

But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

But what is it about a theory that makes it the "best we have now"?

That's precisely what I'm trying to get onto, comrade!But whilst there is any retention of an outdated belief in a 19th century scientific method that supposedly produces 'The Truth', an unmediated account of 'Reality', the eternal, objective truth, we can't go forward.I've tried to show that, according to science itself (Einstein, etc.) and philosophers of science (Marx, Pannekoek, Kuhn, Lakatos, Schaff) and commentators (Marks, Rovelli), this view cannot stand. Science is a social, and thus historical, activity done by humans, with all the difficulties that that implies.I should add that no-one is trying to 'destroy' science, and I'm not a 'relativist' (at least, not in the postmodernism sense of 'there is no truth', 'it's all down to the individual's own view'). But we have to address what science has taught us during the 20th century, and take this scientific knowledge forward.It's my opinion that this opens up an opportunity for Communists to clarify just what 'science' is, and to attract scientists to our ideas about free-access communism, both because we are scientific in our method, and because only Communism can provide the resources to take humanity forward, both in the 'socio-economic' and 'scientific curiosity' senses.This might be a difficult process, and it may involve jettisoning some dearly held 'beliefs' about 'science' and the form of 'knowledge' it produces, but, in my opinion, it will be worth the struggle in the end.Lastly, it seems that you, ALB and Brian have already taken the most difficult steps, with your acceptance of most of what we've discussed about object and knowledge, but the final step is to let go of 'science as certainty'. But… it's a scary act…Saying that we are not 100%, cast-iron guaranteed, certain that the earth goes round the sun, can be replaced by 'But, we are 99.999 recurring certain!'It's the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% bit of doubt that will allow us to unify the method.Then, it just becomes a matter of determining socially what we consider the percentage of doubt to be in all disciplines.But, we now know that 'doubt is eternal'! It's a position that undermines authority, and calls for participation by all humans, and allows us to argue for democratic decision-making within the wide range of human activity called 'the sciences'.Let's take our discussion forward, onto the issue of the nature of the 'subject'. All 'individuals', expert 'individuals' only, or each 'society'? That is, postmodernism, elitism, or communism?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Rovelli wrote:

 Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong,

So what makes it false? The fact that people don't believe that it is true?

You really have to start reading things in their full context, DJP.In fact, the answer to your question is in the third extract above, from Rovelli's introduction:

Rovelli wrote:

But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

A historical, and therefore social, approach to the issue of 'what is the scientific method?'.If you have a method that tells you that Newtonian physics is eternally TRUE, rather than a human social construct based upon our interaction with the external, really-existing, world (and therefore can be explained historically), please describe your method.Pannekoek, as we have seen (numerous times so I won't quote him yet again), agrees with this socio-historical approach, as does Marx. It's called Historical Materialism, not 'Discovered once and for all, and done with!'.If you don't agree that Historical Materialism does this or, more profoundly, that it doesn't apply at all to the method of science, say so.

[LBird]

Some further info, and another book, as food for thought for comrades, especially if they think my sun/earth views are radical:

Rovelli, The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy, wrote:

This reading of scientific thinking as subversive, visionary, and evolutionary is quite different from the way science was understood by the positivist philosophers… (p. xii)Facile nineteenth-century certainties about science— in particular the glorification of science understood as definitive knowledge of the world—have collapsed. One of the forces responsible for their dismissal has been the twentieth-century revolution in physics, which led to the discovery that Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong, in a precise sense. Much of the subsequent philosophy of science can be read as an attempt to come to grips with this disillusionment. What is scientific knowledge if it can be wrong even when it is extremely effective? (p. xv)But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

[my bold]http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Scientist-Anaximander-Legacy/dp/1594161313

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Far more logical to take Brian's misunderstanding of your position and say that before 1700 it was believed to be "true" that the Sun moved round the Earth.

This is entirely reasonable, as long as we now say that in 2013 it is believed to be 'true' that the Earth moves round the Sun.So, the earth/sun relationship is related to the society that produces that knowledge. We then have a social and historical account of the sun/earth relationship, and ditch the 'discovery science' which claims to 'really know' the absolute, once and for all.'True' either relates to the 'object', or it relates to 'knowledge'.If you have a method that gives 'objective truth', please tell us what it is.At least I'm trying to describe how science actually works – you and DJP just seem to be claiming that what I'm saying 'can't be correct', without any attempt to describe an alternative method.

Quote:

So, before 1700, it was not "true" that Sun moved round the Earth and it is a mistake to say that it was.

But we can only say this now, which is the point. Then, it was 'true'.'Truth' relates to socially produced knowledge. We have to have a historical account of science, and not see it as a method of 'discovery', which then ends.

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

…frankly, you're making yourself look a bigot and a fool.

Don't like what you see in the mirror, eh, Hrothy?

Hrothgar wrote:

As far as I can tell, I have answered each and every point put to me, as reasonably and as articulately as I can manage.

That's what we keep pointing out to you – you can't see that you're unreasonable and inarticulate, and you're managing very badly. Why don't you read what we're writing?

Hrothgar wrote:

I have also 'listened' to all the replies and I have taken on board certain comments where appropriate. Where I disagree, I have explained why I disagree. You may not like my reasons for disagreeing, but that's no reason to insult me like a spoilt child, is it.

But if you keep acting like 'a spoilt child', we've got no choice have we? You don't listen, disagree unreasonably, with frankly ludicrous 'explanations' – it's nothing to do with 'not liking', it's to do with careful adult reflection upon child-like claims.

Hrothgar wrote:

So, when you say I have "refused to engage with [your] reasonable questions and listen to [your] explanations", you are not being entirely truthful, are you.

'Truth'? Racists don't know what that is! That's why you can't recognise that you're refusing to engage or listen – you live in a racist dreamworld, son.

Hrothgar wrote:

If I have missed anyone's questions or points, then you should feel free to highlight this with specificity. I will then go back and deal with the points. However, no-one has informed me of any such omission.

Big letters for the 'hard of thinking': GO BACK TO THE START, AND READ WHAT WE'VE ALREADY TOLD YOU.Right, get back to us when you've rejected your racist ideology, and then we can have a reasonable conversation.

[LBird]

Hrothgar wrote:

For instance, and just for completeness, you might want to share with us your views on soldiers, let's say, or students. Don't hold back.

Since I've been both, I'd rather share my views about you, something that I've never been: you're a racist.And it's not meant as a compliment, you tool. I'm downright prejudiced about your 'special needs', dimwit.I've had you sussed from the start, when you refused to engage with our reasonable questions and listen to our explanations of why your statements are nonsensical drivel, and why you idiotically hold to them. You've just kept reiterating your unthinking racial bullshit.Why don't you just go and talk to someone who's likely to listen to your fairy stories, uncritically? Someone who has no experience of the world, neither as a soldier nor as a student.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Does this mean you are in agreement with DJP post 316?

See my reply to DJP in post 318.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

So all I mean is that absolute certainty is something that cannot be gained but given the vast amount of interlocking pieces of evidence that now support the theory that the earth goes round the sun anyone who asserts otherwise is really talking out of their hat.

[my bold]I agree.Because I take cognisance of the word 'now'.But the 17th century was 'then'.So a similar statement made then:

a different society wrote:

So all I mean is that absolute certainty is something that cannot be gained but given the vast amount of interlocking pieces of evidence that now support the theory that the sun goes round the earth anyone who asserts otherwise is really talking out of their hat.

…was also 'true'.So, unless you are going to argue for 'ahistoric absolute certainty', I think we agree, DJP.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

I plead guilty to counter-revolutionary relativism and post-modernist revisionism.And I'd like one count of 'capitalist-roadster-ism' to be taken into consideration, too.

But you are guilty neither of being a "counter-revolutionary" nor a "capitalist-roadster", so these charges have never been brought. We all know you are a "free-access communist".Brian, to help you understand the whole debate, have a look at this:http://voices.yahoo.com/7-steps-understanding-characteristics-postmodernism-3730670.html?cat=4

The whole 'post-modernist relativist' accusation, aimed at me, is bollocks!Post-modernism is defined by the ideological concept of the 'isolated individual', as your link shows.I've just posted arguing against that very ideological assumption.Anyone here who wishes to defend the ideology of 'I'm an individual' is closer to post-modernism than me! Bastard postmodernist relativists!

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Could you all stop this bickering and please get on with it!

Please sir, I’m trying to move forward, but ALB and DJP at the back keep distracting me!Right!I’ve suggested that we move onto a more detailed discussion of what we mean by the ‘subject’. The two main contenders are the ‘isolated individual’ and the ‘social individual’.We’ve already had an unwitting example of the view that the ‘isolated individual’ should regarded as the ‘subject’, from the poster Lyla Byrne (refs: posts 17-18, 25-27, 35-36). One of the main beliefs of the ‘isolated individual’ ideology is that merely using the authority ‘I think’, combined with a refusal to give sources of that ‘thinking’, is acceptable. This method assumes that an individual can be outside of ideological influences, and that their ‘opinions’ are rooted in them themselves, rather than related to their society and its ideologies. The other fallback is to cite ‘common sense’ that all individuals just ‘have’, by a mysterious process of induction.The ‘social individual’ ideology, in contrast, locates thought in society, and demands that ‘individuals’ reveal their ideological sources. This, I would argue, is the correct ‘scientific method’. That is, under Communism, our main ideological claim would be that ‘Individuals have a right and duty to defend their opinion to their comrades’, rather than the bourgeois ideological concept that ‘Individuals have a right to their opinion’. Individuals ‘having their opinion’, and holding onto it against all appeals from comrades providing stronger evidence without mounting a defence of their opinion, is unscientific. It’s not good enough to ignorantly say ‘Well, that’s my opinion!’ and sulkingly withdraw to solipsistic isolation, as the bourgeoisie encourage us to do. ‘It’s your individual right to have your own opinion, no matter what the Commies say about arguing – now, get back to the grindstone and work, or I’ll sack you, dickhead!’ The bosses don’t like workers being encouraged to develop the skills to critically argue with ‘common sense’!So, given my completely unbiased exposition of the two choices , what do other posters think about moving onto a discussion of the ‘subject’ as an ‘active social individual’?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

OK, I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist.

I'm afraid you have pleaded guilty to the wrong charge. What you stand accused of is "post-modernist revisionism".

Ok, it's a fair cop, guv!I plead guilty to counter-revolutionary relativism and post-modernist revisionism.And I'd like one count of 'capitalist-roadster-ism' to be taken into consideration, too.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Does the fact that we have launched space probes, satellites and landed things on other planets not mean anything to you? Do you seriously think that it is all a social construct? I don't think you do…

One word. The fifth word. 'we'The 'truth' produced by our interaction, through conceiving, building and launching probes and satellites, with a really-existing external world is a 'social construct'.So, no, it is  not 'all a social construct'. There are three entities. The active social subject interacts with a pre-existing real object to produce knowledge. I keep telling you that the object is not a social construct, but knowledge of it is.You identify object and knowledge as identical entities, and so you can't separate out that 'truth' relates to 'knowledge' and is therefore a 'social construct'. This social construct is produced by asking questions of the object, which really exists.

DJP wrote:

So was the reality that the sun did and did not go round earth during this period?"Reality" is not a social construct (less the parts of it concerning society and humans interactions with nature) and it can neither be observed fully either.

What do you mean by 'reality': the 'object' or 'knowledge'?If you insist that we can 'know' reality without a social process of knowledge production, the ball is in your court to show how we can have this unmediated access to your 'reality' (my 'object').

DJP wrote:

Nobody thinks that science brings the kind of 100% certain knowledge that you claim those that reject your relativism do.

So, you accept that it is not certain that the earth goes round the sun? Or are you 100% certain? How 'certain' was the 17th century, compared with 'certain' now? We must have a historical account of 'science', rather than a 'one-off discovery' viewpoint.

DJP wrote:

So all truths can only be known partially and relatively. Though where I think we differ is that I take this to mean that partial truths are relative to the absolute truth, to nature, reality whatever you want to call it. You see them as being relative to each other only…

Well, since I keep emphasising that 'truth' is relative to 'object', I'm not sure where you get the evidence for the accusation of my arguing that 'truth' is relative to 'truth'.

DJP wrote:

So if you think you can present a cognitivist relativist account of truth and knowledge that doesn't collapse into the contradictions I have mentioned or revert to idealism I would really be grateful to hear it. Till then, less of the melodrama

The only contradiction here, comrade, is your acceptance that 'all truths' are 'relative', but still wanting to use space ships as evidence of 'absolute truth'. Not so much 'melodrama' as 'unreasoning tantrum', I fear![later edit] By the way, the quote proves Dietzgen agrees with the 'subject, object and knowledge interaction' model!

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

So all truths are relative in the sense that they are only approximations and the complete knowledge of the whole picture of absolute truths will always remain elusive. Due I presume to the dynamics of change, which is also an absolute, and when considered in conjunction with the multiplicity of the endless factors involved that bring these changes into existence – means in effect – that our understanding of truth is only of a partial and temporary nature?Am I right or am I wrong?

Perhaps one caveat, Brian.Because humans are involved, it is possible that 'knowledge' (scientific truth at one stage of history) has been incorrectly produced. So, the nature of 'approximation' is uncertain.I think it's better to regard 'truth' as a process, rather than a fixed discovery. So, perhaps your term 'partial and temporary' is adequate, as long as 'temporary' can mean 'for millenia only'!Science is a social activity and understanding of it must be rooted in the society that does the activity. Changing a society could have unforseen effects. And as we wish to change society, I think that it's worth discussing the possible effects of that on both 'truth' production and scientific method!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

If you think that "truth" should be redefined to mean something other than "in accord with reality"…

Well, I'll let you define what you mean by 'in accord with reality', DJP. Then I'll be able to answer you.

DJP wrote:

I'd sooner get the epistemology sorted out. For the last coming on 2 months I have been trying to tease out of LBird what would be regarded as an adequate criteria for judging the truth of competing statements.

'Sorting out the epistemology' requires understanding of which cognitive theory one is employing.I've already told you the 'the sun going round the earth' prior to the 17th century was 'in accord with reality'.If you don't accept this, you have to give the criteria to show it wasn't 'in accord with reality'… in the 17th century.If you just want to say that 'now we know that the earth goes round the sun', and that's it, then the last two months have been wasted, for all of us, comrade.Perhaps you just want to hear that I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist.OK, I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist. If that's what you've wanted from two months' discussion, there you have it!

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

You may well be a bit unscientific with this suggestion when the book in question is very hard to come by?

That's why I mentioned that Schaff calls the tripartite schema the 'traditional trinity'. That is, he suggests most thinkers use the schema to discuss the process of cognition.Don't forget, that schema in itself is not a 'stance', it's just a way of conceptualising the debate. There are various ways of defining object, subject, knowledge and their inter-relationships.As we've discussed 'knowledge' a bit, that is why I was suggesting we discuss 'subject'.But if you have reservations about the very axioms of the debate, perhaps I'd better let others take the lead.

[Author]

Posts