[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I think Marx and Engels meant simply that this was the "object" of historical studies (just as the passing world of phenomena is the "object" of the natural sciences), but the passage as worded (or, rather, as translated) could be seen as a bit positivistic.

[my bold]FWIW, I do think that Marx can be 'read' in a 'positivistic' way, but I think that goes against many other ways he phrased his ideas. Marx is a poor writer, in my opinion, and very unclear on many issues. But… he is suggestive…Again, FWIW, I think Engels erroneously latched onto this 'implicit' positivism, and under the influence of his times, moved ever closer to an 'explicit' view of science that Marx didn't hold. Who was it who said, 'social being determines social consciousness'? But this would be an entirely new thread, so I'd rather not pursue this 'Engels was a positivist' line, here now. If we sort out our 'cognition', I think then is time to query Engels.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts wrote:

History itself is a real part of natural history – of nature developing into man. Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.

[my bold]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

Perhaps so, but we are still a long way off!

Yes, I agree!But there's no harm in us trying to formulate a form of 'science' that Marx thought possible.Perhaps Marx was wrong, or he is right but my own efforts are wrong-headed, and someone else might suggest a better way of trying to realise his idea.On my part, I'm yet to hear an argument that completely undermines my efforts – and I've tried on a few sites! The fact that no-one seems to be able to point out where I'm going wrong, gives me more encouragement to carry on.That doesn't mean I am right, of course.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Yes, you could be right. This method is equally applicable to the "natural sciences". Not sure that Marx said so anywhere did he, but I could be wrong.

Here we go, comrade!

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts wrote:

History itself is a real part of natural history – of nature developing into man. Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.

[my bold]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

The MCH is 'science'.

I think you're taking it too far here..Explain how the materialist conception of history enables us to dig stuff out of the ground, process it and arrange it in such a way as to enable us to have this discussion in the format we are having.

Yeah, whether we should regard "uniting the 'natural' and 'social'" as 'taking it too far', is the essence of our differences, DJP.As a Communist, I think it is necessary to find a unified scientific method. I think Marx thought this, too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Next installment from the positivists: 'Marx's 'value' is not scientific!'

Next instalment from the relativists: Marx's 'value' is not scientific because most people in capitalist society don't think it is scientific!

Yeah! Bastard relativists! Just like the bastard positivists!Thank Marx we have a third alternative, the MCH, eh?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course the MCH can be applied to history of science…

Just read this again. I disagree.The MCH is 'science'.There is no scientific method outside of society. The MCH is the method that unites 'natural' and 'social' sciences, as Marx hoped to do.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

After all, when it comes to everyday living you too will be a naive realist, i.e treat everyday objects as if they really were separately-existing things.

But… 'when it comes to everyday living', we all accept the 'market', because we have no choice.If this 'common sense' basis for understanding 'reality' is acceptable, why are we Communists?'Naive realism' is a conservative method.I think this should be discussed. This means discussing comrades' theories of cognition.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Adam Smith was not a natural or mathematical scientist…

Of course, this is an 'objective' statement, which thus can't be argued with, it has 'authority', and it is not a 'social construct'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Adam Smith was not a natural or mathematical scientist…

What did I predict!What method separates 'natural or mathematical science' from Marx's 'Political Economy'?I can tell you, but you can't tell me.To me, it's a 'theory of cognition', which I don't share with you.To you, it's a 'wild goose chase', mere 'straw man'.

[LBird]

Sorry, I nearly forgot:

DJP wrote:

I'm going to repeat a question posed by twc

twc wrote:

please show us just one instance of any piece of substantial scientific work performed by any natural or mathematical scientist which should, in your opinion, have been rejected but instead survived scrutiny merely because the scientist and the profession “believed in private property in the means of production”.

This is the real acid test. If you can't answer this then I think you have nothing substantial to say. But then if truth is a social construct it probably doesn't matter.

Weath of Nations by Adam Smith.In not only my opinion, but also that of Marx, this 'piece of substantial scientific work' 'should have been rejected'. I think we both agree that this work only 'survived scrutiny merely because the scientist and the profession “believed in private property in the means of production"'.Now, we here differ on what constitutes 'science', and why 'natural or mathematical' should be regarded as separate activities from 'political economy'.This is because we are employing differing 'theories of cognition'.I'd like to discuss this, and have tried all thread, but you won't disclose your cognitive method.Next installment from the positivists: 'Marx's 'value' is not scientific!'

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I have little more time for this as I'm afraid what you're putting forward is another wild goose chase and distraction from the real tasks that are necessary for the propagation of socialism.

Well, give up arguing about something you know nothing about, DJP!You stick to 'propagating socialism', and stay away from 'wild goose chases'.I just know you're not interested in defining 'wild goose chase', because you think it is not a 'social construct', but an 'objective reality'.From now on, I won't bother you, until you disclose your method of cognition. God knows, I've told you mine dozens of times, and your failure to expose yours only undermines your genuine concerns about 'relativism'.Your method ignores the subject and only concerns the object. This is incorrect. The subject interacts with the object (as Marx, Dietzgen, Pannekoek, etc. argue) and so knowledge must contain traces of 'subject'. To argue otherwise, that knowledge contains no traces of subject, is to argue that knowledge is only object (or parts of it). This is naive realism or positivism.Right, now, just ignore me, unless you wish to disclose your method. I promise to ignore you, until then.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 was not suggesting a free hand for socialists when it comes to history or politics as long as they accept a general realism or materialism…

Unfortunately, ALB, things are not so simple.'Accepting general realism or materialism' means it is acceptable for Communists to accept 'naive realism' and 'positivism', which are 19th century-based ideological views of 'science', and would also allow Uncle Joe's 'Dialectical Materialism' in, too.I, for one, think that this is not acceptable.

ALB wrote:

Of course, when it comes to history, we defend the MCH, not any other theory even if it be materialist…

Yes, but what comprises the 'MCH'? I think what I've been arguing is entirely compatible with the 'MCH', and that yours and DJP's views about the sun/earth relationship is not.The sun/earth relationship has a history. To argue that it is, on the contrary, a 'True Discovery', is to take the 'Historical' out of MCH. Thus, we are left with a Static 'Materialist Conception'.

ALB wrote:

The same with regard to action to change society. We have our particular theory which differs from other theories even though they too are materialist.

Yes, 'change' and 'society', includes 'change to science'. We Communists must ditch the bourgeois myth of 'discovery science', and replace it with the MCH.As you rightly say, 'our particular theory differs'. But… what is 'particular' about it, if it accepts naive realism and positivist notions of 'Truth' and 'discovery science'?What is 'particular' about our 'science' is precisely its historical content. Thus, it is human science, a social science, with a history.

[LBird]

Perhaps comrades might benefit from reading:Boris Hessen's The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principiahttp://www.russelldale.com/phil-material/V1_Hessen.pdf

Hessen, p. 3, wrote:

Only the proletariat, which aims to create a classless society, is free from a limited understanding of the historical process and produces a true, genuine history of nature and society.

Hessen was executed by the NKVD in 1936.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Hessen

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I thought you said you where a realist? In that case the concept that is "the law of gravity" also has to refer to something that is real in the universe. Therefore the "law of gravity" is not just a human construct but also something real in the world.

Yes, as I have been saying for the whole thread, a 'law' is a human construct based something in the real world.Law = knowledge; human = subject; real world = object; construct = interaction between subject and object.If you don't accept the necessity of an active subject, just say so.If you do accept the necessity of an active subject, say how this active subject interacts with the object to produce 'knowledge' of the object that isn't tainted by human thought. This is what positivists believed they were doing: gaining untainted access to the 'object', to produce 'objective knowledge'.

DJP wrote:

I don't see how you can claim to be a realist and disagreee with this statement. Unless I've misunderstood what is meant by "realism"…

I'm a realist, I agree with the statement, and I think you've misunderstood what is meant by "realism". Critical realism doesn't produce 'objective knowledge'. Naive realism claims to, though

DJP, post #15, wrote:

An 'object' does not have a truth value in and of itself, only propositions about an object can have a truth value.

Here, you seem to accept that 'truth' is about humans, not simply the object.I don't know how I can say this any clearer: science is an interaction between object and subject, and produces knowledge.You can't keep accusing me of ignoring the object (reality), when in fact you ignore the subject (society).Cognition requires both object and subject. Their interaction produces knowledge. Knowledge is not simply a product of object, so can't be 'objective'. Knowledge always has a social component.Hope this helps.

[LBird]

Sorry about the tone of my last post, DJP. My frustration is getting the better of me.

DJP wrote:

Perhaps then we can meet on the top floor of a multi-storey car park and discuss the best way to test the 'truth' of the law of gravity.

The 'law of gravity' is a human construct.

Pannekoek wrote:

Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of [hu]man[ity]

It seems that you're more concerned with 'what' happens, rather than 'why' it happens.On the contrary, science is trying to explain 'why' things happen, so we have some chance of changing it.

DJP wrote:

Yes you have quoted him, but it seems to me you have misunderstood.He is not saying that truth is a social construct but that what is "true for" a certain group of people in a certain time is. But when we talk about "true for" we are not talking about truth but beliefs..In the quote you used I guess there could be some ambiguity as to if he is talking about theories or entities, but this can be settled by looking at the whole of his work…

So, you separate 'truth' from 'belief'. No problems. Could you explain the method for producing 'truth'? I think we can all come up with the method for 'belief': 'The priest/teacher/policeman told me so'.If I've 'misunderstood' Pannekoek, and his 'whole works' can settle this, can you provide some pointers to the contrary position, written by Pannekoek? By the way, he says 'substances, laws and forces': I'm not sure how 'ambiguous' this is

[Author]

Posts