LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:In other words, practice gives rise to theory.
Must be just an accident that 'praxis' is always referred to as the unity of 'theory and practice', eh?No, of course we all accept the unity, but 'theory' must precede 'practice', otherwise how do we account for the moment of 'selection'?Unless you're arguing for a blindfolded 'pin the tail on the donkey', ALB, as your preferred 'method'!
ALB wrote:And in his A History of Astronomy:Quote:Science originated not from an abstract urge for truth and knowledge but as part of living, as a spontaneous practice born of social needs. (p. 19)So, 'science originated' 'from' 'social needs'. Even the 'spontaneity' (sic) was 'born from'. So, not 'spontaneous', but 'historical'. A poor choice of word from Pannekoek, perhaps?Not 'biological needs'.Not 'individual needs'.Social. Doesn't that imply language and thinking? Don't they, in turn, imply 'theory'?
twc wrote:…the stuff you’ve gleaned third-hand from Lakatos.Why don't you just f**k off, you dim b*st*rd.If only 'action' did come before 'theory', I wouldn't have to give you instructions to follow.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Theories don't emerge from data. Theories define their data. Selection is inescapable, from an infinite stream of sense-impressions from the object.The second and third sentences I agree with but the first is false.Many theories have emerged from data, though of course you need a prior theory to be able to take data in the first place.
I'm afraid this is incoherent, DJP.
ALB wrote:You should have come to the talk last night on "What is History?" where the point was made that it is even more evident in history-writing than in the "natural sciences" that what is happening is that people are selecting from an array of empirically-established perceptions to construct a picture of what did happen. Of course the picture so constructed has to bear some ressemblance to the evidence.[my bold]Yeah, I'd have liked to! Geography dictates otherwise, I'm afraid!But, I think you meant 'the object', rather than 'the evidence'.'Evidence' has been selected.I'm sure, given the title of the talk, that this quote came up:
E.H. Carr, What is History?, wrote:The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation.These words apply to science.
DJP wrote:I'm not sure what I think of that quote. Would it not be "naive realism" to think that "real individuals, their activity and the material condition under which they live" can actually be a "premise"? I'm not sure that passage really makes sense.I think that your valid concerns, here, can be answered by looking to Lakatos' 'research programmes' and their 'hard cores'. That is, a 'premise' is part of an ontological 'hard core' that can't be questioned. This makes for a 'strange' account of science, for those who employ 'induction', as do naive realists, I think, and want to produce 'objective knowledge'.Theory always preceeeds observation, as Einstein pointed out!Theories don't emerge from data. Theories define their data. Selection is inescapable, from an infinite stream of sense-impressions from the object.Humans predetermine which 'sense-impressions' count.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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'.
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'.
