[LBird]

Perhaps I can illuminate my difficulties with this topic.If we were discussing 'economics', would it be acceptable for posters to reply with 'common sense' arguments about 'value', not having read anything about Marx and his theoretical approach, or to deny the validity of a discipline called 'political economy' as being ideological, unlike that of 'free-thinking economists'?Or to provide links to 'neo-classical' threads as answers to questions about the 'labour theory of value', or to refuse to say where one's 'economic' ideas about the 'market' have come from.Would it be acceptable to just say 'we all need money, it's always existed, and always will', without an explanation of why they think this?As I've said, I find it strange that Communists, having already realised just how 'ideologically brainwashed' we are in this society about 'individual consumption', seem unable to apply the same lesson to 'science'.Of course, if anyone isn't a Communist or a Marxist, then it all becomes clear!

[LBird]

Lyla Byrne wrote:

If you are genuinely interested in science then you should know that just saying DJP is wrong doesn’t cut it.

I didn't 'just say'.DJP posted a link to a site which argued 'observation, then theory', so I posted a quote from Einstein 'theory, then observation'.DJP hasn't come back on this, to say whether they still agree with outdated induction (observe data, then form theory), or would like further discussion on Einstein's method (which is backed up by philosophers of science, like Lakatos).

LB wrote:

But I do not describe myself as a Marxist for a number of reasons. I have some philosophical differences.

That's fine, but you'll have to specify which ideology it is that you're using. Unless, that is, you're going to argue that you don't employ an ideology, which most people will know is a standard component of conservative ideology (that is, to deny it is an ideology). Perhaps you're not a conservative, but then you can explain which ideology it is that you use. We need to know this in an ideological debate about 'science'.I'm open about my ideological influences – Marx, Dietzgen, Pannekoek, Lakatos, Schaff, to name a few. But others are not so keen to expose their influences, especially regarding the philosophy of science. Most make do with bourgeois 'common sense'.

LB wrote:

i will have to leave this to others for now. i have to concentrate other stuff that i am doing – if i finish something relevant to any of the matters arising i will try to make it available here. i'm asking Rob (pfbcarlisle) to not send me any more links for a while so i don't get tempted.

That's a shame, but I understand.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't know why you are so touchy about this.

Perhaps I owe you an apology, ALB, but I'm getting 'touchy' because of a lack of considered replies, and the seemingly general resort to 'common sense' approaches to the issue of the philosophy of science (especially cognition). I've posted numerous quotes from Marx, Pannekoek, Einstein, Dietzgen, et al, over a number of threads both on this site and elsewhere, and yet there seems to be no taste for an informed discussion by communists. I'm touchy and surprised.

ALB wrote:

I was trying to make a general philosophical point about your "theory of truth" and to tease out how you distinguish between a "true" and a "wrong" statement.

And I'm trying to discuss social understanding of science, including how we distinguish between 'truth' and 'the object'. This is not about 'a general philosophical point' or my opinions about another comrade's post. Or indeed 'statements'.

ALB wrote:

Because I've not yet re-read the article and was out all day yesterday helping to run a Socialist Party literature stall. But I will contribute something later on the SPGB Education Bulletin I mentioned.

Can you provide email copies of this bulletin (and any earlier relevant ones)? Or publish it on this site, which would be best.

ALB wrote:

PS. I hope that quoting that Anderton bloke doesn't mean you believe in UFOs. Please tell us that you don't and that this was just an unintended own goal.

This is the most worrying thing yet. I give a quote, from some bloke I've never heard of, who's words just happened to pop up when I googled Einstein's famous quotes, and I assume that everyone will focus on Einstein's words, which are central to the issue. What Anderton said, though, is exactly what most people think when confronted with Einstein's ideas on science, so I left them in as context, so that other comrades could see that most people would react as they normally would do, to such a 'revolutionary' statement.I'm a Communist, trying to defend science, looking to the SPGB for comradeship, and some clown, who keeps pestering me, tries to ignore what's being said, and drags all eyes to 'UFOs', insinuating I'm a 'weirdo'.And even given the endless quotes from Marxists, including Marx himself, the 'UFO question' takes centre stage. It wasn't an 'own goal', but the 'intended' irrelevant point-scoring of a [censored].Yes, ALB, I'm too 'touchy'.

[LBird]

Some more food for thought.

Joseph Dietzgen (quoted in Pannekoek, LAS, p. 36) wrote:

“By means of our thinking we have, potentially, the world twofold, outside as reality, inside, in our head, as thoughts, as ideas, as an image. Our brains do not grasp the things themselves but only their concept, their general image. The endless variety of things, the infinite wealth of their characters, finds no room in our mind”.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch03.htmDietzgen here suggests that the ‘endless variety of things’ have to be selected from, by humans actively choosing. The selection parameters are to be found in the human theory that is employed by scientists, prior to the examination of the ‘data’, of which there is an ‘endless variety’. Science does not proceed by the disinterested collection of data, from which a theory is formed. That is the discredited method of ‘induction’.As for the form of ‘materialism’ espoused by those who think that ‘knowledge’ is a reflection of ‘object’, that is, that object and knowledge are identical, we have:

Anton Pannekoek, ibid., wrote:

The spiritual and the material phenomena, mind and matter together, constitute the entire real world, a coherent entity in which matter determines mind and mind, through human activity, determines matter.

The ‘real’ is not simply ‘matter’, as for materialists, like Feuerbach. Marx himself condemned the notion that ‘matter’ is simply accessible through a positivist science, and noted that ‘ideas’ could not be ignored in their active form:

Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, I, wrote:

The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism…

Here, Marx stresses the ‘active side’, just as do Pannekoek, Dietzgen and Einstein. Theory comes first, in a scientific method. This theory is then ‘actively’ employed by humans in their practice upon the existing external world, to produce ‘knowledge’. The method of 'praxis', theory and practice.But, unless we consider humans to be infallible, there always is the possibility that ‘knowledge’, not being a simple ‘reflection’ of the object but an entity actively produced by society, can be ‘untrue’, when compared with a later ‘knowledge’ produced by a different theory tested against the external object.Science can produce two pieces of ‘knowledge’ that are both ‘true’, and yet they can conflict. This is not surprising, given Einstein’s view that ‘It’s the theory that determines what we observe’.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

What does "is wrong" mean? Is it the same as stating something that is not true?

Are you asking me about my personal opinions, or about scientific methodology?If no-one here wants to read, think about and discuss 'science', and just fall back onto 'common sense' and 'what folk believe', that's OK by me. I'll leave it alone.After being recommended  Assiter's article by you, ALB, and having posted some thoughts on it, I'm not sure why you haven't started to discuss the article.Or, indeed, Pannekoek, Marx, Einstein…I'm reading (and listening to) things being recommended (and I've even ordered the Pannekoek book YMS mentioned), and I'm commenting on those recommendations, but no-one seems to be raising their contributions beyond 'common sense' views (ie. bourgeois views) of 'science'.DJP even posted from a site that says 'science starts from observation and generates a theory'. This is induction, and has been shown to be nonsense regarding scientific method since, at least, Popper in the 1940s.It's starting to feel similar to when I try to discuss 'political economy' with non-communists, and people just quote from mainstream (ie. bourgeois) textbooks like Samuelson about 'economics', value being 'what the individual consumer will pay', marginal utility, theory of the firm, etc. And when I mention 'exploitation', they say 'that's not economics and the art of the distribution of scarce resources, it's ideology!'.Isn't it strange that communists can see beyond bourgeois ideology in 'economics' yet not in 'science'?Is it worth me continuing, comrades? Serious question. Is anyone gaining anything at all from these discussions?I'm not here for 'a fight', or my 'ego'. I'd like to learn more myself (many of the books I've read are still a mystery to me), and help to circumvent a long process for comrades, if possible, by summarising and explaining.But if we're going to do so, we really do have to move on to discussing, say, Pannekoek's works, rather than just employing 'common sense', or making snide remarks (and that's leaving out the personal attacks of twc, over two threads).

[LBird]

Lyla Byrne wrote:

Personally i rely on common usage of language unless it is shown to be wrong. i.e. if something that was held to be true in the past is scientifically proven to be untrue – then it was always untrue/false – folk just thought it was true. They didn't realise that it was only what they thought – they thought they knew, but they were wrong.

But 'today' will be 'the past', sometime.If something has been 'scientifically proven' to be true today, the same thing can be 'scientifically proven' to be untrue tomorrow.So, 'folk just thought it was true', but now they would know that it is untrue. Or is it? Once 'folk' accept that 'true' today can be 'untrue' tomorrow, it logically follows that what is 'untrue' today, can be 'true' tomorrow. In fact, 'folk' would be faced with a potential series of flip-flops between 'true' and 'untrue', ad infinitum.We have to have a theory of cognition that allows us to account scientifically for these changes in 'truth'. And that can't be done by an appeal to 'reality' as a source that speaks for itself. That would be to follow Stalin's method of 'diamat'. The object must be interrogated by humanity.Further, 'relying on common usage of language' is surely a conservative method? In any society, what's 'commonly held to be true' is ruling class ideas.

Lyla Byrne wrote:

…marx's attitude that humans are not part of nature…

I'm not sure which philosophy you're coming from with this, Lyla. I'm a Marxist, and I think Marx saw humans as 'natural humanity'.I'm assuming that, on this site, that I'm discussing with Communists, mainly Marxists, about a theory of cognition. If you are a Marxist, and interested in the development of the philosophy of science throughout the 20th century, we will be able to discuss and explain further. This will take us through Marx, Engels, Dietzgen, Einstein, Lenin, Pannekoek, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, with especial focus on the ideas of Critical Realism and Bhaskar and Archer, and several commentators like Schaff, Chalmers, Collier, Rovelli, Callinicos, Ollman and Marks.This is certainly a long way removed from 'common sense' ideas within society. My main aims are to defend 'science', to explain its method (as opposed to what it is supposed to be), and hopefully contribute to building a Communist view of science, a science that would be under democratic control, is all its aspects.I'm genuinely interested in this topic, and I'm keen, not just to learn, but also to share some of the fruits of my reading, hopefully to circumvent to a large extent the years of reading for other comrades. If I can provide a shortcut for comrades, I'll be happy.Anyway, as my main present concern is 'cognition', do you have any thoughts on that issue? I've already given some links to reading, especially Schaff.Oh yes, and DJP is wrong, I'm afraid.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

It seems to me that the only sensible use of the word 'truth' is to mean 'in accord with reality'.

But this would mean that 'object' and 'knowledge' would be identical, and that 'knowledge' would be a 'reflection' of reality.And this use of 'truth' can't account for changes in science's view of what's true, at different times. This use of 'truth' would never allow a change in 'truth'. But we know science says that x is true at one period, and then says that x wasn't true at another.Truth must relate to 'knowledge' not 'object'.

DJP wrote:

I've looked through Pannekoek again and he seems to be using the word in this sense.

But Pannekoek says that "substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., … are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena".Thus, for Pannekoek there is a separation of the 'substance of natural phenomena' (object, reality), 'creative mental activity' (subject, social humanity), and the product of the this interaction 'substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc' (knowledge).If 'knowledge' is the same as 'object', why would Pannekoek (and indeed Marx) stress the necessity for 'active production'?The view that object and knowledge are identical is positivism, or the sort of materialism that Feuerbach espoused, and that later Lenin (influenced by Engels) tried to resurrect.'Truth' is an attribute of 'knowledge', not the 'object'. If it's an attribute of 'object', then 'truth' can't have a history or be a social product (and thus, humans being fallible, 'true' can be shown to be 'false'). What's 'true scientific knowledge' can change. The history of science is littered with 'truth' changing. This can only be so if 'truth' is a human product. Why would Pannekoek and Marx focus on humanity and its activity, if the object itself tells us what is true? Surely passive observation and induction would then be the method of science?

[LBird]

For info, some quotes from article mentioned by ALB and DJP.

ALB wrote:

…Alison Assiter who was then a member of the SPGB. About the same time she wrote an article in Radical Philosophy 23 (Winter 1979) on "Philosophical Materialism or the Materialist Conception of History"…

These have been taken from p. 14 of that article, from the section ‘Reasons why Marx’s materialism should not be seen as philosophical materialism’. Thanks to DJP for providing a copy.

Assiter wrote:

The conception of materialism to which Marx is sympathetic, in that work [ie. The Holy Family], is one which ‘coincides with humanism’.

Assiter wrote:

…humanism does not coincide with ‘reflective materialism’, for the latter is about what there is, quite generally, while the former is specifically about human beings.

Assiter wrote:

Throughout the Holy Family, then, the thrust of Marx’s remarks about materialism is towards a concern with human beings and their productive activity.

Marx (article p 14, fn 4) wrote:

…communism in the practical field represents materialism which coincides with humanism.

From the argument that Assiter makes, it seems that she agrees that Marx’s ‘materialism’ was of the ‘human practical’ sort, which I’ve also argued for here (the tripartite model of interaction of subject and object, which produces knowledge). This also seems to be the same argument as Pannekoek and Einstein make, too.This is very different to the bourgeois myth of the ‘neutral scientific method’, which supposedly produces ‘objective truth’. What the ‘human practical’ method does is put society at the active heart of the explanation, rather than making ‘science’ a passive method of ‘discovering The Truth’.Truth is an attribute of ‘knowledge’, not the ‘object’. Truth thus is a social product and has a history. Hence, ‘truth’ can be wrong, and can be shown to be wrong by a re-examination of the object by social subject.Perhaps this is also the place for me to re-quote Pannekoek, for the benefit of any comrades reading this thread and coming to these issues for the first time.

Pannekoek, Lenin as Philosopher, wrote:

The most important product of brain activity, of the efficient action of the mind upon the world is science, which stands as a mental tool next to the material tools and, itself a productive power, constitutes the basis of technology and so an essential part of the productive apparatus.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 man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science. Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.

[my bold]https://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch02.htmScience is not the passive discovery of the really existing external world (reality, the object), but the production by society of knowledge, through the active interaction of the human subject with the object. Truth is not identical with, or a reflection of, the object. The ‘truth’ is a social product, based upon human praxis with reality.

[LBird]

Paul Mattick wrote:

To him [ie. Pannekoek], Marxism was the extension of science to social problems, and the humanisation of society. His great interest in social science was entirely compatible with his interest in natural science; he became not only one of the leading theoreticians of the radical labour movement but also an astronomer and mathematician of world renown.This unifying attitude regarding natural and social science and philosophy determined the character of most of Pannekoek’s work.

[my bold]http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1960/pannekoek.htm

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Before continuing it may be worth giving these a (re)listenhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/marxism-sciencehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/audio/dietzgen-and-dialectical-thought

Has the party transcribed these, DJP? They'll be easier to print off, read and comment on, rather than listen to.

ALB wrote:

This article (pp. 153-5) has something about Pannekoek, science and politics:http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2013-0222-200753/10.1007_s00016… 

This link doesn't seem to work for me, ALB.From my part, I'll provide a link again to the ICC thread, which might be worth a read for comrades who are interested, and they might find some of the issues they have with my approach have already been discussed.http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/fred/6429/beliefs-science-art-and-marxismThere are some other threads, which I can find the links to, if requested.I especially recommend that comrades enquire into Schaff's discussion of the 'tripartite theory of cognition', which I briefly cover and I think I gave the book and page details on that thread. [edit – posts 65 & 69 refer]If not, I can dig them out later, if comrades want to read the original.Clearly, given what I've said on the 'free access' thread, and above, I'll focus this discussion on 'cognition', because I think that that is at the heart of the explanation of 'what is science'.I've got to go out soon, so I might not reply to any queries today, comrades.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O7D9AyU-nLYC&dq=pannekoek+history+astronomy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PnsYUsqiJaeM0AXV9YFY&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAAThere is a copy of this book in the party library.  He does apply cod Hegelian structures, he talks of science as the transformation of quality into quantity (for example, rather than a star being 'bright' it is a measurable figure on the luminosity scale).  Not quite Engelsian in saying such dialectics occur in nature, he seems to be implcitly saying the dialectic lies in the scientific process.

Thanks for the recommendation, YMS. I've just ordered a copy, but I won't be able to read it until next week.

[LBird]

Just to keep some info relevant to this discussion together:

LBird, from other thread, wrote:

DJPs link wrote:

SummaryA scientific theory must be testable. It must be possible in principle to prove it wrong.Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth.Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory.A "good" or useful scientific theory will make testable predictions of what should happen under new circumstances that are independent of the original problem or observation for which the theory was developed.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s2.htm  

Anderton wrote:

And so what we have from Einstein what he meant by theory as – theory determines what we observe.Einstein says: “Theory determines what we observe.” [1]This is contrary to many people’s understanding of what a theory is; they think in terms of collect data and then form a theory to match that data. Einstein instead thinks – form a theory then interpret that data from the theory. So for him if the data does not match the theory then the data has to be adjusted to fit.Einstein tells us: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" [2]This is completely opposite to most people who think if data does not fit the theory then abandon the theory for another theory. And this goes against their understanding of what the scientific method “is”—namely testing theories.Einstein goes against that method and keeps the theory no matter what experiments show.The issue then becomes what exactly is Einstein’s theory (theories) of relativity. (From now on I will just tend to say “Einstein’s theory”.) Since it does not allow itself to be tested then many people might think it was not a scientific theory; because from their philosophy a scientific theory must be testable. It would be good to know if science/physics were definitely based upon this philosophic attitude. However, we have allowed Einstein to be declared genius in 1919 that implies that we do things the way Einstein deemed and we adopt his method. So from that perspective he has radically changed things as to what a theory “is” and what science/physics “is.”This radical change that Einstein makes to the meaning of “theory” hits many people as –Einstein must have been joking. But it really reveals how deep down his philosophic point-of view is completely different to theirs.

[my bold]http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/anderton66.pdf So, we have the bourgeois myth of scientific method:- “if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the theory”;And Einstein the scientist’s statement:“if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the experiment”.Providing links to sites of scientists influenced by the bourgeois myth is not enough. We need to be clear that ‘science’ is political, and seek to really understand what ‘science actually is’, for the proletariat. It needs discussion. There are philosophical and political ideologies involved.

[LBird]

DJPs link wrote:

SummaryA scientific theory must be testable. It must be possible in principle to prove it wrong.Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth.Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory.A "good" or useful scientific theory will make testable predictions of what should happen under new circumstances that are independent of the original problem or observation for which the theory was developed.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s2.htm  

Anderton wrote:

And so what we have from Einstein what he meant by theory as – theory determines what we observe.Einstein says: “Theory determines what we observe.” [1]This is contrary to many people’s understanding of what a theory is; they think in terms of collect data and then form a theory to match that data. Einstein instead thinks – form a theory then interpret that data from the theory. So for him if the data does not match the theory then the data has to be adjusted to fit.Einstein tells us: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" [2]This is completely opposite to most people who think if data does not fit the theory then abandon the theory for another theory. And this goes against their understanding of what the scientific method “is”—namely testing theories.Einstein goes against that method and keeps the theory no matter what experiments show.The issue then becomes what exactly is Einstein’s theory (theories) of relativity. (From now on I will just tend to say “Einstein’s theory”.) Since it does not allow itself to be tested then many people might think it was not a scientific theory; because from their philosophy a scientific theory must be testable. It would be good to know if science/physics were definitely based upon this philosophic attitude. However, we have allowed Einstein to be declared genius in 1919 that implies that we do things the way Einstein deemed and we adopt his method. So from that perspective he has radically changed things as to what a theory “is” and what science/physics “is.”This radical change that Einstein makes to the meaning of “theory” hits many people as –Einstein must have been joking. But it really reveals how deep down his philosophic point-of view is completely different to theirs.

[my bold]http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/anderton66.pdf So, we have the bourgeois myth of scientific method:-           “if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the theory”;And Einstein the scientist’s statement:             “if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the experiment”.Providing links to sites of scientists influenced by the bourgeois myth is not enough. We need to be clear that ‘science’ is political, and seek to really understand what ‘science actually is’, for the proletariat. It needs discussion. There are philosophical and political ideologies involved.

[LBird]

 

ALB wrote:

I'm not sure but Anton Pannekoek might be on it somewhere: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2013-0606-200612/UUin.

From link:

C.K. Tai s Abstract wrote:

…I will argue that by looking at Pannekoek's work using the framework of epistemic virtues, the parallels between his scientific work and his political philosophy become apparent. Pannekoek himself maintained that his scientific work was strictly separated from his socialist philosophy. A far more unified image, however, has emerged as the result of this research.

Now, that would be worth a read. It could form the basis of a unified scientific method, as sought by Marx.Do you have any quotes from Pannekoek that confirm his alleged 'strict separation' of science and politics, ALB? I'm going to have a root around myself.A new thread might be best, because we don't want to derail this one (again!).

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yes, indeed! And that also applies to scientific truths

Well, yes. But not to be confused with THE Truth, which we can only get at by testing theories against reality…"Scientific truths are based on clear observations of physical reality and can be tested through observation."http://www.astronomynotes.com/chapter1/s6.htm

Must be a Communist site I haven't come across!

[Author]

Posts