[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Marxism is not a final, self-sufficient schematisation of history, but rather as a collection of pointers to the understanding of human affairs.  These pointers needed to be somewhat imprecise if Marxism was to take into account the complicated social processes and variety of forces at work in history. Marxism was to be understood as a "critical theory", in the sense that it sees no truths as everlasting, and was ready to drop its own ideas if experience should so dictate.

[my bold]Yes, indeed! And that also applies to scientific truths

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Bertrand Russell wrote:

The concept of 'truth' as something dependent upon facts largely outside human control…

Why aren't you concerned with exploring 'dependent' and 'largely', DJP?Russell didn't say 'truth equals facts'.You still seem to think I'm arguing 'truth equals anything'.There is a third postion between 'truth equals facts' and 'truth equals anything'.It's the position of Marx, Pannekoek and, as you show, Russell.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Basically, as long as you're not religious (or idealist), anything goes (including yours!) After all, socialism is a practical proposition, not a philosophical one.

But I think that there are political implications from what I've argued.To me, anyone who wants to leave scientists in charge of science might as well be wanting to leave property owners in charge of property. I regard 'science' as a central bastion of bourgeois authority, a bit like the 'market', in that its 'rules' are not subject to human control.As I've said, I've read other comrades argue that 'according to science…'. This is identical to saying 'according to the market…'.This all sprang from the use of that type of argument against Sotionov (remember them, long ago?). Science is not a value-free method of producing the 'truth'. I think it's bourgeois ideology to argue that it is. You can see the political problems that would flow from that.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

You're mistaken if you think there is some kind of homogenous 'party line' on this matter, you're also mistaken if you think all the contributors to this thread are SPGB members.

Perhaps there isn't a formal 'party line', even amongst the non-members, but the lack of any support at all for my arguments regarding science, truth and knowledge on this thread clearly shows that I'm in the wrong place.There's no problem, as I said, it's my mistake.

DJP wrote:

But I would like to know where or how specifically you think Anti-Duhring is antithetical to Lenin as Philosopher.

I haven't got the energy any longer, comrade. I know when I'm beaten.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Engels isn't that bad. In fact, his Socialism, Scientific and Utopian is the best introduction there is to "Marxism". It can even be called its founding document.

Now I know why our stances are different, ALB.My mistake, I've made a gross error, if the SPGB look to Engels' (and Plekhanov, Kautsky and Lenin's) philosophical views of 'materialism'.The very antithesis of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, and Pannekoek's views of praxis (the unity of theory and practice).19th century 'materialism', eh? Personally, I blame Charlie – if he'd written a bit clearer, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.[and I know Charlie wrote chapter 2.10 of Anti-Duhring]

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…as I think Engels once remarked…

Engels?!Christ, we are on a slippery slope here, comrade, if we're turning to Engels' ideas on philosophy!Perhaps you should consult within the party, ALB? How about the chap who did that talk you linked to?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Drivel. We acted before we were conscious of it. Consciousness comes after.

Marxism, Physics and Philosophy, pt.1.mp3, 30:02, said not wrote:

Practical action is conscious deliberate action.

[LBird]

Marxism, Physics and Philosophy pt.1.mp3, 29:19, said not wrote:

We make the truth

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That won't work because it assumes that the word "know" meant the same then as it does today. Which it didn't, so we'd be using the word in two different senses.

You're making this up as you go along, mate!Why not discuss what I've said about Pannekoek, and indeed Marx?We've not even got to Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend or Lakatos.I'll let you have the last word, ALB, because we're clearly not taking this forward, and the 'contributions' of twc make me despair.Thanks, anyway, for the discussion, comrade.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Drivel.

Glad to see you're keeping up with human thought.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird sees science springing from theory … not from practice …

If I've said 'interaction between subject and object' on this thread once, I've said it a thousand times.What do you think 'interaction' is? Contemplation?And how does human 'practice' happen, without human 'theory'? Induction?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

What about: It is now known that the Sun did not move round the Earth in the 17th century and before?

As long it is mirrored by: It was then known that the Earth did not move round the Sun in the 17th century and before.'Known' is in the realm of 'human understanding', as Pannekoek argued, not in the realm of the 'nature'.

Pannekoek wrote:

…from the point of the scientific investigator, [who] sees all this [ie. Sun, Earth, nature, etc.] as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science.

The relative paths of the Sun and Earth are not 'discovered', but…

Pannekoek wrote:

…are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.

If they are 'human products', they can be wrong. What's 'scientific truth' in one era can be shown to be 'untrue' in another era. That doesn't mean the external world of nature changes in either.For Pannekoek, 'mental activity' and 'natural phenomena' have to be combined to 'produce' 'the works of science'.Theory + reality = truth.'Truth' is not 'reality'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Yes, I can. That's why I suggested that another way round your paradox was to not use the words "true" and "truth" at all. So, the statements would read: "It is a "historical fact" that up to the 17th century it was generally believed that the Sun moved round the Earth."and"So, the Sun did not go round the Earth in the 17th century and before."

But you're still doing the same thing. To make them commensurate, your second statement would have to read:It is a 'historical fact' that up to the 21st century it was generally believed that the Earth moved round the Sun.Your second statement is unhistorical, and is a claim about eternal 'discovery' in the objective world. Pannekoek says that our understanding of the Sun's movements relative to the Earth is a human creation, just like the laws of physics.

ALB wrote:

Sorry you took the news item about the Rubicon as taking the piss. I just thought it was an amusing aside to the discussion here.

My apologies. Frustration is getting the better of my sense of humour, unfortunately. That's always a bad sign.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

It is a "historical fact" that up to the 17th century it was generally believed to be true that the Sun moved round the Earth.The external reality of the relation between the Sun and the Earth has not changed. It was the same up to the 17th century as it is today.Today, in the light of further evidence and theorising, a better interpretation of this reality is that the Sun goes round the Earth and always has done.So, it was not true that the Sun went round the Earth in the 17th century and before.

[my bold]Can't you see that your two uses of 'true' here are different?The first relates to epistemology (knowledge, a human creation), whereas the second relates ontology, to the 'object', which is 'discovered'.Pannekoek's statement clearly relates to the first use, and the second relates to his view of 'materialism'.Simply put, you're using 'true' to mean 'objective'. But 'truth' relates to 'knowledge'.

ALB wrote:

Ah, but does that mean that the Pisciatello was the "true" Rubicon?

Quite frankly, taking the piss does your case no favours. Why you won't engage with the arguments is a mystery to me.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Probably because you overstate your case by saying that your version of the three-elements theory means that it was once "true" that some cats were witches, that the Sun used to move round the Earth and, presumably, that the Ether used to exist.

The simple 'historical fact' is that it was once 'true': cats were witches, and the sun went round the earth.For some reason, you're insisting that 'true' means 'reality'. It doesn't.Perhaps if I put it like this:True = reality + theoryThis allows us to explain changes in 'true': if the theory changes, the 'truth' changes – but 'reality' doesn't change. This can explain Piltdown man and The Ether. They were true, according to science, and then they weren't, according to science. Scientific theories changed.You, DJP and Ed seem to be equating 'true' (which is related to the entity of 'knowledge' (produced by humans actively combining reality + theory)) with 'reality' alone.

ALB wrote:

You are guilty of what you are accusing others of — assuming that there is no third approach and that if people don't accept that it was once true that the Sun moved round the Earth that means that they must think that "true knowledge" and the "object being known" are the same thing.

This is exactly what you're doing – equating 'object being known' (sun) and 'true knowledge' (what a society considers to be true about the sun). This can't be done.If I'm 'guilty' of anything, it's being patient, trying to explain 'science' to comrades. Let's hope it's worth it, and bears some fruit.Perhaps if some other comrades commented… if no-one agrees with me, I'll give up, though with regrets.

[Author]

Posts