Pannekoek’s theory of science
- This topic has 388 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote: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!).
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.
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
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.
LBird wrote: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.No. I read his History of Astronomy years ago (but don't think he wrote anything there about the Sun going round the Earth until 250 years ago). I think you'll have to get in touch with the University of Utrecht and C.K. Tai.This article (pp. 153-5) has something about Pannekoek, science and politics:http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2013-0222-200753/10.1007_s00016-012-0084-y.pdfThe author says:
Quote:Pannekoek was both a prominent astronomer and a prominent theorist of socialism, and he insisted that the two parts of his intellectual persona were strictly separate. In astronomy he was known, for example, for his work on the detailed structure of the Milky Way; as a socialist, he stood to the left of Troelstra’s SDAP.But of course Pannekoek could just have said this to get a job (which would have been fair enough, even if it didn't work). But saying his "intellectual persona" was separated is not the same as saying that science and politics were.Amusing, though, that Einstein was mistaken as a Communist because someone else with the same name was.
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.
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-thoughtHas 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.
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 wrote: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-thoughtHas 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.
I don't know why. It works for me. Try this.I don't think these talks have been transcribed. Incidentally, the first on "Is Marxism A Science?", dating from May 1979, by "Alison Waters" was given by the now prominent feminist theorist 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" which may have put the same view as expressed in the talk. As far as I know, she is still a realist/materialist and opponent of postmodernism and cultural relativism.There is also an SPGB Education Bulletin from the same period (March 1980) on "Science and the Socialist" but this only exists in paper form. It ends up with a series of questions for discussion, one of which is:
Quote:Hitherto the party has assumed that the solidity of scientific knowledge stemmed from the adequacy with which it reflected the world. How different is that from the view of this bulletin, that society and its social mechanisms supply the solidity to knowledge?But also:
Quote:In that none of this makes any material alteration to the party's case necessary, is it of any relevance to socialists?ALB wrote:I don't think these talks have been transcribed. Incidentally, the first on "Is Marxism A Science?", dating from May 1979, by "Alison Waters" was given by the now prominent feminist theorist 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" which may have put the same view as expressed in the talk. As far as I know, she is still a realist/materialist and opponent of postmodernism and cultural relativism.I have a copy of the article from Radical Philosophy. If anyone's interested private message me.
WarningLBird’s scientific authority is a UFO “scientist”.Scientific Theory. UFO “science” is compelled to undermine the credibility of the authoritative scientific theory it opposes and that it finds itself opposed by. Just like LBird. [So too are intelligent-design “science”, warming-skeptic “science”, alternative-medicine “science”.]Scientific Practice. UFO “science” is compelled to descend into the alarmist paranoia of whistle-blowing against what it perceives as an “authoritarian” cover-up specifically designed to keep “the rest of us” in the dark. Just like LBird.UFO “science” believes that we are monitored and manipulated by aliens conducting experiments upon us. At least LBird’s “scientific” mentor believes so. Does LBird?I have read the web “science” postings of LBird’s “scientific” mentor. The kindest I can say is that I find nothing in them of merit for socialists.CrankI challenge LBird to disown the “science” of his scientific authority.
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 wrote:Truth is an attribute of ‘knowledge’, not the ‘object’.Is false 'knowledge' actually 'knowledge' at all? An 'object' does not have a truth value in and of itself, only propositions about an object can have a truth value.
Quote:Truth thus is a social product and has a history.Certainly the development of knowledge is a social product and has a history. Not sure you can really say the same about 'truth'
Quote:Hence, ‘truth’ can be wrong, and can be shown to be wrong by a re-examination of the object by social subject.The truth of theories is proved or disproved by refering to the external world (the object). Theories can be wrong, but can 'true' be false? The proof is in the eating.It seems to me that the only sensible use of the word 'truth' is to mean 'in accord with reality'. I've looked through Pannekoek again and he seems to be using the word in this sense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.