Do We Need the Dialectic?
- This topic has 438 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:Ok, yes, there's bourgeois sociology, economics, history, etc but not bourgeois astronomy, biology, engineering, etc.
So, you disagree with Marx about the possibility of a unified scientific method?Can you please describe the process of cognition that "astronomy, biology, engineering, etc" employ, which is different to the process of cognition which "sociology, economics, history, etc" employ?The ideological belief that 'natural science' is different in its philosophy and methods to 'social science' is a bourgeois ideological construct.If humanity in its entirety, employing democratic methods, isn't the source of authority for the human activity of 'science', who is?If the answer is 'scientists', doesn't this belief conflict with Marx's warning about separating society into two halves, one of which is superior to the wider society itself?All science is ideological.This is the essential lesson for the proletariat to learn, and even bourgeois philosophers of science have draw this conclusion. You yourself, ALB, posted a quote from Muslim scholars who are well aware of the fundamental weakness of this 19th positivist view of science, as a bi-fold activity, one of which produces 'The Truth' of 'Objective Fact', and the other which is 'Mere Opinion' and 'Political Intrusion on Science'. The religious are currently ahead of the proletariat in their thinking. We must meet this challenge.While proletarians cling to outdated 19th century positivist ideology, erroneously inducted into 'scientific socialism' by Engels, they can't hope to take the lead in the production of proletarian ideas in a battle with bourgeois ideology, including both central columns of the bourgeoisie, Science and The Market.
LBird wrote:But readers of tea-leaves 'do a great job', in their opinion.Sounds like good ol' 19th century postivist faith, to me!But we could replace 'science' in your statement above with 'god', and it would give us a guide as to what 'science' is, from this perspective.If science cannot be pinned down perhaps LBird can be Are the non-scientists seeking a cure for cancer blinded by '19th century positivism' or 'blind faith' . If not how would you describe their actions? I take it you agree that capitalism causes poverty and war? If so, how did you come to this conclusion; by 'blind faith in 19th century positivism' ? Or did you read tea leaves How did you come to that conclusion?
Vin Maratty wrote:How did you come to that conclusion?By the proletarian scientific method.What's a 'scientific method'?I'll show you mine, if you show me yours!My advice, Vin, is to read the Pannekoek thread first, then you'll know what I'm going to say, and perhaps you can then produce a valid counter-argument, that those opposing Marx and Pannekoek have not yet been able to do.
LBird wrote:All science is ideological.That and the rest is all very well, but you still haven't said whether you think Pannekoek was studying and teaching "bourgeois astrology"
ALB wrote:That and the rest is all very well, but you still haven't said whether you think Pannekoek was studying and teaching "bourgeois astrology"I wonder if you'll get an answer to this. It seems at the slightest nudge LBird's profound theory collapses into contradiction. Oh well..PS i think you meant "astronomy"
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:All science is ideological.That and the rest is all very well, but you still haven't said whether you think Pannekoek was studying and teaching "bourgeois astrology"
You really should concentrate on discussing scientific method, ALB.All the other side-tracks just slow down the process of us all learning to distinguish Engelsian positivism from Marxian critical practice.But since you ask, of course Pannekoek was teaching 'bourgeois astronomy' (I presume your use of 'astrology' was a slip of the finger, but sometimes I wonder with positivists).The proletarian scientific method would be a mass, democratic method, which, of course, Pannekoek, teaching within a bourgeois university, was unable to employ.Whether the proletariat would reach the same conclusions as the bourgeoisie, regarding any research results, will only become clear to us in a future Communist society. No doubt, there will be some agreement, and some disagreement. Science doesn't produce the 'Truth', and so the wheat must be sorted from the chaff. Clearly, some results of 'bourgeois astronomy' will be revised.But, the method will be very different: no elite, undemocratic, privately-funded class institutions outside of our control.Pannekoek, et al, will be under the control of the proletariat.It's what he would've wanted!
DJP wrote:ALB wrote:That and the rest is all very well, but you still haven't said whether you think Pannekoek was studying and teaching "bourgeois astrology"I wonder if you'll get an answer to this. It seems at the slightest nudge LBird's profound theory collapses into contradiction. Oh well..PS i think you meant "astronomy"
Well, there's no danger of your 'theory collapsing into contradiction', because you haven't revealed yours, neither 'profound' nor 'simplistic'! What have you got to hide, DJP? Ignorance of scientific method?At least someone within the SPGB knows the difference between 'astrology' and 'astronomy', so we're making some slight 'scientific' progress!
LBird wrote:What have you got to hide, DJP? Ignorance of scientific method?I have nothing to hide. But I don't have the time to write an amateur expose' on the scientific method. Read Chapters 6 and 7 of "Beyond The Hoax" by Alan Sokal as I think this highlights where our views diverge quite well…
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:The religious are currently ahead of the proletariat in their thinking.Oh dear!
Yeah, it's serious, isn't it?You did read ALB's quote on the Pannekoek thread, didn't you?Doesn't it concern you that religious philosophers are currently ahead of many in the SPGB, when it comes to understanding science?
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:What have you got to hide, DJP? Ignorance of scientific method?I have nothing to hide. But I don't have the time to write an amateur expose' on the scientific method. Read Chapters 6 and 7 of "Beyond The Hoax" by Alan Sokal as I think this highlights where our views diverge quite well…
Of course, you'll have read Jonathon Marks' comments on the invalidity of Sokal's method.J. Marks, Why I am not a scientist 'The Sokal Hoax', pp. 10-13.No? You probably 'haven't got time', eh?Makes me wonder why comrades who haven't read much (or any) philosophy of science bother to engage.Must be down to Engels' method, which allows Communist employing 'scientific socialism' to not bother.
LBird wrote:Doesn't it concern you that religious philosophers are currently ahead of many in the SPGB, when it comes to understanding science?Religious apologists just latch on to any argument that seems to support there cause. I honestly don't think that what is being demonstrated is a higher understanding of science..
There's a danger that I'm going to write something uncomradely which I later regret, so I'll bow out of this current exchange.I'll leave it for now with 'if anyone wants to employ 'scientific socialism', be my guest'.The fact that no-one can say what it is, seems not to cause any concern.
I think the distinction you are trying to make is not between "bourgeois" and "proletarian" science, but between a "bourgeois scientific method" and a more adequate method or maybe between how science is conducted today and how it will be in socialism/communism (which of course can't be described as "proletarian" as someone has already pulled you up for suggesting since there will no longer be a proletariat in socialism).Pannekoek was not studying or teaching "bourgeois astronomy" if only because it's not clear what this might be. He was studying astronomy with a different scientific method from that which you call bourgeois" (but which you've admitted on another thread most mainstream scientists don't accept now anyway).You seem to be riding the same sort of hobby horse against "science" as RL does about "philosophy".
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:All science is ideological.That and the rest is all very well, but you still haven't said whether you think Pannekoek was studying and teaching "bourgeois astrology"
I think he has dodged a lot of questions. I think this has a lot to do with his view on the nature of the class struggle…. but that's for another thread.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.