Pannekoek’s theory of science

[twc]

Commentary on HessenHessen’s well-known conference paper was intended as a brief example for western scientists of a soviet application of the materialist conception of history to science.  It is a fine short piece.I consider the following aspects that are relevant to the current thread.Practice precedes theory.  Newton “firmly stood at the centre of the physical and technical problems and interests of his time”.  “Applied mechanics … had already been elaborated, and his task consisted in teaching about nature, the mathematical bases of physics.”Newton’s Dualistic Materialism.  Hessen repeats about Newton what Engels said of Locke — that he “was a typical child of the class compromise of 1688.”  Newton was ten years younger than Locke.Newton was acutely aware, as were his contemporaries, that his mechanistic science sailed dangerously close to atheistic Epicureanism which taught “that the creation of the world could be explained by purely mechanical principles”.Newton couldn’t abandon his God to atheism; but nether could he abandon his materialism to God.  So finally, in a late insertion to his third edition, Newton introduced God in order to banish Him from everything except the initial act of creation [or to intervening from time to time for mechanical repairs, whenever the universal clockwork needed a rewind — Leibnitz].Most relevant to our thread is Hessen’s account of how Newton consciously defused Epicurean atheism.  The “universal chain of mechanical determinism ends in the original impulse.  The principle of pure mechanical causation leads to the notion of [God] … the necessity of a divine power as the organizing, moving and directing element of the universe.”“The planets could be set in motion as a consequence of the force of gravity [centripetal force], which was a natural cause, but could never achieve periodical rotation along closed orbits, which would require a [non-natural cause] tangential component” [the notorious, because apparent, centrifugal force].Newton, quite reasonably for the time, “pointed out that such a marvelously organized system, in which the speed and masses of bodies are selected in such a manner as to maintain stable equilibrium, could only be created by divine reason.”Conservation of MotionThe next most relevant account to this thread relates to Descartes and Toland, and their semi-speculative materialist conservation laws.Newton had disproved conservation of quantity of motion in his second law of motion.  It wasn’t until Newtonian mechanics discovered the abstract category of energy that it could properly comprehend conservation of quantity of motion — and reinstate it as conservation of energy.But Descartes had earlier considered Nature’s “supreme law is the law of conservation of quantity of motion.”  He also banished God from mechanics, only to re-admit Him for the sole purpose of proving “that the quantity of motion in the universe remains constant … since by assuming inconstancy in His creations we also assume inconstancy in Him.”Materialist Toland, in direct opposition to Spinoza, Descartes and Newton, wrote that “Motion is essential to Matter, that is to say, as inseparable from its Nature as Impenetrability or Extension, and that it ought to make a part of its Definition.”But Toland’s materialism couldn’t take the concepts of the conservation of matter and motion any further than his mentor Epicurus had taken them two millennia before him.It awaited future generations of chemists, in different social times — like Dalton and Lavoisier — to take the ancient [abstract] Epicurean category of the atom, and the new [abstract] Newtonian category of mass, as serious objects of cognition, and so further the concept of the conservation of matter, as the conservation of mass.It awaited future generations of thermodynamicists, in different social times — like Carnot and Clausius — to take the new [abstract] Newtonian concept of energy seriously as an object of cognition, and so further the concept of conservation of motion, as the conservation of energy.BolshevismThe last matter of significance to our present thread is Hessen’s compulsory nod to Lenin.Hessen, feels obliged to anachronistically, and so blatantly unfairly, oppose 19th century Engels — who knew the energy transformation laws — against 17th century Newton who suspects their presence but — in historical materialist terms — is not yet inhabiting a material world from which he can actually develop them out of the phenomena.In a subsequent post, I’ll examine these examples from the materialist conception of history of science upon scientific cognition.

[ALB]

twc wrote:

Sure ALB, we can, and should, drop reference to Kuhnian scientific paradigms, etc. — they are merely significant in the current context in opposition to formally legitimized political casuistry.But we can never forget that Marx bequeathed us the only science we have.  We comprehend that science to gain our Object — a direct consequential outcome of that science.Our opponents thrive on an incoherent political Object and on flexible political Principles.  Their behaviour, though clearly politically opportunistic, is also clearly anti-scientific — pseudo science.Coherent science for Socialism!

I was not suggesting a free hand for socialists when it comes to history or politics as long as they accept a general realism or materialism, only with regard to theories of what knowledge is (epistemology) and of science.Of course, when it comes to history, we defend the MCH, not any other theory even if it be materialist (as nearly all others are these days: god has been driven out of history). The same with regard to action to change society. We have our particular theory which differs from other theories even though they too are materialist.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 was not suggesting a free hand for socialists when it comes to history or politics as long as they accept a general realism or materialism…

Unfortunately, ALB, things are not so simple.'Accepting general realism or materialism' means it is acceptable for Communists to accept 'naive realism' and 'positivism', which are 19th century-based ideological views of 'science', and would also allow Uncle Joe's 'Dialectical Materialism' in, too.I, for one, think that this is not acceptable.

ALB wrote:

Of course, when it comes to history, we defend the MCH, not any other theory even if it be materialist…

Yes, but what comprises the 'MCH'? I think what I've been arguing is entirely compatible with the 'MCH', and that yours and DJP's views about the sun/earth relationship is not.The sun/earth relationship has a history. To argue that it is, on the contrary, a 'True Discovery', is to take the 'Historical' out of MCH. Thus, we are left with a Static 'Materialist Conception'.

ALB wrote:

The same with regard to action to change society. We have our particular theory which differs from other theories even though they too are materialist.

Yes, 'change' and 'society', includes 'change to science'. We Communists must ditch the bourgeois myth of 'discovery science', and replace it with the MCH.As you rightly say, 'our particular theory differs'. But… what is 'particular' about it, if it accepts naive realism and positivist notions of 'Truth' and 'discovery science'?What is 'particular' about our 'science' is precisely its historical content. Thus, it is human science, a social science, with a history.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

'Accepting general realism or materialism' means it is acceptable for Communists to accept 'naive realism' and 'positivism', which are 19th century-based ideological views of 'science', and would also allow Uncle Joe's 'Dialectical Materialism' in, too.

Since truth is only a social construct how do you know this is true?

LBird wrote:

The sun/earth relationship has a history. To argue that it is, on the contrary, a 'True Discovery', is to take the 'Historical' out of MCH. Thus, we are left with a Static 'Materialist Conception'.

Will please stop picking on poor comrade strawman.

LBird wrote:

Yes, but what comprises the 'MCH'? I think what I've been arguing is entirely compatible with the 'MCH', and that yours and DJP's views about the sun/earth relationship is not.

In all the years I have been reading Marx / Pannekoek / Deitzgen I have not come across a single reference that makes use of "truth" in the cognitive relativist way that you do. If fact Deitzgen says the flat opposite. So now the burden of truth is on you. Provide evidence that what you are claiming is in line with these people. That Pannekoek quote you keep repeating does not.Does Pannekoek in "The History of Astronomy" say that it used to be true that the sun went round the earth? Is there anything in Marx, Pannekoek, Deitzgen about creationism being true?I have little more time for this as I'm afraid what you're putting forward is another wild goose chase and distraction from the real tasks that are necessary for the propagation of socialism.I'm going to repeat a question posed by twc

twc wrote:

please show us just one instance of any piece of substantial scientific work performed by any natural or mathematical scientist which should, in your opinion, have been rejected but instead survived scrutiny merely because the scientist and the profession “believed in private property in the means of production”.

This is the real acid test. If you can't answer this then I think you have nothing substantial to say. But then if truth is a social construct it probably doesn't matter.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I have little more time for this as I'm afraid what you're putting forward is another wild goose chase and distraction from the real tasks that are necessary for the propagation of socialism.

Well, give up arguing about something you know nothing about, DJP!You stick to 'propagating socialism', and stay away from 'wild goose chases'.I just know you're not interested in defining 'wild goose chase', because you think it is not a 'social construct', but an 'objective reality'.From now on, I won't bother you, until you disclose your method of cognition. God knows, I've told you mine dozens of times, and your failure to expose yours only undermines your genuine concerns about 'relativism'.Your method ignores the subject and only concerns the object. This is incorrect. The subject interacts with the object (as Marx, Dietzgen, Pannekoek, etc. argue) and so knowledge must contain traces of 'subject'. To argue otherwise, that knowledge contains no traces of subject, is to argue that knowledge is only object (or parts of it). This is naive realism or positivism.Right, now, just ignore me, unless you wish to disclose your method. I promise to ignore you, until then.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

The subject interacts with the object (as Marx, Dietzgen, Pannekoek, etc. argue) and so knowledge must contain traces of 'subject'.

I'd agree that is true.

LBird wrote:

To argue otherwise, that knowledge contains no traces of subject, is to argue that knowledge is only object (or parts of it). This is naive realism or positivism.

But no-one has argued this.What I'm trying to get at, in order to try and understand what you've been putting forward, is your method for testing the truth or factual validity of knowledge (with the understanding that human knowledge can only be partial, not the 'absolute truth'). You've only really hinted at it so far…

[LBird]

Sorry, I nearly forgot:

DJP wrote:

I'm going to repeat a question posed by twc

twc wrote:

please show us just one instance of any piece of substantial scientific work performed by any natural or mathematical scientist which should, in your opinion, have been rejected but instead survived scrutiny merely because the scientist and the profession “believed in private property in the means of production”.

This is the real acid test. If you can't answer this then I think you have nothing substantial to say. But then if truth is a social construct it probably doesn't matter.

Weath of Nations by Adam Smith.In not only my opinion, but also that of Marx, this 'piece of substantial scientific work' 'should have been rejected'. I think we both agree that this work only 'survived scrutiny merely because the scientist and the profession “believed in private property in the means of production"'.Now, we here differ on what constitutes 'science', and why 'natural or mathematical' should be regarded as separate activities from 'political economy'.This is because we are employing differing 'theories of cognition'.I'd like to discuss this, and have tried all thread, but you won't disclose your cognitive method.Next installment from the positivists: 'Marx's 'value' is not scientific!'

[DJP]

Adam Smith was not a natural or mathematical scientist…

[LBird]

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'.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

'Accepting general realism or materialism' means it is acceptable for Communists to accept 'naive realism' and 'positivism', which are 19th century-based ideological views of 'science', and would also allow Uncle Joe's 'Dialectical Materialism' in, too.

This is probably a fair enough description of the range of materialist views held by Socialist Party members. The only test we apply to see if an applicant is a materialist is that they are not religious. Personally I think that's adequate enough.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Of course, when it comes to history, we defend the MCH, not any other theory even if it be materialist…

Yes, but what comprises the 'MCH'? I think what I've been arguing is entirely compatible with the 'MCH', and that yours and DJP's views about the sun/earth relationship is not.The sun/earth relationship has a history. To argue that it is, on the contrary, a 'True Discovery', is to take the 'Historical' out of MCH. Thus, we are left with a Static 'Materialist Conception'.

For the umpteenth time this is not what DJP and me have been arguing. Of course the MCH can be applied to history of science, a brilliant example being Pannoekoek's History of Astronomy. Another example would be that 1980 SPGB Education & Discussion bulletin you like.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

The same with regard to action to change society. We have our particular theory which differs from other theories even though they too are materialist.

Yes, 'change' and 'society', includes 'change to science'.

I just said that

LBird wrote:

We Communists must ditch the bourgeois myth of 'discovery science', and replace it with the MCH.

I agree with you that "discovery science" is inadequate.

LBird wrote:

As you rightly say, 'our particular theory differs'. But… what is 'particular' about it, if it accepts naive realism and positivist notions of 'Truth' and 'discovery science'?

I'm not arguing that the Party should accept either naive realism or positivism when it comes to epistemology, but don't see why this should be a bar to membership or a case for expulsion. 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.I should add that I don't think believing that it was true that the Sun went round the Earth till 1700 should be a bar to membership either.

[LBird]

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'.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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]

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!

[DJP]

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.

[Author]

Posts