Pannekoek’s theory of science

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I'm sure, given the title of the talk, that this quote came up:[quote=E.H. Carr, What is History?.

Yes, E. H. Carr did come up. His What is History? is recommended reading in the Socialist Party. See the Reading List at the end of this other education bulletin.

[twc]

LBird wrote:

Humans predetermine which 'sense-impressions' count.

Yes, but not in the first instance by thinking but by doing — by acting not by contemplating — by practice not by theory.Comprehension comes later.  That is the nub of “social being determines consciousness”.Action First, Theory LaterThis is the fundamental position of Marxian cognition, openly taken from, and in agreement with, the supreme Idealist thinker Hegel.Marx’s critique of Hegel was simply that Hegel only knew theoretical action — action of the philosophical kind — and not practical action — action of the necessity-to-reproduce-society kind.It is worth taking the time to comprehend what Hegel is driving at in his Preface to the Philosophy of Right.

Hegel wrote:

“Only one word more concerning the desire to teach the world what it ought to be.  For such a purpose philosophy at least always comes too late.  Philosophy, as the thought of the world, does not appear until reality has completed its formative process, and made itself ready.  History thus corroborates the teaching of the conception that only in the maturity of reality does the ideal appear as counterpart to the real, apprehends the real world in its substance, and shapes it into an intellectual kingdom.When philosophy paints its grey in grey, one form of life has become old, and by means of grey it cannot be rejuvenated, but only known. The owl of “Minerva, takes its flight only when the shades of night are gathering.”

Schaff’s model of cognition can be said to follow Hegel and Marx.  It starts with society [subject] that acts [that’s your “interaction”].  But Schaff can only see the subject [society] acting on an object, whereas with Marx it is compelled to act in concert to reproduce itself.This is in diametric opposition to the stuff you’ve gleaned third-hand from Lakatos.Recall Thesis VIII

Marx wrote:

All social life is essentially practical.  All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.

Comprehension, as Hegel profoundly says, only takes wing at dusk.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…the stuff you’ve gleaned third-hand from Lakatos.

Why don't you just f**k off, you dim b*st*rd.If only 'action' did come before 'theory', I wouldn't have to give you instructions to follow.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Theory always preceeeds observation, as Einstein pointed out

I'm not sure about the "always" here. This may be current and past scientific practice but, as Goethe put it, in the beginning was the deed. YMS and that 1980 education & discussion bulletin give a number of examples of this. It must have been the case of early humans too, i.e they must have experienced the external world before naming parts of it with a view to predicting it better and so having a better chance of surviving in it. As Pannekoek pointed outin Anthropogenesis:

Quote:

Theory is the independent weaving of chains of thoughts into conclusions applicable to practical actions. The observations are the material, and the theoretical rules form the result. The observations become proof and argument, consciously advanced, of the rule- e.g. ever again after the cold of winter spring came with its growth of plants and animals. From that the rule was built up as a summary and an expectation: the seasons follow each other in regular rotation. Observation and rule together form knowledge and science. The rules express what happens normally and what, therefore, may be expected, not being concerned with secondary and momentary occurrences but with their general being. They do not speak of the concrete fact, but of the abstract concept: winter is followed by spring. In any particular practical application, a given case is identified with the abstraction: after this winter another spring will come. By applying the rule to each separate case future action is determined.

And in his A History of Astronomy:

Quote:

Science originated not from an abstract urge for truth and knowledge but as part of living, as a spontaneous practice born of social needs. (p. 19)

Incidentally, are you sure that "theory always precedes observation" was what Einstein said? I've seen it attributed to Karl Popper, the well known reformist and non-communist.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

And in his A History of Astronomy:

Quote:

Science originated not from an abstract urge for truth and knowledge but as part of living, as a spontaneous practice born of social needs. (p. 19)

So, 'science originated' 'from' 'social needs'. Even the 'spontaneity' (sic) was 'born from'. So, not 'spontaneous', but 'historical'. A poor choice of word from Pannekoek, perhaps?Not 'biological needs'.Not 'individual needs'.Social. Doesn't that imply language and thinking? Don't they, in turn, imply 'theory'?

[ALB]

Pannekoek was of course a native Dutch-speaker writing in English so might not always have expressed himself clearly (for instance, he often writes "spiritual" from the Dutch and German word whereas we would say "intellectual). But I don't think this is the case here. He is saying that science arose from social practice and is humans' reflecting on it. So, in the beginning was the practice.All human behaviour (except a kneejerk reaction) is preceded by thought. Obviously before humans in Ancient Babylonia observed the sky they must have thought about doing it. But that's a pretty trite basis on which to conclude that "theory always precedes observation".I think it is pretty clear that Pannekoek thought that science arose from, and was preceded by, observation (he's talking about the origin of science not its current methods and practices). In his history of astronomy he went on to say:

Quote:

The origin of scientific astronomy is in predicting theory, in the observing of regularities for purposes of prediction. Chaldean astronomy regarded the sky as a two-dimensional vault. Thus they had a formal mathematical representation of phenomena.

He contrasted the situation there with that in Egypt of the same period where no science of astromy developed because, he says, all that was required was the observation of one star, Sirius, for purposes of chronology and agriculture, commenting:

Quote:

Egypt can show us how little a science of the stars is fostered by an even brilliant sky unless that science finds a practical basis in human life and activity.(p. 85)

In other words, practice gives rise to theory.By the way, does anybody know whether it was Einstein or Popper who coined the saying "theory always precedes observation".

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

In other words, practice gives rise to theory.

Must be just an accident that 'praxis' is always referred to as the unity of 'theory and practice', eh?No, of course we all accept the unity, but 'theory' must precede 'practice', otherwise how do we account for the moment of 'selection'?Unless you're arguing for a blindfolded 'pin the tail on the donkey', ALB, as your preferred 'method'!

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Why don't you just f**k off, you dim b*st*rd.

Come on, this isn't debating. Let's all play nicely http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/discussion-of-kants-philosophy-in-russia-ends-in-gunfire/2013/09/16/cf609472-1ebb-11e3-9ad0-96244100e647_story.html

[steve colborn]

"Language Timothy!"

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why don't you just f**k off, you dim b*st*rd.

Come on, this isn't debating. Let's all play nicely 

I've been as patient as I can with twc, over two threads, in which they've been gratuitously offensive to me. We're not talking about criticising my ideas, that's fine. It's about attacking me.In fact, I'm surprised a moderator hasn't at least had a 'quiet word' with twc, about their posts. Really, twc needs a public warning. It's not an isolated event, but in almost every post they've made.Still, my apologies to the other posters.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

theory' must precede 'practice', otherwise how do we account for the moment of 'selection'?

Don't ask me, ask Pannekoek. He said it when discussing the origin (as opposed to the practice and methods) of science.The same must have applied at the origin of abstract thought and speech: what you call "sense impressions" would have had to have been felt before they could be named, i.e. selected.In other words,  the concrete preceded the abstract. As Pannekoek put it in Anthropogenesis:

Quote:

Human speech differs from animal sounds in that it consists of words. Words are names for things, actions or properties. Words are sound-symbols, sounds serving as a symbol for something else, and signifying something else. Language is an organised system of conventional sounds, serving as symbols for realities.

and

Quote:

Ideas and perceptions have only a shadowy, intangible and spiritual existence. The real world consists of concrete things, which are the phenomena themselves; the abstract conception is merely the expression of what a group of phenomena has in common, and therefore is outside this world of phenomena, with no separate reality. The word, the name, gives it that separate reality, as a physical existence, (although this is only transient) and changes it into a something, which can be described, and with which one can work. The word gives substance to a conception; and only through the word the vague feeling is turned into a precise thought. This is also true for the physical things of the world themselves. The thing also is an abstraction, a summary of all the separate images and impressions of sight, feeling etc., which have been acquired from different angles at different times. The identity which the word, the name, ensures to these changing phenomenal forms makes them a figure in space, a permanent and constantly recognisable object, of which the different perspective aspects can be derived and can be known in advance.

Good stuff. Re-read it.Incidentally, in this work Pannekoek quotes favourably from John Dewey who you've dismissed as worthless because he wasn't a socialist/communist.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

theory' must precede 'practice', otherwise how do we account for the moment of 'selection'?

Don't ask me, ask Pannekoek. He said it when discussing the origin (as opposed to the practice and methods) of science.

But surely we are discussing the 'practice and methods of science'?Y'know, 'cognition'.How can a 'selection' be made from a infinite stream of potential sense-impressions, originating from the object, without a 'theory'?Isn't that what the SPGB's meeting was about, which I wish I'd been able to attend?Otherwise, 'selection' (which must take place) becomes a random event – 'science as lottery' method?

[alanjjohnstone]

Over 200 posts on this thread and a score or more on the earlier.Can i ask these questionsHas anybody's position changed? Has anyone conceded ground? What new has been learned by anyone? Is the materialist case on science and truth now better positioned to take on the non-socialist critics by the fruits of exchange? DJP, can you make a pamphlet out of the discussion? 

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Over 200 posts on this thread and a score or more on the earlier.Can i ask these questionsHas anybody's position changed? Has anyone conceded ground? What new has been learned by anyone? Is the materialist case on science and truth now better positioned to take on the non-socialist critics by the fruits of exchange? DJP, can you make a pamphlet out of the discussion? 

I agree. Time someone summarised the agreements and disagreements before you proceed any further?

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What new has been learned by anyone?

You asked for some 'explanation' of the issues, ajj.I've given an analogy of an 'NHS computer system' – did this help you, at all? I've not had much feedback, except for a comment by Brian.It's hard to judge whether the thread has been of any use, unless some other posters (not the main contributors) make an assessment.

[Author]

Posts