Pannekoek’s theory of science
- This topic has 388 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:How can a 'selection' be made from a infinite stream of potential sense-impressions, originating from the object, without a 'theory'?
I was not challenging the statement that "theory [generally] precedes observation", i.e. that the observer has to have some idea what they are looking for. What I was challenging was the insertion of the word "always" in place of "generally".As to the what the participants here agree and disagree on. As far as I can see, we agree on what science is doing (whether it recognises it or not) — describing a part of the "infinite stream of potential sense-impressions" rather than discovering the world as it really is. We disagree over whether or not this theory implies that it was once "true" that the Sun moved round the Earth.
LBird wrote: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.
All I've observed so far is a discussion on the meaningfulness of the terms used and the social interaction which follows. There has been quite a few definitions thrown in the pot but alas very few agreements on these definitions.Obviously this is a very difficult subject to discuss let alone to debate and having skimmed through this thread several times I can only come to the conclusion that at this stage the pros and cons need to be established and summarised. Otherwise its in danger of sidetracking into sociological perspectives like symbol interaction.Personally I'm of the opinion that such discussions are necessary in respect that the working class need to develop and create the philosophical/scientific arguments for itself.
i indeed read it and sort of understood your basic definitions -object subject and knowledge- but if it was that simple we wouldn' have this lengthy discourse, would we? Don't get me wrong, I do find it an interesting exchange even when I do get lost and have no desire to criticise it taking place, despite it being very much a thread that excludes other's participation due to lack of philosophical/logic background. This sort of detailed and mainly comradely (albeit with the occasional tetchy outbursts) discussion is to be encouraged, particularly, as I see it, within the "thin red line" across organisations but with common aims. What I am trying to do is try and work out the practicability of it for our socialist case, forever returning to Marx's dictum, although the philosopers have interpreted the world, its all about changing it. How useful a tool is the information in thread in challenging non-socialists, either in academia or in the street? I seek intellectual weapons to fight the case for socialism and i need to know a few things, who to aim it at, when to us it , and how to use it. Primarily, I have to know enough about it to pull the trigger without it back-firing on me. Mundane purpose not estoric reasons. i was serious in suggesting that there is the basis of worthwhile pamphlet if the thread is re-edited. Certainly it won't be a popular best seller and fly off the lit table, but should be a part of our arsenal – to maintain the militaristic metaphors – in the battlefield of ideas.
Schemas for Discussing LBird’s Theory of CognitionCognitive Trinity — Schaff
Schaff wrote:“A framework of an activistically modified theory of reflection, a model of cognitive relationship in which both the subject and object retain an objective and real existence and, simultaneously interact upon each other.”“This takes place within the framework of the subject’s social practice, as it recognizes the object in the course of activity.” [History and Truth, pp. 51 and 52].Schema 1Here is a representation of Schaff’s model of cognition.Follow the arrows of advancing time [history] → top-left to top-right; then ↓ down to bottom right; then ← reverse from bottom-right to bottom-left; then ↑ up to top-left again. knowledge → subject → object ↓ ↑ knowledge ← subject ← objectIn the Schaffian cycle of cognition, knowledge is built — not by iteration [accretion] — but by recursion [the new modifies the past as foundation by building upon it].Schema 2Here is an alternative representation — with the [abstract] phases of the Schaffian cognition process numbered and annotated with Schaffian terminology.Follow it downwards 1 to 9 in time [history] and then back to 1. knowledge [theory] → [guides] subject [society] → [practice] object [nature] ← [reflects] subject [society] ← [transforms] knowledge [theory] repeat ad infinitumConsensusAre you happy with either representation 1 or 2 for agreed discussion?Schaffian InterpretationFrom my reading of the posts, you hold the following Schaffian interpretation:Knowledge = theory.Knowledge is irreducibly subjective Schaffian objective cognition because the “active role of the subject in the process of cognition” necessarily brings with it the subject’s technology, language and social class [History and Truth, pp. 64 and 65].Schaffian objective cognition claims objectivity because it (1) reflects, by Schaffian objective-social reflection, an object which exists outside of the perceiving mind, and independently of it; (2) it possesses content that is of social and not just of individual value; (3) it is not “emotionally coloured”.Therefore Schaffian knowledge comprises our subjective internal [abstract] concepts of objective external [concrete] objects.Subject = society.
Schaff wrote:“Firstly, the Marxist concept of the human individual as an ‘ensemble of social relations’.” [History and Truth, p. 58.]The Schaffian subject is, depending on context, (1) the human individual understood as, in reality, a truly social being; (2) society as a whole — the ensemble of social relations which determines the consciousness of the human individual; or (3) a social class within society.Practice = social practice.
Schaff wrote:“The cognizing subject ‘photographs’ reality while possessing a specific socially created mechanism which guides the “lens” of this apparatus.”“In addition it ‘transforms’ the information obtained on the basis of a complicated code of social conditionings which enter his psychical make-up by means of the language with which he thinks, through his class position and group interests connected with it, through conscious and subconscious motivation and, above all, through his social activity without which cognition is speculative fiction.” [History and Truth, p. 58.]“The par excellence active character of the subject of cognition is linked with the fact … that man comes to cognition by action.” [History and Truth, p. 59.]Object = nature.For materialist Schaff, nature is the concrete realm where all external [concrete] things exist independently of us.
Schaff wrote:“For materialists … the [concrete] object of cognition, being the external stimulus of sensory impressions of the cognizing subject exists objectively, that is, outside of any cognizing mind and independently of it.” [History and Truth, p. 52.]“all theories of reflection … agree that the object of cognition is knowable” — even if they interpret it differently. [History and Truth, p. 61.]Reflect = Schaffian reflection.Unfortunately for us non-Polish speakers, Schaff’s detailed theory of reflection remains inaccessible:
Schaff wrote:“As for a more detailed interpretation of this problem [of reflection] … we must refer the reader to our earlier works on the subject — [A. Schaff, Niektóre zagadnienia marxistowskiej teorii prawdy]” [History and Truth, p. 62.]However, the content seems clear enough from:
Schaff wrote:“The objectively existing object of cognition is the external source of sensual impressions”“the object is knowable [and] in the process of cognition ‘The thing in itself’ becomes ‘The thing for us’.” [History and Truth, p. 62.]Are you happy to proceed on this basis?
ALB wrote:By the way, does anybody know whether it was Einstein or Popper who coined the saying "theory always precedes observation".It seems to be Popper, and as he was an anti-communist this should be rejected outright!
alanjjohnstone wrote:DJP, can you make a pamphlet out of the discussion?No, I don't think that is a good idea.If comrades want to volunteer proof reading I could reissue the two Deitzgen books that where put out by Kerr, though this would be quite a project…
Not according to Schaff p. 47, it was Raymond Aron.
Schaff wrote:If philosophy cannot be eliminated from history, if on the contrary (as Raymond Aron maintains and, given a certain interpretation of his statement, I agree with him completely) “theory precedes history”[R. Aron, “Introduction to the Philosohy of History ”. 1948]I have no knowledge of what that certain interpretation of his statement involves. But, you see, Schaff has reservations over the absolute claim.At the most trivial level, history has already taken place before the historian arrives on the scene. But that’s another thread.
The real project would be to do an abridged version, Dietzgen For Dummies or better still the illustrated cartoon Introduction to Dietzgen
No need for a pamphlet or at least to write a new one. It's all here in Pannekoek's 1937 article on "Society and Mind in Marxian Philosophy":http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/society-mind/index.htmAnyway, pamphlets are not needed so much these days when we've got the internet. So we could just provide a link somewhere to Pannekoek's article.
twc wrote:Not according to Schaff p. 47, it was Raymond Aron.Curioser and curioser. Another positivist, but where does Einstein come into this, if at all?
See post #132.Einstein is saying something different — that it is theory that determines what may be observed. Nobody disagrees.However, the revolutionary science of designing a new theory out of the wreckage of the old is bound to be a stormy and contentious process, in which generalizations are flung around.I don’t think that the quantum mechanists were greatly impressed by this statement’s relevance to the issue at hand — for they proceeded to ignore it, I feel.
Still on the question of whether or not it makes sense to say that it was "true" until 1700 that the Sun moved round the Earth, I had assumed that this was the generally held view until then, but when discussing it with other members (yes, we're discussing this offline too, and if in Russia they can discuss Kant at a hotdog stall we can discuss helio- and geocentric models of the solar system in a pub) one member said that the view that the Earth went round the Sun had been defended in Greek times by a women philosopher called Hypatia. There seems to be uncertainty about this, but it was certainly proposed as long ago as three centuries before our era by another Greek philospher Aristarchos of Samos and also later by other Greek philosophers and by some Indian astronomers. See here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeliocentrismThe question that now arises is: were Aristarchos, Seleucus, Hypatia, Aryabhata and others wrong or telling untruths when they argued, in their time, before 1700, that the Earth moved round the Sun? (Actually, I think DJP raised this point earlier in the discussion about, when there are two competing theories, how do you decide which is correct.)
I must suppose that what Aron said was that you can’t do history without a theory of history. And Schaff is quite correctly agreeing with that.In this context, the “philosophy [= theory] of history” is logically prior to doing any history. In Kuhnian terms, that is the straightforward way to conduct “normal science” [well, of conducting normal history].But whether Schaff is prepared to ignore the other side of the coin that only comes with Hegel’s dusk — when we find out what we really were doing all along — that period of revolutionary transcendence — we can only speculate. However, one thing is certain, even Schaff is not giving himself whole-heartedly to Aron’s absolute claim.
alanjjohnstone wrote:The real project would be to do an abridged version, Dietzgen For DummiesThis was already done by Fred Casey in his book Thinking that came out in 1922 and was used as a textbook by the National Council of Labour Colleges and so had a fairly wide circulation in radical working-class circles in the 1920s and 1930s.There are (of course) several copies in the Party library. It can also be read online, here:http://archive.org/stream/thinkingintroduc00case#page/n5/mode/2up
To brush up on the larger general background issues of these questions I've been looking through the rather good Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Here are some articles which will be of interest:Truth:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/Physicalism (materialism)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/Social dimensions of scientific knowledgehttp://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.