Pannekoek’s theory of science

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

According to LBird I'm both right and wrong.

Yes, you're 'right' that there is an external reality. But we all agree on that, I think.More seriously, what you're 'wrong' about is how we 'understand' that external reality.

Brian wrote:

On the question of what theory of cognition do I use is for my way of thinking or particular mindset, its a hard one to grasp but also a very difficult one to answer in a definitive sense. Because firstly, with all due (self)respect my actual method of cognition in use at a particular moment in time depends on a whole host of factors like: mood; interest; enjoyment; awareness; knowledge; understanding; skills; experience; etc, etc. Obviously, these factors filter or if you prefer select which food of thought tickles my fancy at a given moment in time.

This is just good old bourgeois individualism. No scientific method, of any sort. If that suits you, then fine, but it's not 'science'.

Brian wrote:

Secondly, I prefer this situation because it allows me not to participate in the silly business of self-labelling.

I think some would call it 'self-awareness'!

Brian wrote:

Last but not least it provides a certain amount of autonomy and flexibiity through induction and deduction what particular sensation fits in with my experience of being a member of the working class.

And 'bollocks to method', eh?

Brian wrote:

Having said that and in all honesty, I'm very comfortable with the present situation…

I must admit, since other posters must feel the same way as you do, that I'm not sure why those who feel this way are participating in a thread which requires some (or much!) critical reading and thinking about present, 'comfortable', common sense ways of understanding the world, especially scientifically.All I can say, Brian, is if you're happy, that's fine by me, comrade.

[LBird]

It’s my opinion that the longer-term purpose of these discussions between Communists (cognition, nature versus humanity, matter versus mind, methodology, etc.) is to produce a ‘scientific method’ that can be applied to all aspects of ‘natural humanity’. Thus, there can’t be a separation, which some comrades seem to think is necessary, between the ‘physical’ or ‘material’ world and the ‘social’ or ‘philosophical’ world. As I have shown, Marx thought that the unification of nature and humanity into one science was possible, and I think that we Communists should be attempting to do this. I see my current discussion about ‘theories of cognition’ as a very small step on the winding road to that distant goal.Any method, that we can come up with, has to be applicable to the full range of ‘science’, from physics to sociology, and taking in astronomy, chemistry, biology and psychology (and all the other disciplines), along the way.To do this, we have to take on board the best of both Marxist and bourgeois thought on the subject, and, given any suitable recent advances originating from either source, to also ditch any baggage produced by earlier Marxists, which we now consider to have been mistaken. And baggage does exist, not least starting with Engels, in my opinion.These tasks cannot be approached from the perspective of ‘individual common sense’, which is always anything but! To do so, would be similar to approaching Marx’s works on political economy from the viewpoint of today’s ‘individual consumer’ and their ‘personal free choice’. Since I assume most readers on this site will have seen through the bourgeois mystification of the so-called ‘free market’ and its ‘free choice’, and will have come to realise that we are all brainwashed within our society into its ways of thinking from birth, then I think that it should be easier for comrades to come to appreciate the similar problems facing us Communists when it comes to ‘science’. We have to actively question ‘common sense’, as much in ‘science’ as in ‘the market’.Once more, it’s my opinion that ‘science’ and ‘the market’ are the central bastions of bourgeois authority, and that production, both scientific and economic, must be put under our democratic control.One of the things that I find attractive about the SPGB is its insistence on ‘democracy’, and that the class, not a party or sect, should be the final arbiters of all decisions that affect our world society. Within this scope, I include ‘science’, and I’m hoping that comrades, perhaps given some further explanations, discussions and study, will also come to take this position.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

   Once more, it’s my opinion that ‘science’ and ‘the market’ are the central bastions of bourgeois authority, and that production, both scientific and economic, must be put under our democratic control.One of the things that I find attractive about the SPGB is its insistence on ‘democracy’, and that the class, not a party or sect, should be the final arbiters of all decisions that affect our world society. Within this scope, I include ‘science’, and I’m hoping that comrades, perhaps given some further explanations, discussions and study, will also come to take this position.

That 'hope' you allude to has always been evident on this thread.  In fact I doubt if there is one poster who does not agree that all advances in science and indeed the scientific method itself will come under the democratic control of a socialist society.  Evidently before we even start treading down that path the class as a whole have to reach a basic agreement and understanding on what the 'scientific method' actually consists of.However, what is also evident is your insistence that we all read Schaff and those who just can't be bothered (like myself) are labeled with disparaging remarks.  Again its so obvious that your attraction towards Schaff is bordering on idolatry and therefore you are not applying critical thinking in a robustic manner towards him.  I fear that until you personally drop your hostility clause by replying to the last post by twc in a comradely fashion this thread is going to dry up with posters applying a no comment to your posts.

[twc]

Theory and PracticeTheory precedes practice.Practice precedes theory.Does the human condition comprise a vicious cycle of (1) ⇆ (2),  or does it comprise just (1) or (2)?(1)  IdealismRealist LBird and absolute-idealist Hegel hold that     “theory [spirit/mind] is prior to practice” (1).LBird and Hegel hold differing philosophical views, and yet both are united in holding idealist philosophical priority of theory over practice, even if for different reasons.  [LBird has asserted “a thousand times, that theory precedes practice”.]Hegel’s proof of (1) lies in the working out of his philosophical system in the concrete world of phenomena through history.LBird’s proof of (1) is now so obvious it’s a “no-brainer” — common sense — and those who disagree “ignore the conditions that exist prior to practice” and are “fundamentally conservatives” who don’t have a plan of action for the future. AbstractionThis is where LBird exposes his theorizing.  For LBird, materialists who hold the priority of practice over theory, must ipso facto deny theory itself and confront the world blindfolded.In actuality, materialists affirm that theory is the essential indispensable product of practice.  They also affirm that practice is the essential subverter of theory.  Practice is ultimately what keeps theory honest.LBird must surely understand that abstraction never corresponds unmediated to the concrete from which it was abstracted.That’s why we need abstract theory, so that we can mentally concretize our abstractions and deterministically plonk them back into the concrete ensemble whence we got them, in order that we may comprehend that ensemble in theoretical terms.That’s why you can find Marx’s statements that appear to contradict his avowed guiding principle, the materialist conception of history.CrisisA marxian materialist is bound to see the world as process, recognizing that both (1) and (2) hold in different phases of the same social process. The phase in which theory dictates practice (1) is the social phase that corresponds to normality — stasis.  It’s what we fondly hope might happen forever, all of the time.But mankind’s theory is not robust enough to last forever.  Stasis is temporary.  Theory is provisional.Unexpectedly, from out of the blue, practice precipitates a crisis in theory.And, when theoretical crisis strikes, it shakes our misplaced confidence in theory to the core.Crisis is nothing other than theory failing to dictate practice [not (1)].It is then that we truly glimpse who is actually the boss — practice or theory!Theoretical crisis is that rare, but precious, moment when we actually get to glimpse the reality beneath the cracks of confident theory.Theoretical crisis forces mankind to confront the delusional side of its theory, and to comprehend crisis’s salutary lesson that mankind’s theory is, after all is said and done, only mankind’s comprehension of its own social practice.It is disruptive crisis that reveals precisely how dependent man’s mental construction—his theory—is on his robust activity—his practice.Crisis, and its resolution cries out to all the world: the demise of theory by practice!  The profane assault of practice upon theory lets slip the hidden esoteric truth, beyond all doubt, that practice actually dictates theory (2)!It is through crisis that we find the explanation of exactly why we must let theory dictate practice in normal times — precisely because crisis has just disclosed its secret: that human theory is nothing other than the abstraction of human practice.That is why, in subservience to theory, our practice is, in actuality, in subservience to its very own abstraction.Practice replicating its theoretical self, fools LBird into thinking that theory dictates practice.The only way human practice can operate in the world is as reflection of its own abstraction.LBird, how can your pre-Marxian Schaffian selection of concrete objects by prior theory account for those shocking moments when subversive practice precipitates crisis in prior theory, without acknowledging the subservience of prior theory to subversive practice?(2)  MaterialismMarx, in opposition to LBird and Hegel, holds that ‘social being [existence] determines consciousness’ — his materialist conception of history (2).  That is materialism.LBird rejects Marx’s materialist conception of history — Marx’s guiding principle (2) for his own guiding principle (1).On the RoadLBird may very well be setting out on a road to the unification of natural and social sciences, although that seems unlikely.Whatever road LBird is on, it is a non-Marxian road.  LBird has acknowledged that.

[DJP]

Brian wrote:

Again its so obvious that your attraction towards Schaff is bordering on idolatry and therefore you are not applying critical thinking in a robustic manner towards him.  

I don't think this is fair. Complex issues like this do require a more extensive background reading than can be gleamed from reading a few forum posts. LBird says he is impressed by Schaffs theory of cognition and agrees with it, that is fair enough. The trouble is Schaff's work is hard to find and not available online. So most of us can't discuss Schaff, hence the references to Deitzgen and Pannekoek. You don't think we are Deitzgen or Pannekoek idolizers do you?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

It’s my opinion that the longer-term purpose of these discussions between Communists (cognition, nature versus humanity, matter versus mind, methodology, etc.) is to produce a ‘scientific method’ that can be applied to all aspects of ‘natural humanity’. Thus, there can’t be a separation, which some comrades seem to think is necessary, between the ‘physical’ or ‘material’ world and the ‘social’ or ‘philosophical’ world. As I have shown, Marx thought that the unification of nature and humanity into one science was possible, and I think that we Communists should be attempting to do this. I see my current discussion about ‘theories of cognition’ as a very small step on the winding road to that distant goal.Any method, that we can come up with, has to be applicable to the full range of ‘science’, from physics to sociology, and taking in astronomy, chemistry, biology and psychology (and all the other disciplines), along the way.

I would urge you again to look more into the ideas of Alexander Bogdanov who had similar ideas to you on cognition, truth and the unification of science. See for instance:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TectologyHe also meets your test of being a Communist (or socialist, same thing):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_BogdanovYou may be trying to re-invent the wheel !

[Brian]

DJP wrote:

Brian wrote:

Again its so obvious that your attraction towards Schaff is bordering on idolatry and therefore you are not applying critical thinking in a robustic manner towards him.  

I don't think this is fair. Complex issues like this do require a more extensive background reading than can be gleamed from reading a few forum posts. LBird says he is impressed by Schaffs theory of cognition and agrees with it, that is fair enough. The trouble is Schaff's work is hard to find and not available online. So most of us can't discuss Schaff, hence the references to Deitzgen and Pannekoek. You don't think we are Deitzgen or Pannekoek idolizers do you?

I can't speak for other posters or members but not having read much of either Deitzgen or Pannekoek i have no wish to detract further from the discussion by nailing my flag to the mast.  That said I agree that this is a very complex subject area and there are extreme difficulties in obtaining the essential reading material but speaking from a Joe Blogs standpoint it would serve mine and other's understanding of the subject if LBird approached Schaff from a critical perspective, albeit by using 'proper english' to explain where and why he disagrees.  If any that is?For example twc rather unwisely started off with posts which were way out for my comprehension, thus the filters came down on auto pilot!  However once it became plain to twc that this was the incorrect approach to take their most recent posts are far more understanding and accommodating for poor old Joe Blogs. After all is said and done if the likes of myself are failed to be persuaded by the arguments on this thread by any poster who are into the subject of the philosophy of science the discussion is in danger of becoming sterile by remaining within the confines of a select few.  I would hate to see that occurring just because a few posters fail to accommodate poor old Joe Blogs.  At long last twc has done it in my estimation.  Its now down to LBird to come forth with the same line of approach towards Schaff, e.g. become critical.  Otherwise my comments on "idolatry" stands. 

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Brian wrote:

Again its so obvious that your attraction towards Schaff is bordering on idolatry and therefore you are not applying critical thinking in a robustic manner towards him.  

I don't think this is fair. Complex issues like this do require a more extensive background reading than can be gleamed from reading a few forum posts. LBird says he is impressed by Schaffs theory of cognition and agrees with it, that is fair enough. The trouble is Schaff's work is hard to find and not available online. So most of us can't discuss Schaff, hence the references to Deitzgen and Pannekoek. You don't think we are Deitzgen or Pannekoek idolizers do you?

Yeah, I've already said that I disagree with Schaff over a number of issues. I've tried to expose his ideas to collective criticism, the better to advance both my own thoughts and other comrades'.As you also say, discussions 'require a more extensive background reading', which few posters seem to be prepared to do. At the very least, they could ask for clarifications and analogous explanations, which I've tried to give, with my outlines of Schaff's ideas and a description of a theory of cognition in the form of the production of an 'NHS Computer System'. These seem to have been, for the most part, ignored. Those who oppose Schaff's theory certainly haven't tried to either openly state their own theory (which they have, but probably don't recognise) or to give an analogy to help other comrades come to terms with their ideas, and to help them to contrast them with Schaff's cognitive theory, the better to illustrate both.But some posters prefer the 'individualist' approach, of using 'common sense', and make no attempt to outline their own preconceptions – no doubt, because their 'method' tells them that such exposure is not required. Essentially, it comes down to 'it's my opinion, and that's that'.Whatever it is, it's not any sort of 'scientific method', but ruling class ideas masquerading as 'personal opinion'. In fact, it's ignorance, both of 'scientific method' and the basics of Marx's ideas about 'ruling class ideas' permeating all of our thinking.However, I'm prepared to carry on discussions with comrades who want to ask questions, both of me and themselves. But comrades must tell us what the basis of their ideas are, so that we can compare and contrast, and take the discussion forward.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I would urge you again to look more into the ideas of Alexander Bogdanov who had similar ideas to you on cognition, truth and the unification of science. See for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TectologyHe also meets your test of being a Communist (or socialist, same thing):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_BogdanovYou may be trying to re-invent the wheel!

ALB, I know nothing of Bogdanov. Would you care to provide a short summary of what you consider to be his ideas? Especially those relevant to this discussion, about cognition, or wider scientific method.I've looked to the links, and I certainly disagree with Proletkultism, and his lack of democratic content, given his focus on technology.[later edit]

wikipedia wrote:

The starting point in Bogdanov's Universal Science of Organization – Tectology (1913-1922) was that nature has a general, organized character, with one set of laws of organization for all objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TectologyIs this a fair statement of Bogdanov's views, ALB?How does this compare with Pannekoek's position that 'laws' are humanly-created laws, rather than 'laws of nature'? I.e. that 'laws' sit in 'knowledge', rather than in 'object'.

Pannekoek wrote:

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.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch02.htm

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB, I know nothing of Bogdanov. Would you care to provide a short summary of what you consider to be his ideas? Especially those relevant to this discussion, about cognition, or wider scientific method.

I don't know much about him either I'm afraid because most of what he wrote has not been translated from Russian. I'm just going by what others (eg Lenin) say he said. In this 1907 article criticising Dietzgen, Plekhanov groups together as having the same sort of ideas Dietzgen, Bogdanov, Pannekoek and Unterman on "cognition":http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/dietzgen.htmPlekhanov was taking the position of 18th century French materialism that Pannekoek criticised him for. Plekhanov didn't think much of Panneloek either. See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/pannekoek.htm#n1Here's an article by modern Russian group which also links Bogdanov and Pannekoek and provides more on what he meant by "tectology":http://revsoc.org/archives/2201Bogdanov's socialist/communist credentials are confirmed in this extract from his book A Short Course of Economic Science which the party used to recommend:http://revsoc.org/archives/7467I'd like to know more about Bogdanov's ideas myself if anybody who reads Russian can help.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB, I know nothing of Bogdanov. Would you care to provide a short summary of what you consider to be his ideas? Especially those relevant to this discussion, about cognition, or wider scientific method.

I don't know much about him either I'm afraid because most of what he wrote has not been translated from Russian. I'm just going by what others (eg Lenin) say he said. In this 1907 article criticising Dietzgen, Plekhanov groups together as having the same sort of ideas Dietzgen, Bogdanov, Pannekoek and Unterman on "cognition":http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/dietzgen.htmPlekhanov was taking the position of 18th century French materialism that Pannekoek criticised him for. Plekhanov didn't think much of Panneloek either. See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/pannekoek.htm#n1Here's an article by modern Russian group which also links Bogdanov and Pannekoek and provides more on what he meant by "tectology":http://revsoc.org/archives/2201Bogdanov's socialist/communist credentials are confirmed in this extract from his book A Short Course of Economic Science which the party used to recommend:http://revsoc.org/archives/7467I'd like to know more about Bogdanov's ideas myself if anybody who reads Russian can help.

Thanks for the links, ALB.I'll try to follow them up, and try to see if I can understand the similarities/differences between Pannekoek/Dietzgen and Bogdanov. On Untermann, a comrade here provided a suggestion for the book Science and Revolution, which I've bought and had a glance at. Untermann seems to be more influenced by Engels than I like, but I might be wrong about Untermann's views. At present, though, I'd separate his ideas from Pannekoek/Dietzgen.

[LBird]

Quote:

He refused propositions of militants of KAPD about cooperation, despite some similarity in theoretical analysis, because didn’t have faith in victory of world proletarian revolution in near future. He consider necessary to do long preparatory work.

http://revsoc.org/archives/2201Well, if this is a true reflection of Bogdanov’s thought, I think I do share this position with him, ALB!

Quote:

As slogan of all his life is possible to remember excellent words of Lassale: “In our rotten and decaying bourgeois world exists only two new, healthy and fresh forces – science and workers. When science and workers will unite, they in common will crush cursed old world”.

Let’s hope we can play our part in this process! Marx’s unification of science, so that ‘science’ stops being an activity of ‘experts’, and becomes a mass activity under our democratic control.Unfortunately, the rest of the article seems to move to being an apology for ‘real’ Bolshevism, which was hi-jacked by Lenin and the other leaders. I disagree with Bolshevism in its entirety.I’ll try to look at the other links later, too, ALB.

[LBird]

For information. Bold mine.Dietzgen on the unity of natural and social in one science:

Dietzgen wrote:

Modern science is even to-day still animated by the bias of the materialists of the 18th century. These materialists were the general theoreticians, the philosophers of natural science, so to speak, in so far as the latter confines its study to the mechanical, that is the palpable, the ponderable and tangible. Natural science, of course, has begun long since to overstep these limits. Already Chemistry has led beyond the narrow boundaries of the mechanical, and the same is now being done in Physics by the theory of the conservation and transformation of energy. With all that, however, science is narrow and wanting in penetration, it still lacks a systematic theory of the Universe as an infinite monistic evolutionary process. The study of the human mind and of all those relations which cognition has effected in human history, that is, the things political, judicial, economical, etc., all this natural science excludes from its province, still laboring under the delusion that mind is something metaphysical, is a child of another world and not subject to the laws governing the Universe.Science deserves that reproach not because it separates the mechanical, chemical, electro-technical and other knowledge from one another and constitutes them special branches; this is quite legitimate; our reproach is only directed against the metaphysical mode of thinking in which science is caught, as it were, in a straightjacket, as is evidenced by its hard and fast distinctions and by its absolute separation of matter from mind. It is only in so far as it does not perceive that Politics, Logic, History, Law, and Economics – in short, all mental relations are natural and scientific relations, that it together with the mechanical materialists and the German idealists still remains in the metaphysical, that is in the transcendental stage.

Dietzgen on the unity of matter and mind as one reality:

Dietzgen wrote:

The Socialist materialism understands by matter not only the ponderable and tangible, but the whole real existence. Everything that is contained in the Universe – and in it is contained everything, the All and the Universe being but two names for one thing – everything this Socialist materialism embraces in one conception, one name, one category, whether that category be called the actuality, reality, Nature or matter.We, modern Socialists, are not of the narrow opinion that the ponderable and tangible matter is matter par excellence. We hold that the scent of flowers, sounds and smells are also material. We do not conceive the forces as mere appendices, mere predicates of matter, and matter, the tangible one as “the thing” which dominates over all properties. Our conception of matter and force is, so to speak, democratic….Because we Socialist materialists have only one inter-related conception of matter and mind, the so-called mental relations such as those of politics, religion, morals, etc., are to us also material conditions…

http://www.marxists.org/archive/dietzgen/1887/epistemology.htmJoseph Dietzgen (1887) Excursions of a Socialist into the Domain of Epistemology

[DJP]

The quotes are all well and good, but I don't know who your highlighted passages are aimed at since no-one on here has expressed any kind of dualist philosophy?

[Young Master Smeet]

Oh, this is pleasing.  Anthropogenesis is available online.i was looking for this quote:

Quote:

The transmission of the nervous current often works as a relay, whereby a very feeble electric current opens the track for a stronger current. Each consecutive step in the connected track increases the available energy. Therefore the cerebral cortex does not only act as a switchboard with millions of fuses, but also is an amplifying apparatus through which almost imperceptible energy impulses coming from outside or from within the body are increased to great effects. “The whole cortical apparatus is wound up and set on a trigger so that its latent reserves of motor power and memory patterns may be released by the slightest impulse set in motion by some external event or some change in the interior of the body.” (Judson Herrick, 24, p. 122). Herrick quotes the example of a man on a ship. When this man sees a faint spot of light in the distance (effecting perhaps only a millionth of an erg on to the retina) the whole of his brain apparatus comes into action and thereby the muscle apparatus of his body is set in efficient motion. This can even cause the great engines of the ship to function.

A good materialist account of how we cannot be passive observers, the energy from the eye is less than the signal to the brain, our brain adds energy to the system, and thus, what we see is as much a construction of our brains as it is a reception of enviornmental data.http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1944/anthropogenesis.htm

[Author]

Posts