Pannekoek’s theory of science

[DJP]

A good illustration on how selective our perception is. Watch in full screen for best efffect:

[LBird]

Karl Marx wrote:

The weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that excludes history and its process…

Capital, Chpt 15, fn 4.

DJP wrote:

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?

That's not true, DJP. twc (and Brian?) didn't like my quoting of Smith when when twc wanted a 'science' quote. twc separates out so-called 'hard science', like physics, from so-called 'soft science', like sociology. This can't be done: it is methodologically incorrect.Anyone asked to give an example of 'science' is entitled to choose any discipline, from history to psychology and the rest, for their polemical purposes. Those arguing for 'science' are not allowed to circumscribe 'science' to 'physics' (or what they erroneously call, 'proper science').

[LBird]

DJP, that video is a superb illustration of the theoretical preconceptions all humans have, and which necessarily determine selection. Thanks.There is no passive observation of the object. 'Theory determines what we observe'.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Dietzgen on the unity of natural and social in one science:

Be careful you might end up with the spiritual interpretation of Dietzgen by Larry Gambone in his strange book on Cosmic Dialectics !http://vcmtalk.com/jospeh_dietzgen_page

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

DJP, that video is a superb illustration of the theoretical preconceptions all humans have, and which necessarily determine selection. Thanks.There is no passive observation of the object. 'Theory determines what we observe'.

I don't think the video actually does illustrate that, but it is a good analogy and it does clearly demonstrate that our perception does not work like a video recorder. A selection bias is not the same thing as a theoretical preconception, "I better concentrate on the white players" isn't much of a theory after all.If you like that there's a book called the "Invisible Gorilla" which explains this and many other cognitive biases. Critical thinking should involve not only being aware of logical fallacies but also these kind of cognitive biases.

[DJP]

The "confirmation bias" is probably the biggest one. We pick out information that suits our existing beliefs or interpret new information in a way that is favorable to them. Though all we can do is be aware of it, we will still do so. Therefore that is why it is good to deliberately seek out information that contradicts our cherished beliefs, Darwin developed the theory of evolution in this manner. If the contradictions build up the belief has to be ditched.This is why scientific knowledge advances, because it has an inbuilt awareness of our infallibility and uses nature (with the knowledge that we cannot directly or fully observe it)  as the external referee when theories compete against each other.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

…"I better concentrate on the white players" isn't much of a theory after all.

[my bold]So, it is a 'theory', though?

DJP wrote:

This is why scientific knowledge advances, because it has an inbuilt awareness of our infallibility and uses nature (with the knowledge that we cannot directly or fully observe it) as the external referee when theories compete against each other.

I presume that you meant to write 'fallibility' here, DJP?And if so, I take it you now agree that the sun/earth relationship is 'knowledge' and is a fallible social construct based on an indirect or 'not full' observation? Of course, any new fallible theory would have to compete with this old fallible theory on the basis of the sun/earth as an external component of both theories, rather than as a objective 'referee'. The sun/earth will only tell us what we ask – they are infinite in their information. The 'object' is a component of 'knowledge', not an impartial judge of it.Thus, sun/earth relationship (knowledge) would have a history, and could potentially change, and can't be a one-off discovery of The Truth, suitable for all eternity.This is one thing we mean by 'science'. Acceptance of human fallibility. 'Truth' sits in 'knowledge', not the 'object'.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I presume that you meant to write 'fallibility' here, DJP?

LOL 'fallibility' yes 

LBird wrote:

And if so, I take it you now agree that the sun/earth relationship is 'knowledge' and is a fallible social construct based on an indirect or 'not full' observation? Of course, any new fallible theory would have to compete with this old fallible theory on the basis of the sun/earth as an external component of both theories, rather than as a objective 'referee'. The sun/earth will only tell us what we ask – they are infinite in their information. The 'object' is a component of 'knowledge', not an impartial judge of it.

The sun / earth relationship isn't knowledge, the sun / earth relationship is the sun / earth relationship. We can form theories relating to it which are called 'knowledge' when it is resonable to belief they are true – when the empirical evidence would seem to support it – or they are called 'false beliefs' when the empirical evidence suggests otherwise.The truth of a theory relating to something 'out there' is not testing by comparing it with other theories but by attempting to compare it with the thing we are refering to. But because our knowledge is not direct or complete, and because nature itself is in a permanent state of flux it would seem that the only eternal truths are those relating to a priori systems.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

The truth of a theory relating to something 'out there' is not testing by comparing it with other theories but by attempting to compare it with the thing we are refering to.

You'll have to describe the 'method' you have in mind to do this 'comparing' to 'something out there' which doesn't involve a 'theory', DJP.That's what this whole discussion is about.If you have non-theoretical, neutral access to the 'thing out there' (object), please share it with us.The 'attempt to compare' is a human, social, theory-informed, activity. To argue otherwise, is to espouse inductivism or positivism.Just as your video shows, if anyone had been asked 'how many species did you see?', they would have answered 'one', ie., humans.But as to how many species were in the video, that depends on one's theory! Mere observation is not enough.

[twc]

LBird wrote:

twc didn't like my quoting of Smith when twc wanted a 'science' quote.  twc separates out so-called 'hard science', like physics, from so-called 'soft science', like sociology.  This can't be done: it is methodologically incorrect.

I didn’t dislike your quoting.  I felt pity.I saw your ploy as casuistry — something you’ve never repudiated.  You openly avow casuistry as proletarian science’s signature methodology.I saw your behaviour as adequate demonstration of your Schaffian-inspired practice of subjective selection–rejection of the object of cognition by prior theory.Recall the Context

twc, in #161 wrote:

Please explain why you assert that “in a Communist society … we assume humans can understand our society and its products.”Please explain how you propose that we put the authority of the market under our democratic control.All scientists have worked under some form of private-property social system: ancient chattel slavery, medieval feudalism or modern capitalism.Most scientists of the past were inspired by social and religious precepts that we would now despise.Given the above, 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”.[Here I expressly exclude those scientists who are the hired prize fighters of capitalism’s economics profession or its social scientists.]One instance please, so that we gain a clear understanding of what you are driving at.

Long History of Unification of ScienceWe can discuss the unity of science later;  First, some history.The supreme trio: Aristotle, Hegel and Marx, saw unified science as the indispensable framework of their work.So did 18th century French encyclopedists Diderot and d’Alembert.So did 19th century German nature-philosopher Schelling, French utopians Fourier and Saint Simon and his disciple, and father of positivism, Comte.  So too did 19th century German materialists [not fit intellectual company for LBird] Büchner, Vogt and Langer, et tutti frutti.Theorizing DisunityOnce more LBird exposes his ‘theorizing’.  For LBird, a socialist who distinguishes between natural and social sciences must ipso facto reject their underlying unity.On the other hand, LBird [like Lassalle strutting before Marx] announces LBird will unite that which Marx failed (in LBird’s humble opinion) to unite.In this he is fortunate in the arrival on the scene of that exemplary model of scientific imprecision, the Schaffian materialist cognition of external objects, as conceived idealistically by LBird.LBird, you can only unite that which is already disunited, and thereby ipso facto you must on your own ‘theorizing’ already reject the underlying unity you crave.A marxian socialist quite easily makes the commonly agreed distinction between natural and social sciences.A marxian socialist accepts their unification in materialist conception of history terms — which your anti-materialist interpretation of Schaff opposes — and in none other!For a marxian socialist, it’s as easy as a darwinian distinguishing dogs from cats.Alarm over Scientific PracticeLBird, I was asking you to substantiate to us your doubts over scientific truth with concrete examples of scientific theory in the natural sciences surviving because its practitioners “believed in private property in the means of production”.Up till now you have given alarmist abstract examples of the — would you trust a scientist;  or atomic scientists have known evil;  or active scientific practice of truth is human and must be decided contemplatively by passive human democracy — variety.I doubt that you are equipped with “thousands” of LBirdian concrete examples, but only one will suffice, so that we may judge the extent of your concerns.If you could find just one convincing example coming from within the natural sciences then you might possibly have exposed a fatal flaw in modern scientific methodology — not just in how bourgeois scientists conceive or misconceive their social practice — but a flaw that demolishes our bourgeois-established scientific abstractions wrested from external nature.  That would be a welcome scientific discovery indeed.Where is your concrete example of bourgeois ideology preventing natural scientists from comprehending natural systems that demonstrate humanity’s natural science is methodologically flawed?Science is SubversiveI repeat from my first post to you — science is our most subversive activity.Sure, bourgeois society turns scientists into philosophical dualists, who hold a critical attitude towards their science, but also hold an accommodating attitude towards their society.But the scientist is consciously constrained to practice scientific integrity.  Nature forces him, as it does the engineer, to pursue his craft subservient to her ways, and not to his own will.  Nature is not deceived.Nature is a robust materialist, and subverts fragile human ideas.We recall that scientific integrity is something that LBird avowedly eschews in his own model of ‘proletarian science’ as being failed bourgeois scientific practice.However, the practicing scientist [even if of the bourgeois kind] is not an LBirdian.The practicing scientist is actively constrained by the piece of the universe he seeks to cognize.  In the long run, nature forces him to follow her.  His will is powerless before hers.Consequently, the practicing scientist is forced to follow his science fearlessly wherever it may lead him.  He only deludes himself if he thinks he can bend nature to his thoughts.If the practicing scientist’s ideas controlled science, he could hardly be practicing research.  He would already cognize it all.Ally or EnemyIncreasingly, as giant corporations commandeer science, the practicing scientist comes face-to-face with a commercial interest his scientific activity threatens.Increasingly, science unconsciously assists socialism in exposing anti-scientific practice in the interests of capital — particularly in environmental science, ecology, global warming — but must moderate its voice so as not to offend capital.Anti-scientific practice can only be practice that consciously opposes scientific theory.  It is scientific fraud.Nobody denies that, but no socialist believes that that is the issue you want to solve for socialism.Big corporations are currently successful at taming the scientist politically, but they can’t forever stave off the day when the evil, untrustworthy, elitist [LBird] scientists come out, and reveal themselves as our honest, trustworthy, sociable proletarian allies.So, What’s the Bourgeois Flaw in Natural Science?No-one believes the abstract theory of aerodynamics is flawed by bourgeois ideology to the extent that [its instances] jet aircraft fall out of the sky.Society relies on the abstract determinism of the inverse-square law from commuting on foot or by car, to bridge building, to firing rockets to Mars.Where is your evidence so that we may independently judge the seriousness of your concern?

[Young Master Smeet]

https://theconversation.com/sometimes-science-cant-see-the-wood-for-the-bees-18532

Quote:

Among those researching the field of science, technology and society, it is argued that scientific knowledge is never just about facts, but also about power. Facts are not simply discovered by science as absolute truths, but are instead constructed in social contexts that are riddled with power relations. As the old adage suggests, knowledge and power are always intertwined.What becomes a fact and what does not is a social and political issue that is concerned with what kind of knowledge – and importantly whose knowledge – acquires legitimacy and therefore authority.

The full article is interesting on this question with regard to nicotinoid pesticides, the precautionary principle and bees.

[LBird]

Thanks for the link, YMS.

Bee Article wrote:

Facts are not simply discovered by science as absolute truths, but are instead constructed in social contexts that are riddled with power relations. As the old adage suggests, knowledge and power are always intertwined.What becomes a fact and what does not is a social and political issue that is concerned with what kind of knowledge – and importantly whose knowledge – acquires legitimacy and therefore authority.

Yeah, this quote seems to support some of the things that I've argued:'Facts' are socially-constructed by authorities, not just simply 'innocently discovered by a neutral method'.We have to question 'who' produces the specified 'facts', and for what and whose 'purposes', and using what 'method'.The days of just accepting 'scientists' disinterestedly gathering 'obvious data' as an act of charity or professional pride, is long gone.'Science' is about power, legitimacy and authority, and there is no 'method' which avoids these human issues.Communists must take a critical interest in these questions. It's my opinion that if science is not under our democratic control (and I mean 'cognition', too, not just funding, research aims or teaching, for example), it will be under the control of a self-selecting elite.

[twc]

 Colony Collapse DisorderRevenge of the BeesAn overview of the scientific and technical issues demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt that, rather than being innocent victims, the commercial bee keepers and the wider apiarist industry are in this predicament right up to their necks.  The problem is of their making.LBird and YMS, please demonstrate how the following scientifically-proposed stressors exemplify anything other than stark “forms of appearance” of the normal workings of capitalism.All of this is shockingly contrary to LBird’s view that nature is a passive “social construct”, an object for cognizance by the active social subject — here the bee-keeping industry.For here we chance to glimpse just how a social construct, nature, has the indecency to thwart a capitalist industry’s commercial practice.For here we watch in horror, as nature turns active and, slowly but surely, she reacts on her own terms — the Schaffian object’s terms — rather than on the Schaffian subject’s terms.Here she attacks the rapacious industry thugs who, treating her with callous indifference, fondly hoped to sate their lust by keeping on actively raping her, as submissive social construct, contemptuously forever, and ever, and ever.Salutary as it may be to see the rapist getting his come-uppance, it’s hard not to conclude that despite the dire social consequences, for raped nature’s revenge, it’s about time!Plea for SanityThe bee industry has smoked its own hive, but craves a bail out, just like the self-immolating bankers who brought us the GFC.And, LBird and YMS, dutifully succumb to its plaintive cry, and help shift the blame, as perpetrators always manage to find willing hands, onto the hateful proletarian — here in the guise of the detested scientist.LBird and YMS, for sanity’s sake, admit you’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for the belly-aching of a capitalist industry facing its self-inflicted ruin by its very own grubby hands.LBird and YMS, confess that you’ve ignorantly sided with the terrified capitalist, powerless to halt his capital’s erosion, and you’ve unconsciously turned against the preordained-guilty proletarian — the scientist.LBird and YMS, who do you propose, in this rapacious capitalist world, who has the integrity to diagnose the cause, and solve the problem, but the scientist?Irrational Hatred of ScienceLBird, for whom no profession is more detestable than that of scientist, please moderate your venom towards the one profession in capitalism that’s based on integrity.  Desist from scapegoating the scientist for the ills of capitalism.  Your fanatical idealism is eroding your common humanity.I have never encountered such hatred as yours — such bitter contempt for the natural science that is the only reliable hope of diagnosis, and perhaps solution [in this instance] of the tragic plight of the world’s bees.Scientific StressorsPesticides — Specific agrochemical compounds disrupting the apian nervous system, e.g. neonicotinoids.Cocktails — Onslaught of a baker’s dozen of agrochemical compounds disrupting the apian nervous system.Parasites — Unregulated commercial bee trade spreading foreign apian parasites, e.g. Varroa mite.Viruses — Unregulated commercial bee trade spreading foreign apian viruses [e.g. nosema infection; Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus].Breeding — Apiarists selectively destroying genetic diversity among bee populations.GMO — Genetically modified organisms [GMO] damaging apian immune systems.Pollination — Monocultural pollination inducing migratory stress on dependent bee colonies.Destruction of Native Pollinators — Monocultural exotics out-competing the multicultural endemics — destruction of the native.Global Warming — Shifting seasons disturbing sexual-reproduction cycles.Global Warming — Extreme weather disrupting foraging cycles.Global Warming — Environmental changes altering the colony’s world.Deforestation — Destruction of native wildflower meadows — the bee colony’s means of production.All of the Above — Capitalism.[Source: http://sociologicalinsect.com/2013/09/16/colony-collapse-disorder/%5DCommercial Problem — Scientific SolutionEvery single stressor is commercial in origin, and is expressly not scientific in origin.LBird and YMS, only through natural science can we hope to determine which stressors are the active ones.  Only through natural science can we determine the seat of the stressor — nectar, pollen, petals, leaves, grasses, water, air.You are left with an insoluble riddle of your own making:  natural science is made responsible for causing the mess [even though it’s clearly not the actual culprit, the capitalist class] and yet natural science is still considered our only activity capable of clearing up the mess [not the capitalist class, which is both culpable and incapable].  Chew on that riddle!What flipping use here is Schaffian cognizance of pre-theorized objects in any but a vapid destructive superficial sense?‘Philosopers’ of ScienceThe most LBird gleans from out of this is cause to gloat over confirmation in the twaddle of unnamed and unsourced professionals in “the field of science, technology and society”.What a state capitalism has come to when its professional commentators on science can, from the authority of their sociology chairs, theorizing while sitting in the academic study, deflect hatred from the capitalist class onto the scientist, working out there in the field or experimenting in the laboratory!No wonder Thomas Kuhn, as soon as he discovered philosophy-of-science’s self-important prescribers to scientists of precisely how they ought to conduct their scientific practice ‘correctly’, fled that debased pontificating profession as fast as he could, never to return to it.Is This Your Alarming Flaw in Natural Science?LBird, if this is your single example of a gross alarming flaw in natural science, socialism has nothing to fear of science, and everything to admire.

[Young Master Smeet]

Erm, I linked to an article that demonstrated that Lbird's view was already incorporated into maintream academic discourse on the theory of science.  I feel I have no need to: "confess that you’ve ignorantly sided with the terrified capitalist" ; "admit you’ve fallen hook, line and sinker for the belly-aching of a capitalist industry"; nor "propose, in this rapacious capitalist world, who has the integrity to diagnose the cause, and solve the problem". Indeed, that the apiarist industry is a party to a power struggle to defend itself was, kind of, part of the point.Now, TWC, will you:Admit that you started the Peloponnesian war.Apologise for the Bee Gees.Accept that only John Hurt can save the world, and cure all its ills?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Indeed, that the apiarist industry is a party to a power struggle to defend itself was, kind of, part of the point.

Yeah, the link between 'power/authority' and 'science'.Since twc doesn't do 'discussion', and prefers one-sided harangues, full of irrelevant asides, where twc's opponents must 'confess their sins' for daring to be 'critical of science', it's hard to sort the wheat from the chaff of their posts. twc has clearly done a fair amount of reading, but doesn't care to engage and explain, so that we can all ask questions and try to advance all of our understandings of this vital issue about the nature of 'science'.I've tried at least twice to interact with twc, but all I've received is personal abuse. I refuse now to deal with twc, though I'd be interested to read other posters' discussions with twc, if that's at all possible.

[Author]

Posts