Pannekoek’s theory of science

[Ed]

You know way back when I was involved in the other thread on this discussion I started thinking about Nietzsche's famous "God is dead" quote. Is he using the same logic as you LBird? That god existed because people believed in him but now they don't, he's been murdered. Except for the fact that now in 2013 the majority of humanity still believes in god and thus in any world wide vote on whether it was true that an omnipitent being exists the vote would be returned in the positive and at least in your eyes would be a scientific truth. The likely-hood as well is that immediately after revolution the majority of humanity will still believe in a god. So the paradigm shift in this case would be that from a bourgeouis scientific perspective there is no evidence for the existence of God, yet from a socialist scientific perspective God would be 'born again' so to speak.

[Brian]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

If you didn't understand my analogy, why not ask questions, rather than make erroneous assumptions?

Sorry I only have a certain limited amount of time and energy to spend on this.Besides, there's nothing in post 292 that I would disagree with.What I disagree with is the epistimological leep you make from this to your criteria of truth. Which would entail that creationism, Thor and pholigiston where once true.

Steady on.  From my recollection LBird has many times pointed out the distinction between what was 'thought to be true' and the actual 'truth' becoming revealed through further scientific discovery and investigation.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

So, to return to ALB’s essential question:

ALB wrote:

But, in turn, I put a question to you: what in your view are the criteria by which to judge whether a theory or view is "knowledge" or just fantasy or wrong/inaccurate/inadequate?

Given my beliefs as a Communist and following the outlined theory of cognition of science, I’d argue that the only ‘criteria’ which can ever be acceptable for humans are those arrived at by the society that is doing the human social activity of science. The current ‘criteria’ of the bourgeoisie won’t be the future ‘criteria’ of the proletariat.

But what would you say are the current criteria by which capitalist society distinguishes between "knowledge" and fantasy or a wrong/inaccurate/inadequate theory?

[ALB]

Brian wrote:

From my recollection LBird has many times pointed out the distinction between what was 'thought to be true' and the actual 'truth' becoming revealed through further scientific discovery and investigation.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. This is precisely the position LBird is arguing against, as I assume he will confirm by return of post. I'm not sure I'd defend it either.

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

From my recollection LBird has many times pointed out the distinction between what was 'thought to be true' and the actual 'truth' becoming revealed through further scientific discovery and investigation.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. This is precisely the position LBird is arguing against, as I assume he will confirm by return of post. I'm not sure I'd defend it either.

OK so it just goes to show how confusing this thread has gone.   Hopefully if LBird does confirm this is not his position he'll also explain in simple terms the reasons why he does'nt  defend it.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

From my recollection LBird has many times pointed out the distinction between what was 'thought to be true' and the actual 'truth' becoming revealed through further scientific discovery and investigation.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. This is precisely the position LBird is arguing against, as I assume he will confirm by return of post. I'm not sure I'd defend it either.

OK so it just goes to show how confusing this thread has gone.   Hopefully if LBird does confirm this is not his position he'll also explain in simple terms the reasons why he does'nt  defend it.

I'll try, comrade!If I explain it in terms of my 'NHS Computer System', an analogy with which you're familiar.The system is a 'true' representation of the NHS for the purposes for which humans created it.But it's clearly not the whole 'truth' of the NHS, because the NHS consists of innumerable 'facts', the vast majority of which are meaningless for human purposes.But another set of humans could write another system, which focussed on different aspects of the NHS, a second system which we would also regard as 'true', but which is different from the first 'truth'.So, the 'truth' of any scientific knowledge has to be related to the humans who constructed the 'knowledge', and 'why', and 'how', and a later better theorised and executed process could produce another true representation which is then considered by humans to be better for their new purposes, and thus succeeds and replaces an earlier truth.Does this help, Brian? Truth is in an eternal process of human production.Thus, my answer to your question about 'actual truth' being eventually 'revealed' is 'No'.'Actual truth' is the NHS, itself. It is the object, which consists of innumerable entities and relationships, and which it is impossible to 'know' in its entirety.The only way one can maintain that 'true' is the 'object' is to adopt a 19th century theory of cognition, according to which the mind is passive and simply registers sense-impressions (all of them) and the mind acts as a 'mirror' which reflects the 'object'.The bourgeoisie pretend that science still does this, although, as you've read on this thread (posts by YMS, and video by DJP) most scientists who give it any thought acknowledge that this can't be done.Please ask questions if I'm still unclear, and try to picture how knowledge would be created if not by the process I'm suggesting, which is the process I think most modern philosophers of science would accept.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

If I explain it in terms of my 'NHS Computer System', an analogy with which you're familiar.The system is a 'true' representation of the NHS for the purposes for which humans created it.But it's clearly not the whole 'truth' of the NHS, because the NHS consists of innumerable 'facts', the vast majority of which are meaningless for human purposes.But another set of humans could write another system, which focussed on different aspects of the NHS, a second system which we would also regard as 'true', but which is different from the first 'truth'.

But wouldn't this just be knowledge about a different part of NHS (standing for the world of reality)? Why would it have to conflict with the first, different knowledge about a different part?

LBird wrote:

So, the 'truth' of any scientific knowledge has to be related to the humans who constructed the 'knowledge', and 'why', and 'how', and a later better theorised and executed process could produce another true representation which is then considered by humans to be better for their new purposes, and thus succeeds and replaces an earlier truth.[emphasis added]

Ah, now we are getting somewhere ! "Better for their new purposes" (or even for their old purposes?). But what purpose? It would have to be something like "surviving better"? In which case, it would fall into the category of "instrumentalism" or "pragmatism" (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that).And wouldn't you have to say more than "humans" and say something like "human society" to avoid any arbitrary group of humans with some arbitrary purpose creating their own "truths"? Which raises the question of who, in the scheme, is the subject: any group, a class, society as a whole?

[DJP]

Hi LBird,OK so let's borrow Deitzgen's terms. So the NHS is the "Absolute Truth"  and the IT system the "relative truth". Now we can never fully grasp the whole of the absolute truth, no-one has claimed that (apart from comrade strawman) but what if we are faced with competing designs of IT systems (or relative truths), how do we work out which is the more valid?Or is the truth of a theory solely contained in how well it fits the purposes of those who are using it?

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

From my recollection LBird has many times pointed out the distinction between what was 'thought to be true' and the actual 'truth' becoming revealed through further scientific discovery and investigation.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. This is precisely the position LBird is arguing against, as I assume he will confirm by return of post. I'm not sure I'd defend it either.

OK so it just goes to show how confusing this thread has gone.   Hopefully if LBird does confirm this is not his position he'll also explain in simple terms the reasons why he does'nt  defend it.

I'll try, comrade!If I explain it in terms of my 'NHS Computer System', an analogy with which you're familiar.The system is a 'true' representation of the NHS for the purposes for which humans created it.But it's clearly not the whole 'truth' of the NHS, because the NHS consists of innumerable 'facts', the vast majority of which are meaningless for human purposes.But another set of humans could write another system, which focussed on different aspects of the NHS, a second system which we would also regard as 'true', but which is different from the first 'truth'.So, the 'truth' of any scientific knowledge has to be related to the humans who constructed the 'knowledge', and 'why', and 'how', and a later better theorised and executed process could produce another true representation which is then considered by humans to be better for their new purposes, and thus succeeds and replaces an earlier truth.Does this help, Brian? Truth is in an eternal process of human production.Thus, my answer to your question about 'actual truth' being eventually 'revealed' is 'No'.'Actual truth' is the NHS, itself. It is the object, which consists of innumerable entities and relationships, and which it is impossible to 'know' in its entirety.The only way one can maintain that 'true' is the 'object' is to adopt a 19th century theory of cognition, according to which the mind is passive and simply registers sense-impressions (all of them) and the mind acts as a 'mirror' which reflects the 'object'.The bourgeoisie pretend that science still does this, although, as you've read on this thread (posts by YMS, and video by DJP) most scientists who give it any thought acknowledge that this can't be done.Please ask questions if I'm still unclear, and try to picture how knowledge would be created if not by the process I'm suggesting, which is the process I think most modern philosophers of science would accept.

OK I'm getting there. I gather from what you are saying  that even  ' truth' is subject to the social/human/natural dynamics of change depending on what is selected and who constructed the 'knowledge' and 'why' and 'how' a new  'truth' becomes a clearer representation of that change?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

OK I'm getting there. I gather from what you are saying that even ' truth' is subject to the social/human/natural dynamics of change depending on what is selected and who constructed the 'knowledge' and 'why' and 'how' a new 'truth' becomes a clearer representation of that change?

Yeah, because it all depends upon what 'facts' have been selected in the first place, to construct the 'knowledge'.If you think about the NHS, and someone says 'science can tell us exactly everything about the NHS, the Truth', it soon becomes obvious that this isn't true. It's an impossible, Sisyphean task.One can always think of another pointless question to ask of the NHS:What colour ties do all the consultants wear, each day?Can you give me a list of the distances from the northeast corners of each mainbuilding on each NHS site to each other?How many 3" wood screws have been used in constructing rain shelters?How many nurses are called Brian?Is blue the main colour for counterpanes used on the beds?Are there any rabid dogs hiding in bathrooms?How many relatives do all the band fives have, in total?Which mops came from Taiwan?These meaningless, but 'factual', questions can go on forever.Someone has to decide what we want to know about the NHS, and why. The parameters of this 'selection' from innumerable 'facts' are determined by a human social theory, before the process of selection is even started.The 'Truth' of the NHS exists (as an object of enquiry, as an absolute), but  how can we reproduce it in its entirety? Any 'truth' we have before us is a 'truth' constructed by humans from the interaction of their questions and the answers they accept from the object. But it's a never-ending process, not a singular act of discovery.

[LBird]

With 6,000 views and a couple of days’ breather, perhaps now is the time to establish a basis for the progression of this clearly interesting topic. There have been various questions throughout this thread, which it might appear I have been ignoring: I haven’t, it’s just that I think that a firm cognitive basis is necessary to even attempt to answers these questions. For example, some recent ones:

ALB wrote:

But what would you say are the current criteria by which capitalist society distinguishes between "knowledge" and fantasy or a wrong/inaccurate/inadequate theory?

ALB wrote:

But wouldn't this just be knowledge about a different part of NHS (standing for the world of reality)? Why would it have to conflict with the first, different knowledge about a different part?….Ah, now we are getting somewhere ! "Better for their new purposes" (or even for their old purposes?). But what purpose? It would have to be something like "surviving better"? In which case, it would fall into the category of "instrumentalism" or "pragmatism" (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that).And wouldn't you have to say more than "humans" and say something like "human society" to avoid any arbitrary group of humans with some arbitrary purpose creating their own "truths"? Which raises the question of who, in the scheme, is the subject: any group, a class, society as a whole?

DJP wrote:

OK so let's borrow Deitzgen's terms. So the NHS is the "Absolute Truth" and the IT system the "relative truth". Now we can never fully grasp the whole of the absolute truth, no-one has claimed that (apart from comrade strawman) but what if we are faced with competing designs of IT systems (or relative truths), how do we work out which is the more valid?Or is the truth of a theory solely contained in how well it fits the purposes of those who are using it?

Once again, I think, from reading Schaff, I’ve accepted his claim:

Schaff, p. 48, wrote:

Let us begin then with the traditional trinity which appears in every analysis of the process of cognition…: the cognitive subject, the object of cognition, and knowledge as the product of the process of cognition.

Can everybody agree on an acceptance of this ‘traditional trinity’ as the basis of moving forward to discuss each of the three? Or does anyone still harbour serious doubts about this axiomatic schema? If so, could they outline a different way of conceptualising cognition?I think that ALB’s, DJP’s, and others, questions can only explored and answered through the tripartite schema, so perhaps we need to discuss in more detail those three components: the object (what is ‘real’?), the subject (an isolated individual or a ‘social individual’?), and the production of knowledge (passive reflection of object or active creation based on object?), though the last of the three has already been covered a little.So, if it is agreeable to all, perhaps the first to tackle is the subject: the nature of mind, and the cognitive mechanism, etc.

[Brian]

You may well be a bit unscientific with this suggestion when the book in question is very hard to come by?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

You may well be a bit unscientific with this suggestion when the book in question is very hard to come by?

That's why I mentioned that Schaff calls the tripartite schema the 'traditional trinity'. That is, he suggests most thinkers use the schema to discuss the process of cognition.Don't forget, that schema in itself is not a 'stance', it's just a way of conceptualising the debate. There are various ways of defining object, subject, knowledge and their inter-relationships.As we've discussed 'knowledge' a bit, that is why I was suggesting we discuss 'subject'.But if you have reservations about the very axioms of the debate, perhaps I'd better let others take the lead.

[DJP]

I'd sooner get the epistemology sorted out. For the last coming on 2 months I have been trying to tease out of LBird what would be regarded as an adequate criteria for judging the truth of competing statements. If you think that "truth" should be redefined to mean something other than "in accord with reality" I would like you to outline how this could be done without referring back to the original meaning at some point.If you think that to understand your answer it would be necessary to understand some further claims from Schaff then fine. But outline your answer now then we can backfill in the missing pieces later.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

If you think that "truth" should be redefined to mean something other than "in accord with reality"…

Well, I'll let you define what you mean by 'in accord with reality', DJP. Then I'll be able to answer you.

DJP wrote:

I'd sooner get the epistemology sorted out. For the last coming on 2 months I have been trying to tease out of LBird what would be regarded as an adequate criteria for judging the truth of competing statements.

'Sorting out the epistemology' requires understanding of which cognitive theory one is employing.I've already told you the 'the sun going round the earth' prior to the 17th century was 'in accord with reality'.If you don't accept this, you have to give the criteria to show it wasn't 'in accord with reality'… in the 17th century.If you just want to say that 'now we know that the earth goes round the sun', and that's it, then the last two months have been wasted, for all of us, comrade.Perhaps you just want to hear that I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist.OK, I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist. If that's what you've wanted from two months' discussion, there you have it!

[Author]

Posts