Pannekoek’s theory of science

[DJP]

Does the fact that we have launched space probes, satellites and landed things on other planets not mean anything to you? Do you seriously think that it is all a social construct? I don't think you do and that is why you insist on shifting the burden of proof…Even before the 17th century people had put forward a sun centred theory of the planets, and even after the 17th century the idea was not immediately accepted. So was the reality that the sun did and did not go round earth during this period?"Reality" is not a social construct (less the parts of it concerning society and humans interactions with nature) and it can neither be observed fully either. Nobody thinks that science brings the kind of 100% certain knowledge that you claim those that reject your relativism do.

Dietzgen wrote:

To understand more clearly the nature of the absolute truth it is first of all necessary to do away with the old-rooted prejudice which regards it as of a purely mental nature. No, no! Absolute truth can be seen, heard, smelt, touched and, of course, also known; but it cannot be resolved into pure knowledge, – it is not pure mind. Its nature is not either corporeal, or mental, not one or the other, but all embracing, as much corporeal as spiritual. Absolute truth has no nature of its own, but, on the contrary, it has the nature of the general. In other words, to speak without mystification, the general natural nature and general truth are identical. There are no two Natures, one corporeal and another a mental. There is only one Nature which contains all bodies and all minds.The Universe is identical with Nature, with the world and the absolute truth. Natural science divides Nature into parts, domains, branches of study, but it knows and feels that all such divisions are formal only, that Nature or Universe is in spite of all divisions undivided, – in spite of all variety and manifold natures only one indivisible, general and universal Nature, World and Truth. There is only one Existence, and all forms are modi, varieties or relative truths of one general truth which is absolute, eternal and endless at all times, in all places. Human knowledge is, like anything else, a limited portion of the unlimited, a modus, a variety of Existence or General Truth.Since the nature of truth has hitherto been regarded as purely mental, and accordingly, truth was looked upon as a thing which is only to be found in knowledge, the inquiry into human knowledge comes within the province of our subject, of our search after the absolute and relative truth and their relation.The mental world of man, that is, all we know, believe and think, forms a portion of the universal world which only in its absolute inter-relation, in its complete whole possesses an unlimited, perfect, absolute existence, a true one in the highest sense of the word. At the same time it possesses through its component parts, modi, varieties, products or phenomena an infinite number of existences of which every particular one is also true, but is as against the whole a mere relative truth.Human knowledge, itself a relative truth, is the medium between us and the other phenomena or relativities of the absolute Existence. Still the faculty of cognition, the knowing subject, must be distinguished from the object, the distinction being, however, a limited and relative one, since both the subject and the object are not only distinct, but at the same time alike in that they are parts or phenomena of the same generality called the Universe. We distinguish between Nature and parts, departments or phenomena, though these are inseparably connected with the All-Existence, emerge from it and submerge in it. There is no Nature without phenomena, her manifestations, nor phenomena without Nature, as the Absolute. It is only our knowledge which provides the separation, the mental analysis in order to form an image of the phenomena. Knowledge, conscious of its doings dealings, must know that the mentally separated, differentiated objects are indivisibly bound up with the reality of Nature.What we learn to know are truths, relative truths or natural phenomena. Nature itself, the absolute truth, cannot be known, – not directly, but only through her manifestations, the phenomena. How then do we know that there is behind the phenomenon an absolute Truth, a general Nature? Is this not a new mysticism?Well, let us see. As human knowledge is not the absolute truth, but only an artist making pictures of the truth, true, genuine, correct and exact pictures, it is self-evident that the picture does not exhaust the object and that the artist cannot reach the comprehensiveness of the model. Nothing more insipid has ever been said of truth and knowledge than what has been repeated for thousands of years by the commonly accepted logic, namely, that truth is the conformity of our knowledge with its object. How can a picture “conform” with its model? Approximately it can. What picture worth the name does not agree approximately with its object? Every portrait is more or less of a likeness. But to be altogether alike, quite the same as the original – what an abnormal idea!Thus we can only know Nature and her parts relatively, since even a part, though only a relation of Nature, possesses again the characteristics of the Absolute, the nature of the All-Existence which cannot be exhausted by knowledge.http://www.marxists.org/archive/dietzgen/1887/epistemology.htm

Emphasis mine.So all truths can only be known partially and relatively. Though where I think we differ is that I take this to mean that partial truths are relative to the absolute truth, to nature, reality whatever you want to call it. You see them as being relative to each other only…So if you think you can present a cognitivist relativist account of truth and knowledge that doesn't collapse into the contradictions I have mentioned or revert to idealism I would really be grateful to hear it. Till then, less of the melodrama 

[Brian]

So all truths are relative in the sense that they are only approximations and the complete knowledge of the whole picture of absolute truths will always remain elusive.  Due I presume to the dynamics of change, which is also an absolute, and when considered in conjunction with the multiplicity of the endless factors involved that bring these changes into existence – means in effect – that our understanding of truth is only of a partial and temporary nature?Am I right or am I wrong?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

So all truths are relative in the sense that they are only approximations and the complete knowledge of the whole picture of absolute truths will always remain elusive. Due I presume to the dynamics of change, which is also an absolute, and when considered in conjunction with the multiplicity of the endless factors involved that bring these changes into existence – means in effect – that our understanding of truth is only of a partial and temporary nature?Am I right or am I wrong?

Perhaps one caveat, Brian.Because humans are involved, it is possible that 'knowledge' (scientific truth at one stage of history) has been incorrectly produced. So, the nature of 'approximation' is uncertain.I think it's better to regard 'truth' as a process, rather than a fixed discovery. So, perhaps your term 'partial and temporary' is adequate, as long as 'temporary' can mean 'for millenia only'!Science is a social activity and understanding of it must be rooted in the society that does the activity. Changing a society could have unforseen effects. And as we wish to change society, I think that it's worth discussing the possible effects of that on both 'truth' production and scientific method!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Does the fact that we have launched space probes, satellites and landed things on other planets not mean anything to you? Do you seriously think that it is all a social construct? I don't think you do…

One word. The fifth word. 'we'The 'truth' produced by our interaction, through conceiving, building and launching probes and satellites, with a really-existing external world is a 'social construct'.So, no, it is  not 'all a social construct'. There are three entities. The active social subject interacts with a pre-existing real object to produce knowledge. I keep telling you that the object is not a social construct, but knowledge of it is.You identify object and knowledge as identical entities, and so you can't separate out that 'truth' relates to 'knowledge' and is therefore a 'social construct'. This social construct is produced by asking questions of the object, which really exists.

DJP wrote:

So was the reality that the sun did and did not go round earth during this period?"Reality" is not a social construct (less the parts of it concerning society and humans interactions with nature) and it can neither be observed fully either.

What do you mean by 'reality': the 'object' or 'knowledge'?If you insist that we can 'know' reality without a social process of knowledge production, the ball is in your court to show how we can have this unmediated access to your 'reality' (my 'object').

DJP wrote:

Nobody thinks that science brings the kind of 100% certain knowledge that you claim those that reject your relativism do.

So, you accept that it is not certain that the earth goes round the sun? Or are you 100% certain? How 'certain' was the 17th century, compared with 'certain' now? We must have a historical account of 'science', rather than a 'one-off discovery' viewpoint.

DJP wrote:

So all truths can only be known partially and relatively. Though where I think we differ is that I take this to mean that partial truths are relative to the absolute truth, to nature, reality whatever you want to call it. You see them as being relative to each other only…

Well, since I keep emphasising that 'truth' is relative to 'object', I'm not sure where you get the evidence for the accusation of my arguing that 'truth' is relative to 'truth'.

DJP wrote:

So if you think you can present a cognitivist relativist account of truth and knowledge that doesn't collapse into the contradictions I have mentioned or revert to idealism I would really be grateful to hear it. Till then, less of the melodrama

The only contradiction here, comrade, is your acceptance that 'all truths' are 'relative', but still wanting to use space ships as evidence of 'absolute truth'. Not so much 'melodrama' as 'unreasoning tantrum', I fear![later edit] By the way, the quote proves Dietzgen agrees with the 'subject, object and knowledge interaction' model!

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

OK, I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist.

I'm afraid you have pleaded guilty to the wrong charge. What you stand accused of is "post-modernist revisionism".

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

OK, I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist.

I'm afraid you have pleaded guilty to the wrong charge. What you stand accused of is "post-modernist revisionism".

Ok, it's a fair cop, guv!I plead guilty to counter-revolutionary relativism and post-modernist revisionism.And I'd like one count of 'capitalist-roadster-ism' to be taken into consideration, too.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

OK, I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist.

I'm afraid you have pleaded guilty to the wrong charge. What you stand accused of is "post-modernist revisionism".

Ok, it's a fair cop, guv!I plead guilty to counter-revolutionary relativism and post-modernist revisionism.And I'd like one count of 'capitalist-roadster-ism' to be taken into consideration, too.

Could you all stop this bickering and please get on with it!  I have more than enough distractions and confusion to deal with.  Speculation at this stage on what -isms is appropriate to the contributions by LBird is going to cut short my learning process on this subject.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Could you all stop this bickering and please get on with it!

Please sir, I’m trying to move forward, but ALB and DJP at the back keep distracting me!Right!I’ve suggested that we move onto a more detailed discussion of what we mean by the ‘subject’. The two main contenders are the ‘isolated individual’ and the ‘social individual’.We’ve already had an unwitting example of the view that the ‘isolated individual’ should regarded as the ‘subject’, from the poster Lyla Byrne (refs: posts 17-18, 25-27, 35-36). One of the main beliefs of the ‘isolated individual’ ideology is that merely using the authority ‘I think’, combined with a refusal to give sources of that ‘thinking’, is acceptable. This method assumes that an individual can be outside of ideological influences, and that their ‘opinions’ are rooted in them themselves, rather than related to their society and its ideologies. The other fallback is to cite ‘common sense’ that all individuals just ‘have’, by a mysterious process of induction.The ‘social individual’ ideology, in contrast, locates thought in society, and demands that ‘individuals’ reveal their ideological sources. This, I would argue, is the correct ‘scientific method’. That is, under Communism, our main ideological claim would be that ‘Individuals have a right and duty to defend their opinion to their comrades’, rather than the bourgeois ideological concept that ‘Individuals have a right to their opinion’. Individuals ‘having their opinion’, and holding onto it against all appeals from comrades providing stronger evidence without mounting a defence of their opinion, is unscientific. It’s not good enough to ignorantly say ‘Well, that’s my opinion!’ and sulkingly withdraw to solipsistic isolation, as the bourgeoisie encourage us to do. ‘It’s your individual right to have your own opinion, no matter what the Commies say about arguing – now, get back to the grindstone and work, or I’ll sack you, dickhead!’ The bosses don’t like workers being encouraged to develop the skills to critically argue with ‘common sense’!So, given my completely unbiased exposition of the two choices , what do other posters think about moving onto a discussion of the ‘subject’ as an ‘active social individual’?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I plead guilty to counter-revolutionary relativism and post-modernist revisionism.And I'd like one count of 'capitalist-roadster-ism' to be taken into consideration, too.

But you are guilty neither of being a "counter-revolutionary" nor a "capitalist-roadster", so these charges have never been brought. We all know you are a "free-access communist".Brian, to help you understand the whole debate, have a look at this:http://voices.yahoo.com/7-steps-understanding-characteristics-postmodernism-3730670.html?cat=4

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

I plead guilty to counter-revolutionary relativism and post-modernist revisionism.And I'd like one count of 'capitalist-roadster-ism' to be taken into consideration, too.

But you are guilty neither of being a "counter-revolutionary" nor a "capitalist-roadster", so these charges have never been brought. We all know you are a "free-access communist".Brian, to help you understand the whole debate, have a look at this:http://voices.yahoo.com/7-steps-understanding-characteristics-postmodernism-3730670.html?cat=4

The whole 'post-modernist relativist' accusation, aimed at me, is bollocks!Post-modernism is defined by the ideological concept of the 'isolated individual', as your link shows.I've just posted arguing against that very ideological assumption.Anyone here who wishes to defend the ideology of 'I'm an individual' is closer to post-modernism than me! Bastard postmodernist relativists!

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

The 'truth' produced by our interaction, through conceiving, building and launching probes and satellites, with a really-existing external world is a 'social construct'.

If you are talking about what is "true for" people, i.e what they believe to be true i.e the partial or relative truth then I would agree.Note the difference in meaning from "relative" to "absolute" truth. What people believe to be true is always a partial and relative truth but what really is true is determined by how well the knowledge lines up with the absolute truth or nature and the cosmos. The trouble is we can't absolutely and forever fully grasp this truth, and if we could there would be no need to do science in the first place.

LBird wrote:

You identify object and knowledge as identical entities, and so you can't separate out that 'truth' relates to 'knowledge' and is therefore a 'social construct'. This social construct is produced by asking questions of the object, which really exists.

No, you think I think that. Truth, the absolute truth, which is the kind that we are interested in here since the question I posed to you was "how do you assess the truth of competing claims?"You still have not answered the question

LBird wrote:

What do you mean by 'reality': the 'object' or 'knowledge'?

Both, and more. 'Reality' is everything, including all the contradictory conceptions of it generated in peoples minds.

LBird wrote:

If you insist that we can 'know' reality without a social process of knowledge production, the ball is in your court to show how we can have this unmediated access to your 'reality' (my 'object').

I don't insist that, you're mistaking me for comrade strawman again.

LBird wrote:

So, you accept that it is not certain that the earth goes round the sun? Or are you 100% certain? How 'certain' was the 17th century, compared with 'certain' now? We must have a historical account of 'science', rather than a 'one-off discovery' viewpoint.

We cannot be absolutely certain about anything! Radical skepticism cannot be disproved. The world as it exists now, including all memories and indications of past events, could have been created in an instant 5 minutes ago. This is impossible to disprove. But on the other hand this is no reason for believing it to be true.Or what of the problem of induction? All our knowledge of the world is built upon by inferring from past events. But for all we know the rules of the game that we have inferred from up to this point might suddenly change in the next instant. We are like the chickens that each morning on seeing the farmer come out of the coop expecting to be fed. All well and good until one morning when the farmer appears but this time he is carrying the axe and not the grain bowl.So all I mean is that absolute certainty is something that cannot be gained but given the vast amount of interlocking pieces of evidence that now support the theory that the earth goes round the sun anyone who asserts otherwise is really talking out of their hat.

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

Brian, to help you understand the whole debate, have a look at this:http://voices.yahoo.com/7-steps-understanding-characteristics-postmodernism-3730670.html?cat=4

A lot of this debate is also covered in chapters 7 and 8 of Alan Sokal's "Beyond the Hoax". For what it is worth I'm all in favour of the kind of "modest realism" that is proposed here.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

So all I mean is that absolute certainty is something that cannot be gained but given the vast amount of interlocking pieces of evidence that now support the theory that the earth goes round the sun anyone who asserts otherwise is really talking out of their hat.

[my bold]I agree.Because I take cognisance of the word 'now'.But the 17th century was 'then'.So a similar statement made then:

a different society wrote:

So all I mean is that absolute certainty is something that cannot be gained but given the vast amount of interlocking pieces of evidence that now support the theory that the sun goes round the earth anyone who asserts otherwise is really talking out of their hat.

…was also 'true'.So, unless you are going to argue for 'ahistoric absolute certainty', I think we agree, DJP.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

So all truths are relative in the sense that they are only approximations and the complete knowledge of the whole picture of absolute truths will always remain elusive. Due I presume to the dynamics of change, which is also an absolute, and when considered in conjunction with the multiplicity of the endless factors involved that bring these changes into existence – means in effect – that our understanding of truth is only of a partial and temporary nature?Am I right or am I wrong?

Perhaps one caveat, Brian.Because humans are involved, it is possible that 'knowledge' (scientific truth at one stage of history) has been incorrectly produced. So, the nature of 'approximation' is uncertain.I think it's better to regard 'truth' as a process, rather than a fixed discovery. So, perhaps your term 'partial and temporary' is adequate, as long as 'temporary' can mean 'for millenia only'!Science is a social activity and understanding of it must be rooted in the society that does the activity. Changing a society could have unforseen effects. And as we wish to change society, I think that it's worth discussing the possible effects of that on both 'truth' production and scientific method!

Does this mean you are in agreement with DJP post 316?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Does this mean you are in agreement with DJP post 316?

See my reply to DJP in post 318.

[Author]

Posts