Pannekoek’s theory of science

[ALB]

I know this is turning round in circles (but it's better than ploughing through the crap from that racist on another thread), but I don't think your justification for saying that before 1700 it was "true" to say that the Sun moved round the Earth holds water. One consequence of this approach would be that we would have to say that, before the first humans evolved, nothing was "true", that the Earth and Sun didn't even exist (I know that both the "Earth" and the "Sun" are intellectual constructs out of the passing world of observable phenomena and don't exist independently of it and that at the time there was no one to so construct them, but still).In any event, part of the current theory that the Earth moves round the Sun is that it has done so ever since the solar system came into existence. So it was "true" before 1700 and it was "true" before humans evolved. So, before 1700, it was not "true" that Sun moved round the Earth and it is a mistake to say that it was.Far more logical to take Brian's misunderstanding of your position and say that before 1700 it was believed to be "true" that the Sun moved round the Earth.This is not to adopt a position of "ahistorical absolute certainty" since if later the current theory should prove to be inadequate then people who have to say that since 1700 it was believed that it was true but now we know it wasn't.If having to say that it was once "true" that the Sun moved round the Earth (or that the ether existed or even that gods existed) is a consequence of the theory of knowledge propounded by Dietzgen and Pannekoek then that theory would be fatally flawed, repudiated by the method of reductio ad absurdum.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Far more logical to take Brian's misunderstanding of your position and say that before 1700 it was believed to be "true" that the Sun moved round the Earth.

This is entirely reasonable, as long as we now say that in 2013 it is believed to be 'true' that the Earth moves round the Sun.So, the earth/sun relationship is related to the society that produces that knowledge. We then have a social and historical account of the sun/earth relationship, and ditch the 'discovery science' which claims to 'really know' the absolute, once and for all.'True' either relates to the 'object', or it relates to 'knowledge'.If you have a method that gives 'objective truth', please tell us what it is.At least I'm trying to describe how science actually works – you and DJP just seem to be claiming that what I'm saying 'can't be correct', without any attempt to describe an alternative method.

Quote:

So, before 1700, it was not "true" that Sun moved round the Earth and it is a mistake to say that it was.

But we can only say this now, which is the point. Then, it was 'true'.'Truth' relates to socially produced knowledge. We have to have a historical account of science, and not see it as a method of 'discovery', which then ends.

[LBird]

Some further info, and another book, as food for thought for comrades, especially if they think my sun/earth views are radical:

Rovelli, The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy, wrote:

This reading of scientific thinking as subversive, visionary, and evolutionary is quite different from the way science was understood by the positivist philosophers… (p. xii)Facile nineteenth-century certainties about science— in particular the glorification of science understood as definitive knowledge of the world—have collapsed. One of the forces responsible for their dismissal has been the twentieth-century revolution in physics, which led to the discovery that Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong, in a precise sense. Much of the subsequent philosophy of science can be read as an attempt to come to grips with this disillusionment. What is scientific knowledge if it can be wrong even when it is extremely effective? (p. xv)But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

[my bold]http://www.amazon.com/The-First-Scientist-Anaximander-Legacy/dp/1594161313

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Rovelli wrote:

 Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong,

So what makes it false? The fact that people don't believe that it is true?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Rovelli wrote:

 Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong,

So what makes it false? The fact that people don't believe that it is true?

You really have to start reading things in their full context, DJP.In fact, the answer to your question is in the third extract above, from Rovelli's introduction:

Rovelli wrote:

But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

A historical, and therefore social, approach to the issue of 'what is the scientific method?'.If you have a method that tells you that Newtonian physics is eternally TRUE, rather than a human social construct based upon our interaction with the external, really-existing, world (and therefore can be explained historically), please describe your method.Pannekoek, as we have seen (numerous times so I won't quote him yet again), agrees with this socio-historical approach, as does Marx. It's called Historical Materialism, not 'Discovered once and for all, and done with!'.If you don't agree that Historical Materialism does this or, more profoundly, that it doesn't apply at all to the method of science, say so.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Rovelli wrote:

But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

But what is it about a theory that makes it the "best we have now"?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Rovelli wrote:

But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

But what is it about a theory that makes it the "best we have now"?

That's precisely what I'm trying to get onto, comrade!But whilst there is any retention of an outdated belief in a 19th century scientific method that supposedly produces 'The Truth', an unmediated account of 'Reality', the eternal, objective truth, we can't go forward.I've tried to show that, according to science itself (Einstein, etc.) and philosophers of science (Marx, Pannekoek, Kuhn, Lakatos, Schaff) and commentators (Marks, Rovelli), this view cannot stand. Science is a social, and thus historical, activity done by humans, with all the difficulties that that implies.I should add that no-one is trying to 'destroy' science, and I'm not a 'relativist' (at least, not in the postmodernism sense of 'there is no truth', 'it's all down to the individual's own view'). But we have to address what science has taught us during the 20th century, and take this scientific knowledge forward.It's my opinion that this opens up an opportunity for Communists to clarify just what 'science' is, and to attract scientists to our ideas about free-access communism, both because we are scientific in our method, and because only Communism can provide the resources to take humanity forward, both in the 'socio-economic' and 'scientific curiosity' senses.This might be a difficult process, and it may involve jettisoning some dearly held 'beliefs' about 'science' and the form of 'knowledge' it produces, but, in my opinion, it will be worth the struggle in the end.Lastly, it seems that you, ALB and Brian have already taken the most difficult steps, with your acceptance of most of what we've discussed about object and knowledge, but the final step is to let go of 'science as certainty'. But… it's a scary act…Saying that we are not 100%, cast-iron guaranteed, certain that the earth goes round the sun, can be replaced by 'But, we are 99.999 recurring certain!'It's the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% bit of doubt that will allow us to unify the method.Then, it just becomes a matter of determining socially what we consider the percentage of doubt to be in all disciplines.But, we now know that 'doubt is eternal'! It's a position that undermines authority, and calls for participation by all humans, and allows us to argue for democratic decision-making within the wide range of human activity called 'the sciences'.Let's take our discussion forward, onto the issue of the nature of the 'subject'. All 'individuals', expert 'individuals' only, or each 'society'? That is, postmodernism, elitism, or communism?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

it seems that you, ALB and Brian have already taken the most difficult steps, with your acceptance of most of what we've discussed about object and knowledge, but the final step is to let go of 'science as certainty'.

How many times do we have to say that we do not subscribe to the the "science as absolute  certainty" or "science as discovery of reality as it is"  theories?And, how many times do we have to ask you to state what you consider to be the rules for deciding when a theory can be said to be accurate/adequate/truthful/even 99% certain?I suspect that your reluctance to do this is due to the fact that it won't be very different from ours (accuracy of prediction of the future course of phenomena), but we'll see (perhaps).In any event, what do think of this article on the various theories of truth (and in particular how would you refute the theory attributed to William James):http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/theories-of-truth.html

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

How many times do we have to say that we do not subscribe to the the "science as absolute certainty" or "science as discovery of reality as it is" theories?

[my bold]Say once, just once, that 'we are not certain' that the earth goes round the sun, and we're there!Then, we can start to address some of the other issues, which you and other posters have reasonably raised, with a discussion of the 'social subject' (unless someone wants to argue for 'individual' or 'elite' subject).[ps. will read your link later]

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

How many times do we have to say that we do not subscribe to the the "science as absolute certainty" or "science as discovery of reality as it is" theories?

[my bold]Say once, just once, that 'we are not certain' that the earth goes round the sun, and we're there!Then, we can start to address some of the other issues, which you and other posters have reasonably raised, with a discussion of the 'social subject' (unless someone wants to argue for 'individual' or 'elite' subject).[ps. will read your link later]

Hold on please.  There's a difference between accepting  the absolute of the earth going round the sun and accepting the whole field of science as an absolute.  Science is in a state of flux and always will be which is itself an absolute and also a certainty, however there are some fields of scientific discovery which we would accept has an absolute and a certainty. 

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Hold on please. There's a difference between accepting the absolute of the earth going round the sun and accepting the whole field of science as an absolute. Science is in a state of flux and always will be which is itself an absolute and also a certainty, however there are some fields of scientific discovery which we would accept has an absolute and a certainty.

[my bold]'We'?I wouldn't accept this, for one, and I don't think Pannekoek would either, given his now 'famous' quote!Could you describe the method used by those 'scientists' who produce 'absolute and certain' 'knowledge', please, Brian?[ps. hint: you're still using the 'discovery' method, which Pannekoek warns us against]

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Say once, just once, that 'we are not certain' that the earth goes round the sun

As the creationist said to the evolutionist: admit that you are not certain that the theory of evolution is right …. so that creationism can be taught as an equal possibility. See this from an Islamic scholar (a contradiction in terms, I know):http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/has-evolution-been-misunderstood-revelation-science-and-certainty/Here's his opening gambit:

Quote:

Over the past few decades there has been a growing discourse on science, evolution and its compatibility with Divine revelation. This discourse can be summarised in the following way: the theory of evolution has been established as a scientific fact therefore a believer in a particular revealed text, such as the Qur’an, must reconcile evolution with their holy book. If there is no hope for reconciliation there are three main outcomes: the religious text is discarded, evolution is renounced, or a hope for a better understanding of the religious text and evolution in the future. However, in this growing discussion there is a hidden premise. This premise is that science produces certainty, evolution is fact and science is the only way to establish or verify truth claims. This premise is assumed in the popular discussion amongst many religious people, popular scientists and even the media, and by not bringing this premise to the forefront of the debate many Muslims (and fellow theists) have been left confused and disheartened.It is not the scope of this article to enter into a discussion concerning the various approaches taken by scholars and thinkers to reconcile evolution with revelation. What will be discussed is what can be described as a foundational approach to the discussion or what is sometimes referred to as an epistemic approach. We believe that this approach exposes the false assumption that the theory of evolution is a fact, or is certain. Therefore, the need for reconciliation is not entirely necessary. By understanding the scientific method and the philosophy of science, and applying the concepts and principles to evolution, it will be evident that it is not a fact, and thus does not reach the level of certainty. This is also true for many of the intellectual outputs of science[emphasis added].

You're on dangerous ground here. I  suggest a hasty retreat on your part might be advisable.But to deal with your question, I'd say that the theory that the Earth goes round the Sun is very much more "certain", than its opposite (because of its explanatory and predictive power) just as the theory of evolution through natural selection is very much more certain than divine creation. In other words, while science doesn't (can't and doesn't seek to) produce absolute certainty it can produce an acceptable degree, even a very high degree, of "certainty", for all practical purposes.PS Nearly forgot to ask: Would you say that the theory of evolution is more "certain" than that of divine cfreation? If so, why?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But to deal with your question, I'd say that the theory that the Earth goes round the Sun is very much more "certain", than its opposite (because of its explanatory and predictive power) just as the theory of evolution through natural selection is very much more certain than divine creation. In other words, while science doesn't (can't and doesn't seek to) produce absolute certainty it can produce an acceptable degree, even a very high degree, of "certainty", for all practical purposes.

Well, I agree with this.But its philosophical importance is that this position undermines the notion of scientific 'certainty'.Thus, methodologically, we can see that physics is no different from, say, sociology.This prevents the bourgeois argument that when Communists use sociology to understand the world (including 'science') they are not using 'real' science (which is always claimed to be 'physics', which, in contrast to the mere 'OPINION' of sociology, is held to use a method which produces real 'TRUTH').I've said all along that my purpose with pursuing this line of argument is to provide a unified basis for the sciences – and to me, this includes physics to sociology (and all disciplines inbetween).If we don't do this, any attempt to argue that communists employ the scientific method to analyse and understand society (and its activities like science) is always conter-acted by the argument that 'sociology' (or history) isn't 'really' scientific, because 'science' produces the truth, blah, blah, blah…To finish, your words above, in effect if not in form, agree that it is possible to regard the 'sun going round the earth thesis' of the 17th century as 'true', in its time. This is an argument about 'knowledge' and its historical and social production, not an argument about 'what's most likely'.A second finally – if we accept the common sense belief in science as producing 'truth', why not accept the common sense belief in the market as producing 'free choice'? I always think that it's easier for Communists to come to understand the difficulty and importance of taking this step, because they've already done a similar thing when ideologically ditching capitalism for communism.At root, this is an ideological argument about power in society – who controls 'science'?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Say once, just once, that 'we are not certain' that the earth goes round the sun

As the creationist said to the evolutionist: admit that you are not certain that the theory of evolution is right …. so that creationism can be taught as an equal possibility. See this from an Islamic scholar (a contradiction in terms, I know):http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/has-evolution-been-misunderstood-revelation-science-and-certainty/Here's his opening gambit:

Quote:

Over the past few decades there has been a growing discourse on science, evolution and its compatibility with Divine revelation. This discourse can be summarised in the following way: the theory of evolution has been established as a scientific fact therefore a believer in a particular revealed text, such as the Qur’an, must reconcile evolution with their holy book. If there is no hope for reconciliation there are three main outcomes: the religious text is discarded, evolution is renounced, or a hope for a better understanding of the religious text and evolution in the future. However, in this growing discussion there is a hidden premise. This premise is that science produces certainty, evolution is fact and science is the only way to establish or verify truth claims. This premise is assumed in the popular discussion amongst many religious people, popular scientists and even the media, and by not bringing this premise to the forefront of the debate many Muslims (and fellow theists) have been left confused and disheartened.It is not the scope of this article to enter into a discussion concerning the various approaches taken by scholars and thinkers to reconcile evolution with revelation. What will be discussed is what can be described as a foundational approach to the discussion or what is sometimes referred to as an epistemic approach. We believe that this approach exposes the false assumption that the theory of evolution is a fact, or is certain. Therefore, the need for reconciliation is not entirely necessary. By understanding the scientific method and the philosophy of science, and applying the concepts and principles to evolution, it will be evident that it is not a fact, and thus does not reach the level of certainty. This is also true for many of the intellectual outputs of science[emphasis added].

You're on dangerous ground here. I  suggest a hasty retreat on your part might be advisable.

Look, the Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc., etc., can all understand the developments of science during the 20th century. And it opens up a gap for them to take advantage of.But it's no defence for us Communists to stick our collective heads in the sand and ignore those developments. We have to build a defensible science which is impregnable to their attacks. That 'defence' is not 'science produces the truth'. We, and they, now know that it doesn't. The cat's out of the bag.Our defence of science must rest upon Communist foundations, including the democratic control of all aspects of our future society: economy, polity, science… and ideology (including religion).That's the one thing that neither bourgeois atheists nor religious scholars (of any faith) can accept. But its a certain foundation for science. If we believe that humans can collective control the economy, and there will be an end to private property, we must believe that humans have the capacity to collectively control their science.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

If we believe that humans can collective control the economy, and there will be an end to private property, we must believe that humans have the capacity to collectively control their science.

But why do YOU believe those thing are possible? On what basis? Did Allah tell you? Or you just felt it to be true?

[Author]

Posts