Pannekoek’s theory of science

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

But its philosophical importance is that this position undermines the notion of scientific 'certainty'.

I'm curious to know who you think actually holds this position? Some badly written science textbooks perhaps?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

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?

DJP, I've assumed that up until now that you are a comrade and a Communist, and I've been patiently explaining to you, on that basis.I must say, I don't like the tone of your post, and if you don't desist in taking the piss, and engage in a comradely and constructive fashion, things might well change.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

But its philosophical importance is that this position undermines the notion of scientific 'certainty'.

I'm curious to know who you think actually holds this position? Some badly written science textbooks perhaps?

You apparently 'hold' that it's 'certain' that the earth goes round the sun. So, end your curiosity, look in the mirror, switch on, start reading more widely, pay attention to what I'm writing, and don't look for 'badly written science textbooks', but search closer to home with your 'badly written posts'.Enlightenment might follow.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I must say, I don't like the tone of your post, and if you don't desist in taking the piss, and engage in a comradely and constructive fashion, things might well change.

OK apologies. Let me rephrase. Seeing as you've said that "science is ideology" and "science does not produce truth" on what basis do you hold your acceptance off communism as a possible practicle reality? I.e on what grounds do you justify your ideology. It's an honest question I mean no harm by it.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

You apparently 'hold' that it's 'certain' that the earth goes round the sun. So, end your curiosity, look in the mirror, switch on, start reading more widely, pay attention to what I'm writing, and don't look for 'badly written science textbooks', but search closer to home with your 'badly written posts'.Enlightenment might follow.

Oh dear. Myself and others have repeated stated we do not hold this position yet you keep claiming we do…. If there was someone who is producing books that put forward a "naive realist" viewpoint I thought it would be good to know about it, and if there was you would know…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

OK apologies….  It's an honest question I mean no harm by it.

Right. I accept your apology, and I apologise for flying off the handle. I'm afraid I'm fed up going round in circles, and was starting to assume that you were being entirely destructive of the discussion.

DJP wrote:

Let me rephrase. Seeing as you've said that "science is ideology" and "science does not produce truth" on what basis do you hold your acceptance off communism as a possible practicle reality? I.e on what grounds do you justify your ideology.

The answers to this can only follow an established cognitive method, in my opinion. You're correct to raise this question, and others that you've raised before, but my answers will be based upon my (and your) understanding of the scientific method. Thus, that has to be addressed first.

DJP wrote:

Oh dear. Myself and others have repeated stated we do not hold this position yet you keep claiming we do….

The litmus test of this, though, is my question about the 17th century sun/earth realtionship. To argue that it was 'untrue', because we now know the 'truth', is not possible.The only answer we can give is that "it was 'true' then', but it's 'untrue' now, and in the future we recognise the possibility that it could be 'true', yet again".This argument only makes sense if 'truth' is related to 'knowledge', and thus 'scientific truth' can change – it might be very, very, very, very (ad infinitum) unlikely, but we can't be 'certain'.If 'truth' is related to the 'object' alone, we have 'discovery science', which is produces 'Truths', which are thus eternal.And remember, for the method I have outlined, 'true knowledge' is related in some way to the 'object', it's not simply whatever anyone wants it to be.For the sake of my sanity, if not yours, comrade, if you don't agree with my characterisation of 'knowledge' as a social, and thus fallible, product, please, please, please (ad infinitum) explain how you can be certain that the sun didn't go round the earth, as was thought, in the 17th century.By 'certain', I mean 'scientifically, 100%, copper-bottomed, certain', not just the common sense use of that word.In my opinion, it's not possible to be scientifically certain. And the developments of 20th century science support my position, as the bloody religious authorities are also aware.But this doesn't have to lead to us all facing east, or not eating fish or pork, or any of that religious nonsense. We have to address those issues, because if we don't, the religions will.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

The litmus test of this, though, is my question about the 17th century sun/earth realtionship. To argue that it was 'untrue', because we now know the 'truth', is not possible.The only answer we can give is that "it was 'true' then', but it's 'untrue' now, and in the future we recognise the possibility that it could be 'true', yet again".

OK, we might be getting somewhere now.All you are saying here is that knowledge is that knowledge is uncertain, that's fine.The problem with your answer is that there is never a certain set of knowledge that is accepted by all people at all times. In the 17th century there where people who took either side of the sun / earth orbit. So when you say "it was true that the sun went round the earth in the 17th century" all you are really saying is that "in the 17th century more people thought that the sun went round the earth than thought the opposite", you are only referring to the relative truth.[In fact a poll taken in America in 1999 revealed that 18% of those asked thought that the sun revolved around the earth (3% had no opinion)]We need to have a critior to enable us to evaluate competing claims. This criteria will never give us 100% certainty. So whilst appreciating that we can (probably) never know the absolute truth when faced with two competing claims we should choose the one that offers the most explanatory and predictive power. Through the gradual accumulation of successes and failures the social venture that is science is gradually building up a body of knowledge that does for our practical purposes lead to a very high degree of certainty.BTW Classical physics is not wrong, it has just been shown to be a partial truth (so no surprise there). It still explains the movements of the celestial bodies, it's just that further interrogation of nature suggests that there is another granular level of existence going on..So "Science doesn't produce absolute truth therefore the Koran is equally valid" can be argued against because religious arguments do not hold the same predictive and explanatory power as scientifically arrived at ones.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

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.[…..]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'.

So it appears that the only disagreement between you and the rest of us is whether or not it makes sense to say that it was "true", before 1700, to say that the Sun went round the Earth.I can't understand why you are prepared to go to the stake over this. To deny that this is the case is not to abandon a historical materialist approach to knowledge and scientific understanding. A case can still be made as to why the view that the Sun went round the Earth was adequate for practical purposes up to 1700 (an overwhelmingly agricultural society that just needed to know about the seasons) but not after, as for instance in that SPGB Education & Discussion document from 1980 (to do with the development of capitalism and industry).

Quote:

In the years before Newton's time capitalism had been developing apace; the charter of the Royal Society, to which he belonged, explicitly formulated certain scientific and technical problems for which a solution was urgently required. The large-scale steam engine had just come into service in the mines and a theory of mechanics was essential if its operation was to be understood and refined. How urgent this was Cromwell had disclosed during the Civil War, when in one year he required. 335 new cannon, 1500 guns, 117,000 cannon balls and 5000 hand bombs. War on such a scale required scientific and. technical sophistication. Moreover the application of the empirical arts of war required rationalisation and a theory was needed which would draw together much of the discrete experimentation on ballistics of the recent past, so that efficient warfare might be waged against trading competitors. Likewise with the heavier machinery which was beginning to be used in the weaving industry; the mechanical properties of the wood and metal parts required elucidating if breakages were to be avoided. Add to these the problems of navigation in an era of expanding world trade and you have a set of social and economic roots which sustained interest in the development of the theories in Newton's Principia. Observation and experience alone did not in this case determine the actions of the scientific community; the requirements of the nascent capitalist society must be added to them.

LBird wrote:

how you can be certain that the sun didn't go round the earth, as was thought, in the 17th century.

The answer is that we can be as certain that the Sun didn't go round the Earth before 1700 as we can that it doesn't today; in fact this is an integral part of the current, adequate theory of the solar system which allows us to say  that it is as "certain" as can reasonably be that the Earth has always gone round the Sun. We have ventured here from the field of astronomy to history and I can't see how you can deny that it was a historical "fact" (with all the qualifications that need to be attached to this word) that on 30 January 1649 the Earth went round the Sun just as that on that day Charles I was beheaded. Or are you saying we can't be "certain" of that either? And if we can be certain that Charles I was beheaded that day why can't we be equally certain that the Earth went round the Sunon that day too?You've gone unnecessarily out on a limb here, but it's not too late to climb back.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

So "Science doesn't produce absolute truth therefore the Koran is equally valid" can be argued against because religious arguments do not hold the same predictive and explanatory power as scientifically arrived at ones.

[my bold]This is what I'm trying to explain.If science does not produce 'certain' knowledge (and science already tells us that it doesn't), this lets in the social aspect.Once this is done, it's as 'scientifically valid' to start from the Koran, which will 'explain and predict' from a 'Muslim science' perspective.That's our problem, in a nutshell. We have to find a social basis for 'Communist science'.There are no bald 'scientifically arrived at ones'. That is to posit a socially-neutral method of science. You (and ALB) seem to agree that this doesn't exist, without realising its implications.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

You've gone unnecessarily out on a limb here, but it's not too late to climb back.

No climbing back, I'm afraid. Time to replant the tree.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

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).

I meant to pick you upon this earlier but got distracted. What do you mean by "the democratic control of … religion" in future socialist/communist society? Depending on your reply might even be the subject for a separate thread.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I meant to pick you upon this earlier but got distracted. What do you mean by "the democratic control of … religion" in future socialist/communist society? Depending on your reply might even be the subject for a separate thread.

I wish you'd 'pick me up' on the central issue of this thread, rather than looking for more things to sidetrack us!I simply meant that 'religion' would be got rid of by democratic methods.Let's face it, if anyone thinks that 'religious authority' is going to continue within a Communist society, they've got seriously different ideas to most Communists, I think. But we've got more important things to resolve, now.Like, 'a unified scientific method' and the issue of 'scientific authority'.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I simply meant that 'religion' would be got rid of by democratic methods.

On the face of it, this is a bit worrying, especially as you also said that in future socialist/communist society "ideology" would also be under democratic control.I think we are all agreed that religion will have virtually died out by the time socialism is established, but I'can imagine that a small minority of people might continue to entertain religious views and customs. The way you've put it above could suggest that they will be banned as a result of a democratic vote.  Would that not be "thought control" as would telling (even by a democratic vote) people what "ideology" they should hold?Tell me that this isn't what you meant.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

I simply meant that 'religion' would be got rid of by democratic methods.

On the face of it, this is a bit worrying, especially as you also said that in future socialist/communist society "ideology" would also be under democratic control.I think we are all agreed that religion will have virtually died out by the time socialism is established, but I'can imagine that a small minority of people might continue to entertain religious views and customs. The way you've put it above could suggest that they will be banned as a result of a democratic vote.  Would that not be "thought control" as would telling (even by a democratic vote) people what "ideology" they should hold?Tell me that this isn't what you meant.

I'm not interested in this sidetrack, ALB, following a throwaway, poorly-judged, inconsequential to the main theme, remark of mine. I see this line of questioning as a diversion from the real issue of science, method and cognition.If you want to discuss religion, rather than science, it requires a new thread.

[ALB]

It  wasn't meant as a sidetrack, but did have to be clarified. Glad you didn't mean it literally. Actually, it's not so much religion that I want to discuss as what are the limits to the field of democratic decision-making in a socialist/communist society, i.e what decisions can be left to individual choice and what to be made collectively. I'll post something on this already existing thread:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/what-would-real-democracy-look

[Author]

Posts