Science for Communists?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

We have to find a basis for science which is acceptable to our class, because the basis, built up over 300 hundred years by the bourgeoisie, has dissolved, as even the religious are aware. 

Surely the Matarialist Conception of History and Capital are the basis for a working class science?  We have a non- bourgeois historical analysis and a non-bourgeois economic analysis of capitalism.    

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Surely the Matarialist Conception of History and Capital are the basis for a working class science? We have a non- bourgeois historical analysis and a non-bourgeois economic analysis of capitalism.

OK, reasonable starting position, Vin.So, I ask, how does 'the Materialist Conception of History and Capital' explain how we go about, for example, 'understanding a rock'?I want to reassure you, Vin, that I'm not being 'funny' here, I'm asking a serious question, and I think that you'll be unable to answer it. It would be a reasonable response to say "But the MCoH&C are not meant to 'explain rocks'!", and you'd be right.But that means that the MCoH&C can't provide the basis for a 'unified science' (at least, not in the form most people think of it).I'd argue that the MCoH&C are an example of a deeper theory and method. But, I'll wait for your reply, in case you surprise me.

[Anonymous]

Today's 'science' is 'scientific' because it serves some human interests – capitalist interests – and it is useful to them.   The Materialist Conception of History must also be proven useful to human interests:"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question.   Man must prove truth, i.e., the reality and power, the this-worldliness of his thinking in practice . .' Marxists need not spend their time justifying the Materialist Conception of History to such demagogues as Popper.   Marxism's only appeal is to working class material interests.  Marxism  seeks to convince the world's working class community of the usefulness, and correctness of the Materialist Conception of History.   Marxism seeks to offer the working class a more believable picture of the world in which they live.    Like all 'science' Marxism's ultimate recourse is to the human community.    It is 'scientific' if it becomes acceptedby the working class community, and  working class economic interests.  It is a matter of argument and debate – of convincing people.    In this sense Marxism is an ideology and it aspires to be the ideology of the working class which will allow that class to achieve its aims.   In short, science is a social product. It does not exist independent of society:    it is a subjective construction of human beings  to serve their purpose.   What was scientific yesterday is ridiculed today.   Today's 'cranks' may well be tomorrow's revolutionaries.   This much, at least, history tells us.    It is arrogance and conceit for people like Popper to claim that today's science alone is objective and scientific, while they themselves define what is to be scientific.    As Fredrick Engels wrote in a letter regarding Storkenbury (25 January 1894)"'Science did not fall from the skies', it arises from social interests".   

[LBird]

Well, you haven't really answered my question, Vin.

LBird wrote:

So, I ask, how does 'the Materialist Conception of History and Capital' explain how we go about, for example, 'understanding a rock'?

Much, if not all, of your post I probably agree with.But, it still does not cover the issue of the scientific method concerned with the physical world, which is what I'm asking about. I'm asking this question because I seek to give a grounding to Marx's notion of a 'unified scientific method', and thus that method must be able to cope with both 'rocks' and 'value', for examples.I can't stress enough that this is a genuine question. I don't think that you can answer it, which I don't blame on you, but on the Communist movement (of the last 130 since Marx died) not preparing workers to answer such questions.That is, I regard this 'lack of answer' as a failing, a socio-political failing, of a movement, not the failing of any individual, especially you.I've put some thought into this, to try to wrestle with the issue and to try to come up with a suitable answer. I definitely haven't got a definitive answer, perhaps only the barest outlines of a very tentative one, but I'd like to take everybody forward on this, perhaps only to hear some fatal objection to Marx's notion of a 'unified scientific method', but perhaps to help develop one collectively.To me, Communism is much more than a mere 'economic-political' theory, but is the basis of a whole new way of life for humans on this planet, and so must have answers ready regarding the 'material' world, as much as the 'social' world.

[Anonymous]

My last post and #374 Is a cut and paste from my undergraduate dissertation from 1985! Something jogged my memory and I retrieved it. How natural science and social science can have a unified method? I can only think of Kuhn's analysis. The activity of physical science within the accepted paradigm  is 'puzzle solving' or 'normal science', punctuated by periods of revolutionary upheaval.This cannot be said of the study of econmics and history. With the existence of the MCH & C, there is no accepted paradigm. There are conflicting and mutually exclusive paradigms. In this sence the study of society is not 'scientific' .  It is in a state of 'extraordinary science'The choice of theories is based on reason. Convincing fellow scientist to adopt the new paradigm. There is no objective, independent, scientific rationality to which all can appeal.If the social sciences were to agree on a single paradigm – MCH % C – and reject all others, then it would become 'scientific' and set about the activity of 'puzzel solving' or 'normal science' within that paradigm.If we accept Kuhn's argument then the activity of the SPGB is the way to go. Publish, argue and convince the working class to accept the marxist paradigm. Once the working class (proletarian scientific community) is convinced then we can set about 'normal science' and make some progress.edit: Indeed the whole of the SPGB's case is science for communists based on MCH & C. Join us in making MCH &C 'Normal science'     

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

How natural science and social science can have a unified method? I can only think of Kuhn's analysis.

Yes, I know you employ Kuhn's theories, but even so these do not cover the 'unity of science' issue, anyway, but only 'paradigms' within physics. His whole thesis rests on the transformation from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. For Kuhn, there is successive periods of normal-revolution-normal.I think Lakatos' theory of 'research programmes' is better on this issue. In effect, where Kuhn sees a dominant paradigm emerging and the settling down of physics into a new routine, Lakatos argues that this is not what happens in science. He argues that 'research programmes' work in parallel, together, and compete all the time, whereas Kuhn's paradigms work in series, one after the other, and one triumphs.So, I prefer Lakatos' 'competitve programmes', which seem to me to be far closer to Marx's theories about eternal 'clashes' of ideas, as opposed to Kuhn's conservative theory of eventual single paradigm, and long period of stability.So, I don't look to Kuhn for a lead, on these issues, but Lakatos.But, this still does not address my question about a suitable method for understanding both rocks and value.I'll have to return to this, perhaps tomorrow, if you (and anybody else) are interested in developing further an approach to a 'unified scientific method', that Marx believed possible.

[LBird]

Both Kuhn and Lakatos argue that science works within frameworks of ideas, and that the results of scientific investigation only make sense when related to those ideas. They both base their theories upon what scientists actually do, rather than what scientists say that they do. This is one of the fundamental fruits of scientific investigation, that is, the  study of ‘human scientific activity in a society’, by philosophers during the 20th century: we now know that scientists are the last people to ask, and listen to, when we want to know ‘what science is’ and ‘how does science work’. In effect, physicists had been fooling both us and themselves, since Newton. Rovelli’s quote about this realisation dawning on some physicists, like himself, backs this up. This is the historical context of why 19th century thinkers, who slavishly followed ‘science’ as a model for gaining ‘true’ knowledge, have lead us up the garden path: this includes, unfortunately, Engels, and those worshippers of ‘elite, expert’ science, today.One of the concepts that Lakatos introduced, and which contrasts with Kuhn, is the notion of a ‘hard core’ within any ‘research programme’. By this, he meant a ‘central core’ of ideas which are not falsifiable by experience. This, of course, goes entirely against the grain of the ideology of bourgeois science, which insists that ‘individual sense experience’ is at the core of science.For us, this means that some vague notion of the ‘material’ world telling us what it is, and that the ‘material’ precedes human ideas, is shown to be methodological wrong. The most advanced bourgeois philosophers of science have, since the 1960s/70s, finally let the cat out of the ‘scientific methodology’ bag: ideas precede practice, and practice can’t necessarily falsify ideas (it can some, but not others). This is merely a restatement of the position of Marx from the 1840s: that ‘theory and practice’ is the basis of the scientific method, not simple ‘practice’ (or passive observation), or ‘theory emerging from practice’ (by induction from the ‘objective facts’), but  a method of ‘theory (first) and practice (second)'. This is not ‘practice and theory’, which I’ve heard some comrades argue, that neither theory nor practice have priority, but can be mixed and matched. That is methodologically incorrect.I intend to go on to discuss what our ‘hard core’ should consist of, that is, what ‘ideas’ should precede our scientific investigations of the physical and social world. I’ll proceed if no-one objects to what I’ve argued so far; but if comrades are still unsure, I’ll provide some quotes to back up my assertions. I’m aware I’m making some big jumps, but given the context (internet discussion with limited post size), I’m presuming some familiarity with some of these ideas about bourgeois philosophy of science. If anyone isn’t familiar at all, and want some further explanation of what I’ve said in this post, or simply want to challenge it, please go ahead. Of course, if challenged about my ideology of science, I’ll ask for the ideological basis of the challenge, in turn. Please accept that my efforts are directed to giving comrades some familiarity with these issues, and that there is no substitute, eventually, for reading more widely and at length. I want to generate some enthusiasm and curiosity about ‘science’ and its political dimensions, rather than dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. I think that this discussion is of fundamental importance for every Communist, given the tremendous (unchallengable?) authority of ‘science’ in helping to legitimatise bourgeois rule.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

But I do rule out 'ideology-free' physics, as I keep saying, because, according to bourgeois science, it's part of the human condition. All societies employ ideas to understand the world. Science employs ideas to understand the world. Humans employ ideas to understand the world. THERE IS NO IDEOLOGY-FREE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING

No need to shout. I know what your basic position is. You've missed the point I was trying to make. I was starting from your basic position that "there is no ideology-free human understanding" and asking whether, in some of the physical sciences, it was not possible for the ideology involved to be one that was shared by everyone irrespective of class.So I was talking not  about an "ideology free physics' but about a 'class ideology free physics'. In other words, assuming agreeiment with you that there is such a thing as bourgeois and proletarian economics, history, sociology, etc bur raising the possibility of at least some "class-free" science. You might not agree with this position (you probably won't) but at least it would shift the argument away from being over the basic premises to their application.Personally, I'm convinced (in fact I already held this view) that there is a bourgeois and a proletarian economics, but not that there is a bourgeois and proletarian astronomy. Try to convince me that there is but showing me where the two types of astronomy differ.

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Anyway, my main point is that you are unfair and in fact insulting (hence some of the acrimony shown to you)

Here we go, the Stalinist-like rewriting of history. Just like any other so-called "workers' party".I keep explaining things, in great detail, in as simple terms as possible, trying to help others with very complex issues, and keep getting personally attacked for it.So, having BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY AND INSULTINGLY, I proceed to THEN SHOW ACRIMONY.

You've gor me wrong again. It wasn't you I was saying was being acrimonious but some of your critics.  Read what I wrote again. And  you've just done it again — unfairly insulting us (and me) by calling us Stalinists. A change, I agree from your usual insult of Leninist but still not very helpful.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

So I was talking not about an "ideology free physics' but about a 'class ideology free physics'. In other words, assuming agreeiment with you that there is such a thing as bourgeois and proletarian economics, history, sociology, etc bur raising the possibility of at least some "class-free" science. You might not agree with this position (you probably won't) but at least it would shift the argument away from being over the basic premises to their application.Personally, I'm convinced (in fact I already held this view) that there is a bourgeois and a proletarian economics, but not that there is a bourgeois and proletarian astronomy. Try to convince me that there is but showing me where the two types of astronomy differ.

ALB, you're jumping the gun, just a little bit.This thread is about 'science and Communism', as a part of which I want to try to establish whether Marx is right to argue for a 'unified scientific method', ie. a method that applies to all science, not just the bourgeois belief in 'physics as model method', which all other sciences must follow.So, your 'method' here is to ignore, and not openly examine, the ideological basis of 'astronomy', and assume, up front, that 'astronomy' from the perspective of the proletariat is identical to 'astronomy' from the perspective of the bourgeoisie. Note: no scientific examination, just assumption.So, if this is your attempt to discuss 'scientific method', and offer yours as a model for all sciences, it follows that when we move to economics or sociology or politics, we must start with the assumption that, if the bourgeoisie have already done it, it must be correct, because they are sciences, too, and the bourgeoisie have a neutral method for determining truth.Thus, your method leads to us following the bourgeoisie,rather than criticising it.I prefer a scientific method that openly examines 'theory' first, and then puts it into practice, and then votes on the results to see whether they are considered 'socially true' or not.Using this unified method, it is up to the proletariat to decide, after scientific investigation, whether any 'science' produced by the bourgeoisie is 'true' for us, too. Perhaps it will be, in some areas of science, perhaps it won't be, in other areas of science.But, we will have employed a 'unified method', which Marx thought possible, and I do, too.You, in contrast, as I've already pointed out, follow the bourgeois ideology of the separation of science (eg. physics) and arts (eg. sociology), and assume the former is 'proper science and eternally true', and don't apply this assumption to 'functionalist sociology'. Thus, your method is not unified.Furthermore, 'personally' you're 'convinced'. Since when has individual opinion been the basis of science?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Anyway, my main point is that you are unfair and in fact insulting (hence some of the acrimony shown to you)

Here we go, the Stalinist-like rewriting of history. Just like any other so-called "workers' party".I keep explaining things, in great detail, in as simple terms as possible, trying to help others with very complex issues, and keep getting personally attacked for it.So, having BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY AND INSULTINGLY, I proceed to THEN SHOW ACRIMONY.

You've gor me wrong again. It wasn't you I was saying was being acrimonious but some of your critics.  Read what I wrote again. And  you've just done it again — unfairly insulting us (and me) by calling us Stalinists. A change, I agree from your usual insult of Leninist but still not very helpful.

[my bolds]I can read 'what you wrote'.You wrote 'you are unfair'.Then I wrote 'I was treated unfairly first'.But your 'main point', implying 'unfairness' originated with me, wasn't the truth, was it?In fact, I if may ask you to follow your own advice 'and read what you wrote', you'll see that you order the events as 'my unfairness, followed by SPGB arcrimony', whereas the true order of events was 'SPGB unfairness, followed by my acrimony'.Perhaps 'Leninism and Stalinism' are incorrect: perhaps it's just simple illiteracy.I though that we might have moved on from 'tit-for-tat', and simply deal with the meat of this discussion, but I thought wrong, eh?After all, I'm not demanding that the SPGB confess their sins and repent, before I engage with it, so why should I have to listen to its attempt to wriggle out of its misdemeanours, by blaming me  for 'unfairness'?Either get on with discussing what I'm writing about the philosophy of science, or just leave the thread to die. I'll soon get the message if there are no replies after a few posts.

[ALB]

Like you it appears I have to repeat myself. This is not a case of you v SPGB but of you v certains other socialists, some SPGB members, some not.Quite prepared to carry on without the insults and acrimony if you'll comment on what I said about the possibility of a "class ideology free" astronomy even under capitalism and explainwhat  the differences are or would be between a bourgeois and a proletarian astronomy.Incidentally there is someone from Zeitgeist on the Zeitgeist thread who is actually arguing the position you have sometimes attributed to us of leaving scientists to decide everything:

SB_UK wrote:

Now what's wrong with doing it by elections ie the standard way ?Well – there's no alternative to global equality.There may be some decisions to be made – but they'll all be technical and can be sorted by techno-types pre-calibrated to select the best possible solution.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I prefer a scientific method that openly examines 'theory' first, and then puts it into practice, and then votes on the results to see whether they are considered 'socially true' or not.Furthermore, 'personally' you're 'convinced'. Since when has individual opinion been the basis of science?

Lbird  Why is ALB 'individualist' and boureois  when he is 'personally' convinced but you aren't when you personally 'prefer'I emphasise this is a serious question of clarification.Also, would a proletarian scientific method be an uncontestable paradigm, once established. and  will all alternative methods be rejected as 'boureois'Again this is a serious request for clarification.I ask out of genuin confusion at the way you present your position. 

[Young Master Smeet]

1) I simply note where I mentioned the etymological meaning of "truth" as "loyal", thus truth is simply a denotative statement loyal/correct/corresponding with the observable data.  I have also said that all denotative utterances are performative (and contested/contestable).2) Rocks cannot speak, but there is much we cannot say about them, even in their muteness.  We cannot say they do not have density, mass or three dimensions.  If a rock is grey, we cannot say that it is yellow.  We can refine that colour denotation by instead of saying "grey" saying that the rock reflects light waves of XX herz.  Once measured, we cannot say that the rock has a resistance of X if the measurements say Y. Yes, density, mass and dimensions are concepts, but they are concepts that have been debated, defined and refined through an endless process of speech acts.  The rules of the language game of science are stricter than the language game of an argument down the pub.3) Socialism is not an ideology.  The idea that ideology is the one true universal truth (which seems to be the premise of Lbirds position) is itself an ideological act.  By this idea ideology stops being the means by which the ruling class ideas are dominant (note, not only and not uncontested) ideas and becomes an inhrent trait of human society.  This was a popular dodge by Leninists, such as Althusser, as it justified dictatorship to giude the unconscious masses who could not free themselves from ideology (some of them ended up returning to Heelian idealism since history becomes the history of ideology, not lived human exprience).  If we think of ideology as the process by which we mis-recognise ourselves, or dissociate ourselves from our lived experience, then it's opposite is when our conscious being is in accord with our livde experience, i.e. our consciousness is true to our lived experience.4) The religious are much more likely to win any scientific votes.More entertaining post later.

[Anonymous]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

3) Socialism is not an ideology. 4) The religious are much more likely to win any scientific votes.

 3) I would say it depends on context and definition4) A terrifying thought  

[Young Master Smeet]

Oh, quick post on social production of knowledge.  This podcast from The bbc is useful: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/maths/maths_20100929-2330a.mp3

Quote:

06 The Mathematicians who helped EinsteinWed, 29 Sep 10Duration:14 mins Seeing in four dimensions. Professor Marcus du Sautoy on the pioneers who pushed mathematics into new dimensions and the strange new geometries they created. Emeritus Professor Roger Penrose confirms that even Einstein sometimes struggled with his maths.

  As it notes, Gauss Riemann and several others thought of Non-euclidean geometry at the same time, and without their maths (their concepts) Einstein could not and modelled relativity.

[Author]

Posts