Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Of course I think Newton and anybody else can be "wrong". But what do we mean by being "wrong" or "right"?
LBird wrote:[PS, comrade, how about moving on to discussing Critical Realism, and its usefulness (or otherwise) for the proletariat when discussing scientific method?]OK, what is the "reality" that the "realism" in the name is referring to?
Can we move the discussion on to Critical Realism (as outlined in my earlier post), please comrades. I don't think there is anything to be gained by going over ground already covered, and for which I've provided answers, and about which I've asked questions that have been ignored. Let's leave it behind us, and make progress.I'd like this thread to proceed to see if we can find a 'unified method' for all the sciences, which I believe Marx thought possible, and I believe that many bourgeois (in the sense of 'not Communist') thinkers have already pointed the way.Is my explanation of CR sufficient for it to be taken forward, or would comrades like a few more examples, first?
LBirdI have had some thoughts on aspects of the scientific method you talk of.Have I got this right?The natural and physical sciences need to adopt a scientific method involving competing theoretical perspectives, paradigms or research programs (whatever the proletariate settle on) instead of a single dominant theory. Indeed as the socialisl sciences do today?
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:[PS, comrade, how about moving on to discussing Critical Realism, and its usefulness (or otherwise) for the proletariat when discussing scientific method?]OK, what is the "reality" that the "realism" in the name is referring to?
Since, logically, in the method of 'theory and practice', we have to address first our 'theory' behind our attempts to identify "what is reality", we need to discuss human theory first, rather than external reality.This must be true, unless one has access to a method which allows reality to 'speak for itself'.Do you want us to allow 'reality to speak for itself'?Can you please say whether you a) understand my outline of CR; and b) whether you agree with it?If you either don't understand or don't agree, we can discuss it further.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBirdI have had some thoughts on aspects of the scientific method you talk of.Have I got this right?The natural and physical sciences need to adopt a scientific method involving competing theoretical perspectives, paradigms or research programs (whatever the proletariate settle on) instead of a single dominant theory. Indeed as the socialisl sciences do today?That's OK as far as it goes, Vin.But, to accept that as a method, science must assume that 'truth' is dependent upon human 'theory', rather than that 'reality talks to us, and tells us what it is'.This is a fundamentally critical approach to all science, and I think it is suitable for the democratic proletariat, in its attempts to build for a future Communism.In effect, the method says "Bollocks" to the Leninist notion of a 'special consciousness' that the party can have, but workers can't. That is its political importance at present. Later, once Leninism has been 'seen off' as an option for our class, its importance will be in its challenge to bourgeois authority (in politics, economics, and physics, to name a few).What do you think of my outline of CR, Vin?
LBird wrote:we need to discuss human theory first, rather than external reality.Unless you presume telepathy how is another's theory not also a part of external reality?
Some may find the Wikipedia article useful:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism_%28philosophy_of_the_social_sciences%29(although that suggests that Alex Callinicos adheres to theory, which suggests to me that it is not Leninist-proof). I assume this is the intended theory not:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism_%28philosophy_of_perception%29Whilst I can see the value of looking at the deep process logic (much like Value theory itself, as Value does not exist in any physical form, and yet is present as an emergent property of the logic of the production process), in practical terms, for most scientists, I doubt this changes the day job. As indicated above, this is about refining the systematic part of the scientific process, and where the hypotheses come from. Which is anotehr way of saying that we're heading back to some notion of essence and Plato's cave.Or, Hegel's famous "What is actual is rational, what is rational is actual". I believe there is a slight punning on tha "act" of "actual". This may be the route Bhaskar took back towards some spirituality (if the Wikipedia page is correct on that point).I assume we're not discussing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_critical_realismbut I do wonder if this is one of those philosophical paths that winds its way to Hegel waiting with his arms folded. After all, Callinicos, IIRC, is influenced by Althusser and that strand of Marxism, which AFAICS is heading back towards idealism, where Ideology becomes the evolving world spirit.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:we need to discuss human theory first, rather than external reality.Unless you presume telepathy how is another's theory not also a part of external reality?
If ALB, Vin and YMS have managed to move to a reasonable tone, and actually ask meaningful questions, and supply further details, how come you've remained in the 'sneering' mode?Do you have a personal problem, which prevents you thinking critically and responding decently, of which I'm not aware?Do us all a favour, and buck your ideas up.Or, god forbid, reveal your own ideology, which I already know that you won't.
LBird wrote:If ALB, Vin and YMS have managed to move to a reasonable tone, and actually ask meaningful questions, and supply further details, how come you've remained in the 'sneering' mode?I fail to see what is unreasonable about asking a question after someone has made a statement.The last few questions I have asked are pretty simple and if you have a robust theory should be easily answered..We're just discussing abstract ideas, there's no need to take it personally…
I certainly first came across Lakatos in Callinicos' book 'Marxism and philosophy', when I was still baffled by these issues and a SWP member! A long time ago, regarding both!
YMS wrote:…in practical terms, for most scientists, I doubt this changes the day job.Is that an approach that you'd take to discussing Capital and value? Surely this is a philosophical discussion, to help us to understand the process of science?And it's already been pointed out, by Kuhn and Lakatos not least, that scientists actually don't even know what they are doing, so they're the last ones to look to for 'practical' answers!What do you think of my outline of CR, YMS? Do you agree with it, or not? Both in the sense of my explanation, and in the sense of it as a theory?
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:If ALB, Vin and YMS have managed to move to a reasonable tone, and actually ask meaningful questions, and supply further details, how come you've remained in the 'sneering' mode?I fail to see what is unreasonable about asking a question after someone has made a statement.The last few questions I have asked are pretty simple and if you have a robust theory should be easily answered..We're just discussing abstract ideas, there's no need to take it personally…
[reluctantly] What do you think about my outline of CR, DJP?
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:…in practical terms, for most scientists, I doubt this changes the day job.Is that an approach that you'd take to discussing Capital and value? Surely this is a philosophical discussion, to help us to understand the process of science?
Well, certainly Capital has nothing to say about how to build a house, or even plan an economy, and we don't need to have read Capital to be a socialist or build socialism. The difference is that the information Capital gives us gives us the impetus to abolish the relations it describes whilst, AFAICS, the CR model is a refinement (or reinterpretation) of existing practice that would leave nothing changed. We're not going to abolish investigation of nature and the unknown.I've already stated my general concerns about CR, from your precis and what I read on Wikipedia. It sounds like an adaptation to the information age, and reminded me a lot of Facet Analysishttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457312001203and Entity Analysishttp://www.martymodell.com/dadmc/dadmc13.htmlSo, maybe there is some value in the approach in terms of organising information and data for research.
LBird wrote:[reluctantly] What do you think about my outline of CR, DJP?Is that a description of CR in post 398?You're just explaining emergent properties and levels of abstraction / explanation, I don't think that's exclusive to CR.I don't think speed is a good example of an emergent property. Speed isn't an emergent property, it's what could be refered to as a primary property. The traffic jam example is much better.I thought CR (at least of the kind you where talking about) is an attempt to gel together cognitive relativism with scientific realism?
LBird wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:The natural and physical sciences need to adopt a scientific method involving competing theoretical perspectives, paradigms or research programs (whatever the proletariate settle on) instead of a single dominant theory. Indeed as the socialisl sciences do today?That's OK as far as it goes, Vin.What do you think of my outline of CR, Vin?
With regard to your outline CR I am still not reached that point yet.Are you that impressed with the basic method of the social sciences and their competing theories that you wish to apply the same method to the relatively successful natural sciences?Medical science has helped us to understand and cure some diseases for example, but what has social science achieved? Its competing theories cannot come to an agreement on the causes of crime, hunger, poverty, mental illness etc.I believe that marxist science does not involve applying the methods of the present capitalist non-science of society to the natural sciences but on the contrary it invloves applying the methods of the natural sciences to the social sciences.Follow the natural sciences and adopt an agreed paradigm, research program or whatever and enter normal puzzle solving science: understand and cure social ills just as the medical profession understands and cures disease.This is the starting point of a unified science for the working class.The capitalists benefit from the science of the natural sciences but they would not benefit from a science of the social sciences: Competing theoretical perspectives suites them fine thank you.The capitalist class seeks success in the natural sciences but they do not seek success in the social sciences. it is in their interests that the study of society does not turn to science because that would involve Marx, the MCH and Capital.This is not to deny that natural and physical sciences could not be advanced.
YMS wrote:AFAICS, the CR model is a refinement (or reinterpretation) of existing practice that would leave nothing changed. We're not going to abolish investigation of nature and the unknown.Your comment, about 'leaving nothing changed' is unsupported by any evidence. It's an opinion, but it would have to be justified by argument.And who has suggested 'abolishing investigation of nature and the unknown'!I'm constantly forced to assume that whenever anybody asks about 'science' and its hidden methods, those who already identify personally with those dodgy methods always assume that the critics are about to herald a new Dark Age, in which books will be burnt, 'scientists' decapititated, and 'priests and gods' reinstated as 'authorities for knowledge'.Why can't those, like you, who seem to know something about science, actaully engage with the arguments, and stop throwing up your hands, and scaremongering, and shouting 'The Vandals are almost upon us!'
YMS wrote:I've already stated my general concerns about CR, from your precis and what I read on Wikipedia.Well, you haven't actually addressed anything that I've written, just provided links and stifled a shout of 'The Vandals…'.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.