Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin Maratty wrote: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.
This is an arguable position, Vin.The trouble is, it's the position argued by the 19th century positivists, who thought the 'physics' model should be extended to every area of human knowledge. You must've heard of von Ranke, and his plea to historians to 'simply show how it was'? [Carr refers]Your position of "applying the methods of the natural sciences to the social sciences" is precisely what has been undermined by Einstein (ie. by 'physics' itself).Marx argued, on the contrary, that we should apply the methods of the social sciences to the natural sciences.Thus, our task is to find a unifying method which can be employed upon both value and rocks.
Oh, and I hav said that I fear this tends back towards Hegelian idealism, and relies upon a totalising model of ideology that in the end does require high priests and Leninism, because the fact ideology becomes the one eternal truth.
YMS wrote:Yes, that is my opinion…So, you're not actually going to read my CR outline, and engage in any discussion?
Quote:Your comment, about 'leaving nothing changed' is unsupported by any evidence. It's an opinion, but it would have to be justified by argument.Yes, that is my opinion, AFAICS CR calls for serial refinement of the theory, supported by experiment. Or, to quote the wikipedia article:
Quote:The implication of this is that science should be understood as an ongoing process in which scientists improve the concepts they use to understand the mechanisms that they study. It should not, in contrast to the claim of empiricists, be about the identification of a coincidence between a postulated independent variable and dependent variable.As I said about the ISCU dfinition of science I posted this morning, this is perfectly compatible, it is only addressing the question of how we organise the systematic investigation and how we select our hypothesese. That is my impression from what I've read and what you've said.Yes, a scientist can continue to do their daily work without consciously applying these principles (but they might be thre) much as a shop keeper who has never read a word of Smith can continue to do their job. the difference is, we talk of abolishing shop keepers, not of abolishing scientists.
LBird wrote:Marx argued, on the contrary, that we should apply the methods of the social sciences to the natural sciences.Does he? Where?
LBird you only quoted part of my post. I also suggested that the natural sciences could move forward but the answer is not to apply the demonstrably failed methods of economics, history etc.Social science does not need competing theoretical perspectives. As Kuhn and others have suggested this leads to the paradigm with the most powerful supporters being adopted and used by scientists.To solve social ills the working class needs to adopt the marxist paradigm of the MCH and C and rejecect the bourgeois method of competing theoretical perspectives. Applied Marxism will lead to a greater understanding of the world and to remedies for social ills
Vin Maratty wrote:Social science does not need competing theoretical perspectives. As Kuhn and others have suggested this leads to the paradigm with the most powerful supporters being adopted and used by scientists.To solve social ills the working class needs to adopt the marxist paradigm of the MCH and C and rejecect the bourgeois method of competing theoretical perspectives. Applied Marxism will lead to a greater understanding of the world and to remedies for social illsYou do know there are competing perspectives within what could be called Marxism, right?
Vin Maratty wrote:To solve social ills the working class needs to adopt the marxist paradigm of the MCH and C and rejecect the bourgeois method of competing theoretical perspectives.Two problems here, Vin.How does the MCH&C explain 'rocks' to us? If you say it doesn't, then you must logically be saying that physical and social science are methodologically different. This conclusion goes against Marx's belief in the unity of science, which is the ideology that I use.If there are no 'competing theoretical perspectives', there must be one 'theoretical perspective' which tells us 'The Truth'. Can you tell me what this is, because to me it sounds like the political ideology of Leninism, that 'The Party is always Right'? [to clarify, if there is claimed to be 'one true perspective', the Party will claim to have it. This is a political issue, Vin]
VM wrote:As Kuhn and others have suggested this leads to the paradigm with the most powerful supporters being adopted and used by scientists.But I've already said that I think that Lakatos supecedes Kuhn, and explained why I think that. You haven't explained why you still employ Kuhn's ideology, in light of what I've said, about it being the more conservative theory of the two.
VM wrote:LBird you only quoted part of my post. I also suggested that the natural sciences could move forward but the answer is not to apply the demonstrably failed methods of economics, history etc.But, Vin, according to philosophers and physicists, it's the 'natural sciences' which have 'demonstrably failed methods'.I'd argue that Marx's method of 'economics, history, etc.' has been proved the more successful. And thus, his method (which I'm arguing is similar to CR) is the one to be applied to both social and physical science.
LBird wrote:it's the 'natural sciences' which have 'demonstrably failed methods'.Well, they must have a strange definition of "failure"….
But I have read your outline, and reported my impression based on it, and upon what I have read elsewhere. I haven't shouted anything about vandals, but critiqued it based upon the model of ideology it relies on. I've also said, in its similarity to knowledge organisation tools, it could be useful in terms of the processing of data. At the least it could well be a useful refinement on the way of thinking about the scientific procedure, as useful of delineating the difference between grey and off-white.So, it's not so much a fear of vandalism, more that it seems you're just rearranging the furniture.The Feng Shuists are coming! The Feng Shuists are coming!
DJP wrote:You do know there are competing perspectives within what could be called Marxism, right?Yes, but that is only because some get it wrong
OK, I'll move on soon, if there are no more questions about CR.I can't stress enough to comrades that if:a) one subscribes to an ideology that assumes a methodological separation of physical from social science; orb) one subscribes to Kuhn's ideology of 'normal' science usually following a single 'paradigm'; orc) one doesn't subscribe to Lakatos view of multiple 'research programmes'; ord) one doesn't think that Critical Realism is even worth discussing and taking forward; ore) one doesn't broadly follow Marx's ideas on science; orf) one's tag is DJP;then I don't think that you'll get anything further from this thread. I intend to take it forward on that basis. So, put simply, comrades, unless you subscribe to a-f above, and ask questions based upon those assumptions, I'll be ignoring your posts. I think that I've answered all the relevant questions about a-f, and so I'm not prepared to continue to go round in circles.But, I'll only post on CR if at least one comrade asks for me to do so.If not, we can finish here.
Quote:c) one doesn't subscribe to Lakatos view of multiple 'research programmes';What does this mean?
LBird wrote:How does the MCH&C explain 'rocks' to us?I don't need it to. I need it to increase our knowledge of history and how we can help change society: How we can solve war, hunger, crime etc. But then I have already made that clear.
LBird wrote:I'd argue that Marx's method of 'economics, history, etc.' has been proved the more successful.It has not been successful, because of the nature of the social science method. It will be successful when social science becomes 'scientific' by accepting the communist/socialist/marxist paradigm/research program/theory or what ever we wish to call it. But then I have already said that.I can understand your frustration of having to repeat yourself How can you possibly say that social science has been more successful than natural science! Where are our greatest acheivements? Curing social diseases such as war, poverty, hunger, crime, mental illness? Or physical diseases?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.