Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:Perhaps explain how you think "theory" is different from "knowledge".
I'm now finding it difficult to believe that I'm talking to adults.Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference between having an unproven 'theory', prior to practice, and 'knowledge' produced by 'theory and practice'?Why?Why?Why?What am I bothering for? I'm wasting your time and mine.Perhaps I should just go for the permanent ban, and put us all out of our misery.Because that's what this process is, comrades: not pleasure, not enlightenment, just misery.
moderator, please ban me.Please physically prevent me from logging in.I'm going to say something that I regret.
LBird wrote:Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference between having an unproven 'theory', prior to practice, and 'knowledge' produced by 'theory and practice'?I was asking for you to elaborate. Short aphorisms are probably the fastest way to get to misunderstanding..But a theory does not have to be unproven to be a theory. Proven theories are what knowledge is formed from.Knowledge and theories are both tested by practice. Nothing stands still it's not a one way street.And surely sometimes people start doing stuff (practice) before they have theory about it.What are you trying to say that you think is profound or important?
I think it may be easier if you just point us to a text that is the equivalent to "Critical Realism for beginners" that you generally agree with. You're not doing a good job of getting your point across, whatever it might be..
LBird wrote:Just good, old fashioned, 'theory and practice produces knowledge'.I simply don't know where to go from here, comrades.LBird wrote:Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference between having an unproven 'theory', prior to practice, and 'knowledge' produced by 'theory and practice'?Is that all you are saying: that when a researcher or an observer (
researches or observes something (A) they are testing "an unproven 'theory'", i.e a hypothesis? And that the outcome of this will be "knowledge" as a confirmed ("true"?) theory? If that's all you are saying then you're not saying anything controversial. But if that is what you are saying I think you need to make the distinction in your formula, eg.Knowledge (C) is produced by a subject ( with a hypothesis (D) observing what happens (A). Or maybe D should be C1 and C C2But isn't this is what is generally accepted (as far as scientific research is concerned, if not epistemology)ALB wrote:Knowledge (C) is produced by a subject ( with a hypothesis (D) observing what happens (A). Or maybe D should be C1 and C C2I guess you can add that what is observed is not reality itself but its reproduction as created by the brain (I think this is part of what LBird calls "ideology")
LBird wrote:Are you seriously saying you don't know the difference between having an unproven 'theory', prior to practice , and 'knowledge' produced by 'theory and practice'?We use 'science' all the time, our actions are based on 'proven' (or unproven) hypothesis. We learn as we interact with our environment.Is this the knowledge you wish to impart?I think you have a problem presenting your ideas. There is an old Confucius proverb, I can't remember the exact words but it goes something like this:" A mind full of crap leaves no room for understanding. To be able to understand you must first empty your mind of unnecessary crap" I am sure our resident trained philosopher will know of the quote.
I wonder if this was the simple (and simplified) point that LBird was trying to make. It's from a lecture on "Some Non-Scientific Observations on the Importance of Darwin"given by Ian Johnston of the Liberal Studies Department of Vancouver Island University in 1998:
Quote:In order to grasp why Darwin's theory was so fundamentally revolutionary, you must understand one intellectual concept: the power and importance of classification systems. As students of biology you are thoroughly familiar with the need for classification, at least within your discipline. But I want you to step back from the discipline for a moment to understand the importance of classification in general.It will be obvious enough to you, as biologists, that you cannot function in this discipline without a comprehensive system of classification. This is especially the case with biology, and has always been a central issue in this part of natural science, simply because in biology, more than in any other science, there is a huge variety of natural phenomena to deal with. But I would argue that systems of classification are essential for all human thought and for the same reasons. Without a classification system of some kind, something which enables us to compartmentalize similar things and to make distinctions between other things, we simply cannot function. Providing us a classification system is the primary function of our education: we learn to classify things in order to make moral distinctions, to establish the hierarchy of goods and goals for our lives, to understand the natural world around us, and in order to function as social beings. How we think is largely determined by how we classify things.The great systems of belief in religion or philosophy or politics are classification systems. Christian belief, for example, encourages me to distinguish between Christians and pagans, between sinners, good people, and saints; a political classification system tells me whom I must or should obey, whom I am responsible for, who owes me allegiance, and who I can ignore. And so on. When I am faced with a problem, I simply cannot begin to analyze it, understand it, and resolve it unless I first have a classification system available for understanding it.The greatest thinkers are not those who come with new answers for old problems. They are the ones who redefine the problem by putting a new classification system on the table. Plato did not solve the problem of how to make people good; but after Plato it was impossible to talk intelligently about good and bad people without bringing knowledge into the discussion. Marx did not solve the social ills of his time; but after Marx it is impossible to discuss social problems without invoking the classification of society into classes based on material wealth. What makes these thinkers revolutionary is that they redirected the discussion and provided a new vocabulary for exploring, understanding, and seeking to resolve human problems.The reason these thinkers focus on classification systems directly is that these systems are never ideologically neutral. The way we organize things into compartments indicates to us an entire network of relationships and hierarchies which are loaded with political and moral value. To take an obvious example. If my moral system requires me to be kind to human beings, then I must attend to what my classification system tells me about who is a human being equal to me. If it indicates, as some have done, that, say, aboriginal people or black people, or the Irish poor are not fully human, then my moral obligations to them are not the same as my obligations to the white middle-class people next door. This may be an extreme example, but it makes the point. And someone who wants me to treat aboriginals, blacks, and the Irish poor as human beings is never going to persuade me until such time as he can overthrow my classification system and replace it with a different one.The full lecture can be found here,
ALB, I've just got hold of a book which seems to cover many of the issues that I've tried to discuss, unsuccessfully.It is Social Theory as Science, by Keat and Urry.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Theory-Science-Routledge-Revivals/dp/0415608783It's a reprint of a book originally published in the '70s, but it's still very useful.Part One, 'Conceptions of science' (chapters 1-3), is very good, I think.Chapter 5, 'Marx and realism' seems to me to be a bit weak, in that it doesn't stress (to me, anyway) the fundamental link between 'realist ontology' and 'Historical Materialism'. That is, HM as an example of 'realism'. This, I think, requires further discussion between Communists.I'm still reading it, but nevertheless, I'd recommend what I've read, so far.Hope this helps, where I clearly haven't.
£27 for the ebook!! Would you recommend any of this free reading? http://www.russellkeat.net/value_free_social_science.php
What I still don't get is how an adherence to to realism can be compatible with the strong kind of cognitive relativism that LBird has been putting forward in the various threads. If any of these texts show how these two positions can be bridged it would be good to know."Philosophers who profess realism state that truth consists in the mind's correspondence to reality."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
Vin Maratty wrote:£27 for the ebook!! Would you recommend any of this free reading? http://www.russellkeat.net/value_free_social_science.phpKeat wrote:In my discussion of objectivity and value-freedom in Social Theory as Science (co-authored with John Urry; Routledge 1975/1982) a broadly Weberian position was defended…[my bold]Well, Vin, since you apparently don't think science is ideological, you won't be able to read Keat and Urry's book from an alternative Communist perspective, will you? Y'know, critically.Take my advice, Vin, and ignore me and the book.£27? What price ignorance?
DJP wrote:What I still don't get is how an adherence to to realism can be compatible with the strong kind of cognitive relativism that LBird has been putting forward in the various threads.Because I've been 'putting forward' Marx's 'strong kind of cognitive relativism', and you employ a different ideology, you can't 'get' it.'Knowledge' depends on 'society'. The ideology that 'reality' tells us what it is, and speaks identically to all observers, across time and place (and thus is an ahistorical and asocial ideology), is a bourgeois ideology.I've said this before, many times, but you wouldn't listen then, and you won't listen now.Stick with 'materialism' and 'physicalism' and 'supervenience', DJP. And pretend to yourself that they are asocial and ahistorical concepts. Then you'll 'know' the 'Truth', and be at one with your god, 'matter'.You're an idealist, DJP.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.