[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I can only ask again, concerning a tripartite theory of cognition (object, subject, knowledge), do you agree that 'truth' pertains to 'knowledge'?

It's actually a relation between all 3.To move things forward perhaps you can answer how you would assess the truth of a claim or theory.If I was to say that the way computers work is through little men running around inside them how would prove or disprove this statement?

[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I hope someone is going to eventually explain this thread to the rest of us in an easy to understand way so we know what it's all about

Just think of it as the excursions of some socialists into the domain of epistimology.http://www.marxists.org/archive/dietzgen/1887/epistemology.htm

[DJP]

"True for" means what is / was perceived as true, but may be false. In other words the socially constructed 'truth' that LBird is fond of."True" or "The Truth" means something else; the absolute truth, the totality of phenomena which is always in a state of flux.

Julien Beillard wrote:

I admit that I am presupposing an objectivist conception of truth, but what’s the alternative? Do we have any concept of truth that does not involve that kind of relation? To be sure, people sometimes say that a statement is true for one person but not another – meaning that the statement seems true to the first person but does not seem true to the second. But just as seeming gold is not a kind of gold, seeming truth is not a kind of truth. What is meant by this way of speaking (if anything), is simply belief. To say that it is true for some children that Santa Claus lives in the North Pole, if that means merely that to some children it seems true that he does, is really just a way of saying that they believe it. But believing doesn’t make it so. Similarly, if moral relativism is just the claim that what seems true of morality to some people (what they believe about morality) seems false to others, this is true but philosophically trivial, and consistent with objectivism about moral truth. It is also worth noting that, interpreted in this trivial way, moral relativism could not be supported by the argument from disagreement. The gist of that argument was that moral relativism is a good explanation of the moral disagreements we observe. Yet the claim that some moral statements seem true to some people and false to others merely restates the fact of moral disagreement that is supposedly explained by relativism, it cannot explain that fact. (Perhaps some things are self-explanatory, but not moral disagreement!)http://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Moral_Relativism_Is_Unintelligible

The above is about moral relativism but hopefully helps illustrates what I'm trying to get at.I suppose I could accept Lbirds use of "truth", as meaning the socially constructed what is "true for" people in a certain period of history, but only so long as it remains in parentheses.Otherwise we're just going to end up going round in circles.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

If ALB and DJP don’t agree with Pannekoek or Dietzgen, then that’s fine. But then they must say who they do agree with. Lenin, here, on the 'material'?

OK, let's put 'silly' to one side in order to have a productive discussion…The thing is myself and ALB do agree with Pannekoek and Dietzgen, but not your reading of them. Which I think contradicts what they said…What do you think of my comments in post #95?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

The SPGB is quoting Lenin as an 'authority', now? Lenin?

ALB is not the same thing as The SPGB. We may be a small party but for the time being the membership figures are greater than one…But anyway, come off it. The use of quotes and references does not imply endorsement and the notion that only communists can say true things is rather silly. Though I guess it would follow from your relativism…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Pannekoek, intro, p. 33 wrote:

The mind is a faculty of generalization. It forms out of concrete realities, which are a continuous and unbounded stream in perpetual motion, abstract conceptions that are essentially rigid, bounded, stable, and unchangeable. This gives rise to the contradiction that our conceptions must always adapt to new realities without ever succeeding…

Here we have our three entities of cognition:Object: concrete perpetual motion (not ‘fixed’ things to ‘discover’, once and for all);Subject: our minds, actively forming something which is not the object (otherwise, why ‘form’, we could just passively observe and record?);Knowledge: temporary conceptions formed, which eternally contradict the object.

Is it correct to make the jump from conceptions to "knowledge"? I don't think so. Knowledge can only be true conceptions.Is the 'truth' of a conception settled in the sphere of the object or the subject? The object, since truth can only be tested in practice, in engaging with the real world.

LBird wrote:

Given this, where does this leave the notion of ‘the path of the sun going round the earth’, in the way we conceive it, now, as a ‘fixed piece of knowledge of reality’ which having been ‘discovered’, can’t be changed?You, DJP, et al, might be correct, that our ‘truth’ about the relative paths of the sun and earth is now an eternal ‘Truth’, a fixed reflection of reality, but that is not what Pannekoek (or Dietzgen) say.

I don't think anyone has claimed that reality is unchanging. So you're attacking strawmen here.As someone, can't remember who, said. "The map [theories] is not the territory [external reality]" and external reality is always in a state of flux.None of this has to lead to a relativistic notion of "truth" or the conceptions of "non-observable reality"

Lbird wrote:

I know that I’m now wasting my time, and that you, DJP, et al, have already made up your minds on this issue, but, still, it would be nice if any one of you could give some evidence from Marx, Pannekoek or Dietzgen, to back up your opinions. If you can’t, it leaves one wondering just where your ideas come from. Perhaps bourgeois positivist ‘common sense’ science, the stuff we all learn as kids? Perhaps you're all just 'brilliant individuals', who don't need to 'quote' authorities, as 'cognition' is an open book to you all?

Hopefully I haven't "made my mind up" on anything, I'd hope that I still possess the ability to change my views in the light of enough persuasive evidence…

Lbird wrote:

Oh, I’ve noticed that the sun has come up again, this morning.

LOL!

[DJP]

I think you're confusing 'non-observable' with not directly observable.If something is non-observable it cannot, by definition, be perceived either.I'll come back on the other points later…

[DJP]

So now for Lbird 'true' not only means 'false' but now 'perceived' means 'non-observable'!?As a slight tangent, though relevant here, is a good short article on moral relativism in this months issue of Philosophy Nowhttp://philosophynow.org/issues/97/Moral_Relativism_Is_Unintelligible

[DJP]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"In practice it is of secondary importance whether theories and hypotheses are correct so long as they lead us to results that are in accordance with the facts."   

Sounds like something that would be compatible with an instrumentalist perspective.Instrumentalism claims that it may be possible to have a theory based on an entirely false ontology yet still be able to explain and predict the real world. For example I could construct a theory of physics where everything is based on the actions of little invisible men moving things around that could tie in with empirical observations and be used to make accurate predictions. Or it would be possible to have a theory and not actually know what the 'things' are – quantum mechanics is based upon mathematical formulas which have good predictive validity but are hard to translate into a language of 'things'.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism

[DJP]

I'm trying to look this Schaff up online. Is the main book called "Language and Cognition"?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

'The earth goes round the sun: fact of nature! Discovery done, and ticked off, once and for all, for humanity!'

Again, no-one is putting this position forward.

LBird wrote:

Pannekoek wrote:

Natural scientists consider the immutable substances, matter, energy, electricity, gravity, the Law of entropy, etc., as the basic elements of the world, as the reality that has to be discovered. From the viewpoint of Historical Materialism they are products which creative mental activity forms out of the substance of natural phenomena.

[my bold]

And no-one is disagreeing with this.What we are disagreeing with is your relativistic use of 'truth'.

[DJP]

What occurs to me is that throughout this exchange no-one has defined what they mean by 'science'.Borrowing from Sokal and Bricmont I can come up with 4 definitions:1. An intellectual endeavor aimed at a rational understanding of the world2. A collection of accepted theoretical and experimental ideas3. A social community with particular mores, institutions and and links to the larger society4. Applied science and technologyAny meaningful discussion about communism and science would have to distinguish between these and make sure the meaning doesn't slip during the debate.Also I'd like to repeat my question to LBird. Do you see the enlightenment as playing a deciding factor in the rise of capitalism? It would be interesting to know as this may help us get to the heart of the matter…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

But the logic of this position is that 'scientific knowledge' has a human component. Thus, humans not being infallible, that 'scientific knowledge' can be wrong. If this logic is accepted, then we can see that what's 'true' for one set of humans (due to social and historical conditions) can be 'untrue' for another set.

Non-sequitur. Your making a jump from 'knowledge' to truth. It has never been true for anyone that the sun revolves around the earth. The majority may have thought it at one point, but this is not how truth is tested. 

Quote:

We can now explain why we should not regard 'science' as producing 'objective truth', which helps undermine the notion of 'scientific authority', which is used by the bourgeoisie as a central pillar of their ideological control of society, a bit like 'the market', There Is No Alternative (TINA) to following their experts.

Now you'll have to explain how the scientific method is a central pillar of capitalist control. Why does science produce evidence that is favourable to socialists?Should we not be concerned with empirical evidence?Do you think astrology has the same validity as astronomy?Do you think that the origins of capitalism are tied up with the enlightenment?

[DJP]

Seeing as parliament has already voted against this I wonder if it's still going ahead?

[DJP]

Actually I like the introduction to the Grundrisse this would make a good general introduction to the rest of Marx's workhttp://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm

[Author]

Posts