LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Natural and social science both employ the same method.
No, you can't perform experiments in the same way in the social sciences as you can in the natural sciences.
And so, after months of discussion, we return to the assertion that 'rocks' and 'ideas' are different.No matter how many times those arguing this, themselves post quotes about the "theory ladenness of 'facts'", and quote Pannekoek and Marx approvingly, when push comes to shove we return to 'real science' (sic), to physics, and ignore all other sciences as somehow 'not real science'.Then we encounter Einstein's quote about 'theory determining what we can observe', spend hours and hours discussing cognition, Marx's arguments about the social bases of 'senses', the nonsense of DiaMat and Engels' diversion from Marx's critical practice and Historical Materialism, etc. etc….Then, the old empiricist canard about 'science and experiments' appears once more…I give up. Forget philosophy of science, and talk to rocks – they'll tell you the unvarnished truth…
mcolome1 wrote:ALB wrote:I think the distinction you are trying to make is not between "bourgeois" and "proletarian" science, but between a "bourgeois scientific method" and a more adequate method or maybe between how science is conducted today and how it will be in socialism/communism (which of course can't be described as "proletarian" as someone has already pulled you up for suggesting since there will no longer be a proletariat in socialism).Pannekoek was not studying or teaching "bourgeois astronomy" if only because it's not clear what this might be. He was studying astronomy with a different scientific method from that which you call bourgeois" (but which you've admitted on another thread most mainstream scientists don't accept now anyway).You seem to be riding the same sort of hobby horse against "science" as RL does about "philosophy".There are bourgeois social sciences, and 'humanities", but there are not bourgeois natural sciences. The capitalist used sciences and some scientists to carry their own economical purposes, but there is not homogeneity among scientists. The capitalists have tried to applied Darwinism to society, but it does not mean that biology is a bourgeois science. Like Engels wrote: Scientists are materialist in their laboratory but some scientists can be metaphysical or idealists in their private life
The production of knowledge of both natural and social science is done by humans.Natural and social science both employ the same method.If social science can be bourgeois, so can natural science.If natural science can be socially-neutral, so can social science.If anyone disagrees with these theses, please detail the different theories of cognition used by natural and social sciences.I'm with Pannekoek, who argues that scientific knowledge is created by humans (not by nature or a neutral method) and Marx, who argues that humans must unite natural and social science into a singular method.The belief in the separation of natural and social science is a bourgeois ideological belief.
mcolome1 wrote:…I do not think that Engels can be rejected completely, in others aspects he also made his own contribution.No, I've already made this point to ALB, when he seemed to suggest I was 'rejecting Engels completely'. We're talking here about Engels' philosophy of science, not his other works, like economics, history, etc.
mcolome1 wrote:I will never mix up Engels with Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao or Hoxha, because all of them used some economical ideas of Marx and they twisted them also in the same manner…Well, I think we should 'mix up Engels' with these ne'er-do-wells, 'because all of them used some philosophical ideas of Engels'. In this regard, 'they twisted the ideas of Marx', as did Engels.Simply put, Engels became a 19th century positivist, whereas Marx (probably) did not.An illustrative case of 'Social being determines social consciousness'? 19th century ideas of science were very powerful and influential; even are to this day.
There's a danger that I'm going to write something uncomradely which I later regret, so I'll bow out of this current exchange.I'll leave it for now with 'if anyone wants to employ 'scientific socialism', be my guest'.The fact that no-one can say what it is, seems not to cause any concern.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:What have you got to hide, DJP? Ignorance of scientific method?I have nothing to hide. But I don't have the time to write an amateur expose' on the scientific method. Read Chapters 6 and 7 of "Beyond The Hoax" by Alan Sokal as I think this highlights where our views diverge quite well…
Of course, you'll have read Jonathon Marks' comments on the invalidity of Sokal's method.J. Marks, Why I am not a scientist 'The Sokal Hoax', pp. 10-13.No? You probably 'haven't got time', eh?Makes me wonder why comrades who haven't read much (or any) philosophy of science bother to engage.Must be down to Engels' method, which allows Communist employing 'scientific socialism' to not bother.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:The religious are currently ahead of the proletariat in their thinking.Oh dear!
Yeah, it's serious, isn't it?You did read ALB's quote on the Pannekoek thread, didn't you?Doesn't it concern you that religious philosophers are currently ahead of many in the SPGB, when it comes to understanding science?
DJP wrote:ALB wrote:That and the rest is all very well, but you still haven't said whether you think Pannekoek was studying and teaching "bourgeois astrology"I wonder if you'll get an answer to this. It seems at the slightest nudge LBird's profound theory collapses into contradiction. Oh well..PS i think you meant "astronomy"
Well, there's no danger of your 'theory collapsing into contradiction', because you haven't revealed yours, neither 'profound' nor 'simplistic'! What have you got to hide, DJP? Ignorance of scientific method?At least someone within the SPGB knows the difference between 'astrology' and 'astronomy', so we're making some slight 'scientific' progress!
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:All science is ideological.That and the rest is all very well, but you still haven't said whether you think Pannekoek was studying and teaching "bourgeois astrology"
You really should concentrate on discussing scientific method, ALB.All the other side-tracks just slow down the process of us all learning to distinguish Engelsian positivism from Marxian critical practice.But since you ask, of course Pannekoek was teaching 'bourgeois astronomy' (I presume your use of 'astrology' was a slip of the finger, but sometimes I wonder with positivists).The proletarian scientific method would be a mass, democratic method, which, of course, Pannekoek, teaching within a bourgeois university, was unable to employ.Whether the proletariat would reach the same conclusions as the bourgeoisie, regarding any research results, will only become clear to us in a future Communist society. No doubt, there will be some agreement, and some disagreement. Science doesn't produce the 'Truth', and so the wheat must be sorted from the chaff. Clearly, some results of 'bourgeois astronomy' will be revised.But, the method will be very different: no elite, undemocratic, privately-funded class institutions outside of our control.Pannekoek, et al, will be under the control of the proletariat.It's what he would've wanted!
Vin Maratty wrote:How did you come to that conclusion?By the proletarian scientific method.What's a 'scientific method'?I'll show you mine, if you show me yours!My advice, Vin, is to read the Pannekoek thread first, then you'll know what I'm going to say, and perhaps you can then produce a valid counter-argument, that those opposing Marx and Pannekoek have not yet been able to do.
ALB wrote:Ok, yes, there's bourgeois sociology, economics, history, etc but not bourgeois astronomy, biology, engineering, etc.So, you disagree with Marx about the possibility of a unified scientific method?Can you please describe the process of cognition that "astronomy, biology, engineering, etc" employ, which is different to the process of cognition which "sociology, economics, history, etc" employ?The ideological belief that 'natural science' is different in its philosophy and methods to 'social science' is a bourgeois ideological construct.If humanity in its entirety, employing democratic methods, isn't the source of authority for the human activity of 'science', who is?If the answer is 'scientists', doesn't this belief conflict with Marx's warning about separating society into two halves, one of which is superior to the wider society itself?All science is ideological.This is the essential lesson for the proletariat to learn, and even bourgeois philosophers of science have draw this conclusion. You yourself, ALB, posted a quote from Muslim scholars who are well aware of the fundamental weakness of this 19th positivist view of science, as a bi-fold activity, one of which produces 'The Truth' of 'Objective Fact', and the other which is 'Mere Opinion' and 'Political Intrusion on Science'. The religious are currently ahead of the proletariat in their thinking. We must meet this challenge.While proletarians cling to outdated 19th century positivist ideology, erroneously inducted into 'scientific socialism' by Engels, they can't hope to take the lead in the production of proletarian ideas in a battle with bourgeois ideology, including both central columns of the bourgeoisie, Science and The Market.
ALB wrote:What has been overlooked in these (in my opinion unfair) attacks on Engels for creating "scientific socialism" is that this was not just Engels's personal opinion or invention. It was the general view of the German Social Democratic movement of the time. Here, for instance, is what Rosa Luxemburg wrote near the end of her 1900 pamphlet Reform or Revolution:Quote:Some time ago Lassalle said: “Only when science and the workers, these opposite poles of society, become one, will they crush in their arms of steel all obstacles to culture.” … Only when the great mass of workers take the keen and dependable weapons of scientific socialism in their own hands, will all the petty-bourgeois inclinations, all the opportunistic currents, come to naught..Is she the next for the chop and inclusion in some Engels/Luxemburg/Lenin/Stalin amalgam !I don't think anyone will get us to ditch Engels. In fact to link Engels to Lenin and Stalin is a travesty as bad as linking Marx to them.
I rest my case, ALB! Add Luxembourg and Lassalle to 'The Engelsian Amalgam'! Chop, chop, chop!The formula 'science and workers' is the most damaging positivist nonsense for the proletariat.There is no 'proletarian science' outside of the workers. 'Science', without any prefix, is a bourgeois ideological construct.Those who say 'science' say 'bourgeois science'.Thus, the disastrous formulation 'bourgeois science and workers' is inimical to proletarian class consciousness.
mcolome1 wrote:Nature+society is the real conception of Marx and the proponents of socialism as the only alternative ( no alternatives ) to capitalism. It is much better than Engels' scientific socialism, but also indicating that the intention of Engels was to distinct themselves from the utopian socialists[my bold]Yes, mcolome1, the 'real conception of Marx' was the unity of nature and society.But, it is not only 'much better than Engels' scientific socialism', but the very opposite of 'Engels' scientific socialism' (sic)!Engels' 'intention' might have been praiseworthy, but in practice he ditched Marx's critical social practice and returned to crude materialism, due both to the ideological pressure of 19th century positivism and his philosophical amateurism. So, we have had to put up with over 100 years of so-called 'Marxists' insisting that 'matter' talks to us! This applies not only to the DiaMat-ists of Lenin/Stalin, but also to those who insist (when asked about the process of cognition) that 'matter/reality/physics' etc. is prior to humans. This is incorrect. Of course, reality is prior historically (it exists prior to human questions about it), but in any attempt by humans to understand that reality, humanity is prior.The social subject asks questions of the really-existing object, this 'asking' is a practical, active process (not a passive contemplation), and the product is scientific knowledge.We have to expel the so-called 'materialist' strain of Engels/Lenin/Stalin from proletarian consciousness, and replace it with the 'historical materialism' of Marx/Pannekoek.
mcolome1 wrote:We can not reduce everything to the point of view of the natural sciences, otherwise we are going to do the same thing of the vulgar materialists.[my bold]No, we must expand the natural sciences to include society. Then we will have the unified scientific method that Marx sought.Knowledge, of both nature and society, is social.
Vin Maratty wrote:Am I to take it that you also refer to medicine, physics etc.? If so, then they do a great job without 'objectivity'.But readers of tea-leaves 'do a great job', in their opinion.Surely our conception of 'science' goes further than saying it is something that 'does a great job'?
Vin Maratty wrote:'Science' cannot be pinned down and attempts to do so lead to inaction and a fear of progress. Science has many problems and it is at times a dim light but it is the only light we have.But we could replace 'science' in your statement above with 'god', and it would give us a guide as to what 'science' is, from this perspective.
Quote:'God' cannot be pinned down and attempts to do so lead to inaction and a fear of progress. God has many problems and it is at times a dim light but it is the only light we have.Sounds like good ol' 19th century postivist faith, to me! Anyone who questions just what 'science' is, and asks for an explanation of how it gives us knowledge, is pointed to 'his/its' works, and condemned as an unbeliever, who is out to destroy 'science'.But…. I'm not going to drag this discussion out, once more. If anyone's interested, read the Pannekoek thread.
mcolome1 wrote:Although most of the article is fine, I think that this particular line is outdated.
Socialist Standard wrote:Engels has had to take some stick for introducing the term “scientific socialism” but it is an accurate description of the outcome of Marx’s (and his own) encounter with the German philosophy of his day.I think that it's possible to argue precisely that 'scientific socialism' was Engels' baby, not Marx's.If 'scientific socialism' was meant to mean 'objective knowledge', then we now know that this is impossible, and would indeed give Engel 'stick' for following too closely to 19th century positivism.If 'scientific socialism' is to mean anything, it must mean 'a proletarian unified science'. And with the coming of Communism, and the end of classes, it will just be 'a human unified science', which will encompass both nature and society with a single, unified scientific method.Humans are at the centre of any science. There is no 'objective' science, in the sense meant by positivist/empiricist science. The closest we can get to 'objectivity' is a 'social objectivity' which specifies its inescapable social content.And in a class society, the 'social content' of science is always a class content.
