[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Could you all stop this bickering and please get on with it!

Please sir, I’m trying to move forward, but ALB and DJP at the back keep distracting me!Right!I’ve suggested that we move onto a more detailed discussion of what we mean by the ‘subject’. The two main contenders are the ‘isolated individual’ and the ‘social individual’.We’ve already had an unwitting example of the view that the ‘isolated individual’ should regarded as the ‘subject’, from the poster Lyla Byrne (refs: posts 17-18, 25-27, 35-36). One of the main beliefs of the ‘isolated individual’ ideology is that merely using the authority ‘I think’, combined with a refusal to give sources of that ‘thinking’, is acceptable. This method assumes that an individual can be outside of ideological influences, and that their ‘opinions’ are rooted in them themselves, rather than related to their society and its ideologies. The other fallback is to cite ‘common sense’ that all individuals just ‘have’, by a mysterious process of induction.The ‘social individual’ ideology, in contrast, locates thought in society, and demands that ‘individuals’ reveal their ideological sources. This, I would argue, is the correct ‘scientific method’. That is, under Communism, our main ideological claim would be that ‘Individuals have a right and duty to defend their opinion to their comrades’, rather than the bourgeois ideological concept that ‘Individuals have a right to their opinion’. Individuals ‘having their opinion’, and holding onto it against all appeals from comrades providing stronger evidence without mounting a defence of their opinion, is unscientific. It’s not good enough to ignorantly say ‘Well, that’s my opinion!’ and sulkingly withdraw to solipsistic isolation, as the bourgeoisie encourage us to do. ‘It’s your individual right to have your own opinion, no matter what the Commies say about arguing – now, get back to the grindstone and work, or I’ll sack you, dickhead!’ The bosses don’t like workers being encouraged to develop the skills to critically argue with ‘common sense’!So, given my completely unbiased exposition of the two choices , what do other posters think about moving onto a discussion of the ‘subject’ as an ‘active social individual’?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

OK, I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist.

I'm afraid you have pleaded guilty to the wrong charge. What you stand accused of is "post-modernist revisionism".

Ok, it's a fair cop, guv!I plead guilty to counter-revolutionary relativism and post-modernist revisionism.And I'd like one count of 'capitalist-roadster-ism' to be taken into consideration, too.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Does the fact that we have launched space probes, satellites and landed things on other planets not mean anything to you? Do you seriously think that it is all a social construct? I don't think you do…

One word. The fifth word. 'we'The 'truth' produced by our interaction, through conceiving, building and launching probes and satellites, with a really-existing external world is a 'social construct'.So, no, it is  not 'all a social construct'. There are three entities. The active social subject interacts with a pre-existing real object to produce knowledge. I keep telling you that the object is not a social construct, but knowledge of it is.You identify object and knowledge as identical entities, and so you can't separate out that 'truth' relates to 'knowledge' and is therefore a 'social construct'. This social construct is produced by asking questions of the object, which really exists.

DJP wrote:

So was the reality that the sun did and did not go round earth during this period?"Reality" is not a social construct (less the parts of it concerning society and humans interactions with nature) and it can neither be observed fully either.

What do you mean by 'reality': the 'object' or 'knowledge'?If you insist that we can 'know' reality without a social process of knowledge production, the ball is in your court to show how we can have this unmediated access to your 'reality' (my 'object').

DJP wrote:

Nobody thinks that science brings the kind of 100% certain knowledge that you claim those that reject your relativism do.

So, you accept that it is not certain that the earth goes round the sun? Or are you 100% certain? How 'certain' was the 17th century, compared with 'certain' now? We must have a historical account of 'science', rather than a 'one-off discovery' viewpoint.

DJP wrote:

So all truths can only be known partially and relatively. Though where I think we differ is that I take this to mean that partial truths are relative to the absolute truth, to nature, reality whatever you want to call it. You see them as being relative to each other only…

Well, since I keep emphasising that 'truth' is relative to 'object', I'm not sure where you get the evidence for the accusation of my arguing that 'truth' is relative to 'truth'.

DJP wrote:

So if you think you can present a cognitivist relativist account of truth and knowledge that doesn't collapse into the contradictions I have mentioned or revert to idealism I would really be grateful to hear it. Till then, less of the melodrama

The only contradiction here, comrade, is your acceptance that 'all truths' are 'relative', but still wanting to use space ships as evidence of 'absolute truth'. Not so much 'melodrama' as 'unreasoning tantrum', I fear![later edit] By the way, the quote proves Dietzgen agrees with the 'subject, object and knowledge interaction' model!

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

So all truths are relative in the sense that they are only approximations and the complete knowledge of the whole picture of absolute truths will always remain elusive. Due I presume to the dynamics of change, which is also an absolute, and when considered in conjunction with the multiplicity of the endless factors involved that bring these changes into existence – means in effect – that our understanding of truth is only of a partial and temporary nature?Am I right or am I wrong?

Perhaps one caveat, Brian.Because humans are involved, it is possible that 'knowledge' (scientific truth at one stage of history) has been incorrectly produced. So, the nature of 'approximation' is uncertain.I think it's better to regard 'truth' as a process, rather than a fixed discovery. So, perhaps your term 'partial and temporary' is adequate, as long as 'temporary' can mean 'for millenia only'!Science is a social activity and understanding of it must be rooted in the society that does the activity. Changing a society could have unforseen effects. And as we wish to change society, I think that it's worth discussing the possible effects of that on both 'truth' production and scientific method!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

If you think that "truth" should be redefined to mean something other than "in accord with reality"…

Well, I'll let you define what you mean by 'in accord with reality', DJP. Then I'll be able to answer you.

DJP wrote:

I'd sooner get the epistemology sorted out. For the last coming on 2 months I have been trying to tease out of LBird what would be regarded as an adequate criteria for judging the truth of competing statements.

'Sorting out the epistemology' requires understanding of which cognitive theory one is employing.I've already told you the 'the sun going round the earth' prior to the 17th century was 'in accord with reality'.If you don't accept this, you have to give the criteria to show it wasn't 'in accord with reality'… in the 17th century.If you just want to say that 'now we know that the earth goes round the sun', and that's it, then the last two months have been wasted, for all of us, comrade.Perhaps you just want to hear that I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist.OK, I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist. If that's what you've wanted from two months' discussion, there you have it!

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

You may well be a bit unscientific with this suggestion when the book in question is very hard to come by?

That's why I mentioned that Schaff calls the tripartite schema the 'traditional trinity'. That is, he suggests most thinkers use the schema to discuss the process of cognition.Don't forget, that schema in itself is not a 'stance', it's just a way of conceptualising the debate. There are various ways of defining object, subject, knowledge and their inter-relationships.As we've discussed 'knowledge' a bit, that is why I was suggesting we discuss 'subject'.But if you have reservations about the very axioms of the debate, perhaps I'd better let others take the lead.

[LBird]

With 6,000 views and a couple of days’ breather, perhaps now is the time to establish a basis for the progression of this clearly interesting topic. There have been various questions throughout this thread, which it might appear I have been ignoring: I haven’t, it’s just that I think that a firm cognitive basis is necessary to even attempt to answers these questions. For example, some recent ones:

ALB wrote:

But what would you say are the current criteria by which capitalist society distinguishes between "knowledge" and fantasy or a wrong/inaccurate/inadequate theory?

ALB wrote:

But wouldn't this just be knowledge about a different part of NHS (standing for the world of reality)? Why would it have to conflict with the first, different knowledge about a different part?….Ah, now we are getting somewhere ! "Better for their new purposes" (or even for their old purposes?). But what purpose? It would have to be something like "surviving better"? In which case, it would fall into the category of "instrumentalism" or "pragmatism" (not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that).And wouldn't you have to say more than "humans" and say something like "human society" to avoid any arbitrary group of humans with some arbitrary purpose creating their own "truths"? Which raises the question of who, in the scheme, is the subject: any group, a class, society as a whole?

DJP wrote:

OK so let's borrow Deitzgen's terms. So the NHS is the "Absolute Truth" and the IT system the "relative truth". Now we can never fully grasp the whole of the absolute truth, no-one has claimed that (apart from comrade strawman) but what if we are faced with competing designs of IT systems (or relative truths), how do we work out which is the more valid?Or is the truth of a theory solely contained in how well it fits the purposes of those who are using it?

Once again, I think, from reading Schaff, I’ve accepted his claim:

Schaff, p. 48, wrote:

Let us begin then with the traditional trinity which appears in every analysis of the process of cognition…: the cognitive subject, the object of cognition, and knowledge as the product of the process of cognition.

Can everybody agree on an acceptance of this ‘traditional trinity’ as the basis of moving forward to discuss each of the three? Or does anyone still harbour serious doubts about this axiomatic schema? If so, could they outline a different way of conceptualising cognition?I think that ALB’s, DJP’s, and others, questions can only explored and answered through the tripartite schema, so perhaps we need to discuss in more detail those three components: the object (what is ‘real’?), the subject (an isolated individual or a ‘social individual’?), and the production of knowledge (passive reflection of object or active creation based on object?), though the last of the three has already been covered a little.So, if it is agreeable to all, perhaps the first to tackle is the subject: the nature of mind, and the cognitive mechanism, etc.

[LBird]

In my experience of self-employed professionals, they have a strong social tendency to develop cloth-ears.As Hrothgar displays with his genetic purity, here we have an example of concrete determinism.Perhaps Socialist Punk can tell us if 'Hrothgar' is a derivative of the Anglo-Saxon for 'Hessian-horns'.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

OK I'm getting there. I gather from what you are saying that even ' truth' is subject to the social/human/natural dynamics of change depending on what is selected and who constructed the 'knowledge' and 'why' and 'how' a new 'truth' becomes a clearer representation of that change?

Yeah, because it all depends upon what 'facts' have been selected in the first place, to construct the 'knowledge'.If you think about the NHS, and someone says 'science can tell us exactly everything about the NHS, the Truth', it soon becomes obvious that this isn't true. It's an impossible, Sisyphean task.One can always think of another pointless question to ask of the NHS:What colour ties do all the consultants wear, each day?Can you give me a list of the distances from the northeast corners of each mainbuilding on each NHS site to each other?How many 3" wood screws have been used in constructing rain shelters?How many nurses are called Brian?Is blue the main colour for counterpanes used on the beds?Are there any rabid dogs hiding in bathrooms?How many relatives do all the band fives have, in total?Which mops came from Taiwan?These meaningless, but 'factual', questions can go on forever.Someone has to decide what we want to know about the NHS, and why. The parameters of this 'selection' from innumerable 'facts' are determined by a human social theory, before the process of selection is even started.The 'Truth' of the NHS exists (as an object of enquiry, as an absolute), but  how can we reproduce it in its entirety? Any 'truth' we have before us is a 'truth' constructed by humans from the interaction of their questions and the answers they accept from the object. But it's a never-ending process, not a singular act of discovery.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

ALB wrote:

Brian wrote:

From my recollection LBird has many times pointed out the distinction between what was 'thought to be true' and the actual 'truth' becoming revealed through further scientific discovery and investigation.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. This is precisely the position LBird is arguing against, as I assume he will confirm by return of post. I'm not sure I'd defend it either.

OK so it just goes to show how confusing this thread has gone.   Hopefully if LBird does confirm this is not his position he'll also explain in simple terms the reasons why he does'nt  defend it.

I'll try, comrade!If I explain it in terms of my 'NHS Computer System', an analogy with which you're familiar.The system is a 'true' representation of the NHS for the purposes for which humans created it.But it's clearly not the whole 'truth' of the NHS, because the NHS consists of innumerable 'facts', the vast majority of which are meaningless for human purposes.But another set of humans could write another system, which focussed on different aspects of the NHS, a second system which we would also regard as 'true', but which is different from the first 'truth'.So, the 'truth' of any scientific knowledge has to be related to the humans who constructed the 'knowledge', and 'why', and 'how', and a later better theorised and executed process could produce another true representation which is then considered by humans to be better for their new purposes, and thus succeeds and replaces an earlier truth.Does this help, Brian? Truth is in an eternal process of human production.Thus, my answer to your question about 'actual truth' being eventually 'revealed' is 'No'.'Actual truth' is the NHS, itself. It is the object, which consists of innumerable entities and relationships, and which it is impossible to 'know' in its entirety.The only way one can maintain that 'true' is the 'object' is to adopt a 19th century theory of cognition, according to which the mind is passive and simply registers sense-impressions (all of them) and the mind acts as a 'mirror' which reflects the 'object'.The bourgeoisie pretend that science still does this, although, as you've read on this thread (posts by YMS, and video by DJP) most scientists who give it any thought acknowledge that this can't be done.Please ask questions if I'm still unclear, and try to picture how knowledge would be created if not by the process I'm suggesting, which is the process I think most modern philosophers of science would accept.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I didn't reply to those post because I thought they where a bad anology. What you describing is how to fill a design brief. But a theory has to be able to make predictions of the future, an IT of the type you are describing does it system does not do that…

If you didn't understand my analogy, why not ask questions, rather than make erroneous assumptions?

LBird wrote:

In line with alanjjohnstone’s request for someone to try to ‘explain this thread to the rest of us in an easy to understand way so we know what it's all about’, and my suggestion that the world of computers might help, I’ll make an attempt to use the analogy of ‘building a computer system’. Of course, the problem with analogies is that, if they’re taken too literally, they obscure rather than illuminate the real issue. So, please bear this in mind, and ask questions if something seems to present a problem, rather than take something which is irrelevant to the explanation and erroneously try to follow that wrong turn and completely misunderstand.

The 'theory' that you mention, within this analogy, would be the theory that the computer system builders employ to enable them to build a computer system. So, for example, Jackson Structured Progamming might be used to design and write the code.The finished system represents 'knowledge', in this analogy.'Knowledge' is produced by the human social subject, which employs theories to help select and construct, from the pre-existing objective.On a later iteration of this eternal process, previously formed 'knowledge' can form the basis of future 'theory', to once again help to select (what is deemed) relevant from an overwhelming reality.If this still doesn't click, please ask, rather than assume. I'm trying to capture the nature of an interactive process.What's more, even when it 'clicks' (in the sense that posters come to understand the analogy), it still doesn't follow that one has to agree with it.But it's only by comrades getting to grips with this example, that they can hope to elaborate the different theory of cognition that they are, inescapably, employing for themselves.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I didn't reply to those post because I thought they where a bad anology. What you describing is how to fill a design brief.

No, it describes a 'process'. A process of cognition.

DJP wrote:

But in communism there will be no proletariat LOL.

This is always the reply from someone who delights in ignoring the obvious.If I'd have said 'humanity' (clearly relating to classless communism), you (and them) would have said, 'but you're not dealing with the realities of class!'. I've heard it all before – it's a tactic to avoid answering questions, like 'what is your cognitive method?'.

DJP wrote:

Well in that case I vote for Father Christmas and levitating slippers; who's with me?

And this is your serious opinion of the problems we'll face after a successful communist revolution?Why not just say, 'workers are dickheads who can't be trusted, with property or science, and we'll have to control them, that is, property, science and workers'?

DJP wrote:

I think the story about the bees and pesticides highlights the point very well. Society can construct whatever (partial) truths it like, through whatever means it chooses. But if these "truths" are not in tune with the (absolute) truth of nature, there will be a price to pay; bees will die out, building collapse and planes fall out of the sky.

What about your 'levitating slippers', that you claim that you'll vote for, to use when the plane falls out of the sky.I suspect workers are brighter than that, and have a good idea of nature and its truths.

DJP wrote:

I don't think anyone actually does hold this belief that science produces the eternal truth, none of the physical scientists I have heard speak on the subject and not in the popular science publications.

Yet, when you're asked about the sun/earth relationship, you claim it as a universal truth? So, you, at least, do hold to this view?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But, in turn, I put a question to you: what in your view are the criteria by which to judge whether a theory or view is "knowledge" or just fantasy or wrong/inaccurate/inadequate?

Now, we’re getting to the nub of the issue, aren’t we?Before I try to answer that essential question, though, I’d like to sum up where I think we are now about the ‘scientific method’, by the use of analogy.I’ve already posted my ‘NHS Computer System building process’ in an attempt to explain the actual cognitive process that science takes, in my opinion. I’ll post it again, for any readers who have missed (or, indeed, forgotten!) that post:

LBird, post #145, wrote:

In line with alanjjohnstone’s request for someone to try to ‘explain this thread to the rest of us in an easy to understand way so we know what it's all about’, and my suggestion that the world of computers might help, I’ll make an attempt to use the analogy of ‘building a computer system’. Of course, the problem with analogies is that, if they’re taken too literally, they obscure rather than illuminate the real issue. So, please bear this in mind, and ask questions if something seems to present a problem, rather than take something which is irrelevant to the explanation and erroneously try to follow that wrong turn and completely misunderstand.If we think of the process of building a computer system, say, for the NHS.The NHS really exists, prior to the attempt to build a computer system for it.The business analysts who ask questions of the doctors, nurses and administrators of the NHS to try to gain an understanding of the workings of the NHS, the system designers who interpret the analysis and produce a paper design of something which should work, the programmers who actively write the code following the design, and the testers who ensure that the code ‘works’ in line with the design, are all humans with pre-existing ideas, both of their own jobs, each others’ jobs, and the NHS itself. These humans have to extract relevant information from the NHS, actively design, write and use a plan reflecting the NHS.The end result of this human active process is a new product, an NHS Computer System, which in some way reflects the workings of the NHS, but is clearly not a ‘carbon copy’ of the NHS, but only a comprehensive attempt to replicate the features regarded as essential and relevant to the computer system.So, in terms of the separate entities of Schaff’s tripartite theory of cognition:the NHS is the ‘object’;the human analysts, designers, coders and testers, are the ‘subject’;the NHS Computer System is the ‘knowledge’.Is the System a ‘true’ reflection of the NHS? Yes, if it works as proposed.Is the System an identical copy of the NHS? Of course not. Another System could be built, produced by different analysts, designers, coders and testers, with different ideas about what the NHS is, and what purposes and interests the System should serve, and this second System can also be regarded as a ‘true reflection’ of the NHS, whilst still being different to the other ‘true reflection’ of the first System.As another example of this tripartite schema, perhaps posters remember DJP’s likening ‘nature’ (object) to ‘evidence’, and my response that ‘evidence’ instead was similar to ‘knowledge’ which had been selected from a ‘crime scene’. In this example, the ‘crime scene’ (object) forms the basis of an active examination by the legal offices (subject) who then build a case of evidence (knowledge).This is the cognitive method of science: scientists (subject) actively interrogate the universe (object) and employ the product (knowledge) to prove itself.Perhaps one could say that ‘knowledge’ is a representation accurate enough for the purposes of the producer. Thus, knowledge is formed by humans from the entity it represents for a reason, and the ability of the knowledge to be used for those reasons proves its accuracy.But… knowledge is not the object; knowledge is not an identical copy of object; knowledge is a selection made by an interested subject.I hope this all helps, comrades. I would appreciate some feedback from those readers who didn’t feel that they properly understood the more arcane parts of this thread, but that now they do (or don’t, as it may be).

We have here all the elements of the scientific method, and perhaps we could, too, liken it to a baker making pies.The constituents of the pie exist prior to the attempt to bake the pie, but the pie doesn’t emerge from the baker merely looking at the ingredients. The process requires the interaction of two things: the ingredients and an active human. The pie is created by the human working upon the ingredients. Thus, we have a third entity, which is an admixture of real ingredients and human creativity. The pie is based upon the real ingredients, but is not a mere ‘copy’ of the ingredients.It’s doesn’t take much imagination to realise, though, that the ingredients themselves don’t magically appear on the table: they are also selected, according to the tastes, abilities, training and culture of the baker: the selecting baker is an amalgam of individual and social elements. And furthermore, the process of baking a pie includes some accidental elements, like mood or an oven which had developed a dodgy thermostat. Finally, the same ingredients baked by another baker could result in a very different pie, or a different baker may choose slightly different ingredients for the same type of pie (better cuts of meat, salt, pepper, etc.).This pie-making method, I would argue, is far closer to the knowledge-making method of science than we are lead to believe, by those who would have us just blindly accept ‘science’ as an unquestionable authority for their deeds.Often, those who argue for the authority of the scientific method say that ‘replicability’ is a key element, but this often a gray area. Anyone who has studied the sciences in school will know that often an experiment is followed to the teacher’s precise instructions, but still doesn’t work. The pupil is then blamed, rather than encouraging the belief that science is more variable than the scientific authorities would like society to believe. And what counts as a ‘replica’? Anyway, for info:http://cogprints.org/7691/7/icmlws09.pdfSo, to return to ALB’s essential question:

ALB wrote:

But, in turn, I put a question to you: what in your view are the criteria by which to judge whether a theory or view is "knowledge" or just fantasy or wrong/inaccurate/inadequate?

Given my beliefs as a Communist and following the outlined theory of cognition of science, I’d argue that the only ‘criteria’ which can ever be acceptable for humans are those arrived at by the society that is doing the human social activity of science. The current ‘criteria’ of the bourgeoisie won’t be the future ‘criteria’ of the proletariat.Thus, I’d argue that, for Communist society, the ‘judgment’ between ‘knowledge’ and ‘fantasy’ should be a democratic one. Of course, this is predicated upon a society where all productive activity, including scientific research and development, is under democratic control, and every member of humanity has open to them a scientific education up to post-PhD research, where to be a ‘scientist’ is to be taught to have the ability to explain their work in terms understandable by those affected by that science, where all scientific research papers are openly available to all, and where all children and taught to think critically about all affairs that affect their society.Or is there an arcane method, beyond the ken of ordinary folk, which can’t be explained by simple analogy, which must remain the concern of a scientific priesthood, which produces ‘Truth’, an eternal and socially-neutral truth?No, science is political, and we Communists must argue for its control by our society, just as we do for our economics and politics, through democratic means.

[LBird]

'Shame' as part of science? Who'd've thought it? How can an allegedly 'neutral method' bring 'shame', which is an all-too-human feeling?

A Nobel prize winner wrote:

“Another problem is that scientists begin to feel ashamed of negative results, which wasn’t the case a few years ago. Negative results are often as important as the positive results. The current system doesn’t tolerate failure."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dash-for-cash-is-stopping-science-in-its-tracks-claims-nobel-winner-8539744.htmlThese discoveries by scientists (and I mean the discovery of how shit capitalism is for science, not graphene) opens up the possibility of Communists providing an alternative approach. Only free access Communism can provide the socio-economic basis of anything approaching 'blue-skies research'.

[LBird]

Well, from what I can tell by the quote by Pannekoek you have provided, ALB, as the basis of your theory of cognition, it seems to agree with the one that I’ve put forward, based upon Schaff.I’ve argued that an active social subject interacts with a really-existing object, to produce knowledge, which is based upon, but not identical to, the object.As I think we both agree with a) the premise of the object being real and prior to cognition, and b) the premises that the subject is both social (not an isolated individual) and is active (not a passive registering instrument, but a searching and selective producer), we should clarify some issues about knowledge, to ensure we agree on the nature of this third entity, too.Of course, there is more to be said of both object and subject, where other posters might disagree with us (for example, some might argue that ‘real object’ doesn’t include ideas, but only things that can be ‘touched’ (ie. the ‘material’ or ‘matter’), or argue that the subject is an individual), but I think we agree on these two entities, so far.The part of the process of cognition that I think is worth clarifying is the issue of the ‘production of knowledge’. That is, it is a third entity which differs from the object of which it is knowledge of, and that it is ‘actively produced’, and so must contain elements of the producer.These, then, are my two questions:Do you agree that ‘knowledge’ is a separate entity to ‘object’?Do you agree that ‘knowledge’ is ‘produced’, rather than is an identical copy?Of course, if you think that I’ve posed those two questions in an unclear or unfair way, it’s open to you to discuss a ‘re-formulation’ of them! And if you disagree from the start that Pannekoek’s quote supports Schaff, then we can re-examine the quote in detail.

[Author]

Posts