[LBird]

DJP wrote:

The truth of a theory relating to something 'out there' is not testing by comparing it with other theories but by attempting to compare it with the thing we are refering to.

You'll have to describe the 'method' you have in mind to do this 'comparing' to 'something out there' which doesn't involve a 'theory', DJP.That's what this whole discussion is about.If you have non-theoretical, neutral access to the 'thing out there' (object), please share it with us.The 'attempt to compare' is a human, social, theory-informed, activity. To argue otherwise, is to espouse inductivism or positivism.Just as your video shows, if anyone had been asked 'how many species did you see?', they would have answered 'one', ie., humans.But as to how many species were in the video, that depends on one's theory! Mere observation is not enough.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Well, I could do but that wouldn't affect the truth or falsity of any claims they make!

Of course it will! 'Truth' and 'falsity' are related to 'knowledge', which is a social construct, and thus has a social and class component.This will be even more evident within psychology than it is in physics.

DJP wrote:

Much of this will come from behavioural science and behavioural economics.

You do know that these are heavily ideological? You are taking the piss out of me, aren't you?Perhaps I'm missing the irony in your post, DJP?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

…"I better concentrate on the white players" isn't much of a theory after all.

[my bold]So, it is a 'theory', though?

DJP wrote:

This is why scientific knowledge advances, because it has an inbuilt awareness of our infallibility and uses nature (with the knowledge that we cannot directly or fully observe it) as the external referee when theories compete against each other.

I presume that you meant to write 'fallibility' here, DJP?And if so, I take it you now agree that the sun/earth relationship is 'knowledge' and is a fallible social construct based on an indirect or 'not full' observation? Of course, any new fallible theory would have to compete with this old fallible theory on the basis of the sun/earth as an external component of both theories, rather than as a objective 'referee'. The sun/earth will only tell us what we ask – they are infinite in their information. The 'object' is a component of 'knowledge', not an impartial judge of it.Thus, sun/earth relationship (knowledge) would have a history, and could potentially change, and can't be a one-off discovery of The Truth, suitable for all eternity.This is one thing we mean by 'science'. Acceptance of human fallibility. 'Truth' sits in 'knowledge', not the 'object'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I'm going to be taking part in the pilot run of this course, as there's been discussion on this site concerning cognition thought I would share.

Just make sure you know which political ideology the organisers espouse, and get some basic definitions from them about what they mean by 'science', 'mind', 'rational', 'morality', etc., etc.Sounds very interesting. Even if you find that you disagree with their political beliefs, there should be plenty of 'facts' (sic) given, which you will then be able to rework into a more suitable framework, should it prove necessary.You might even be able to teach them a thing or two! Hope you enjoy it, DJP

[LBird]

DJP, that video is a superb illustration of the theoretical preconceptions all humans have, and which necessarily determine selection. Thanks.There is no passive observation of the object. 'Theory determines what we observe'.

[LBird]

Karl Marx wrote:

The weak points in the abstract materialism of natural science, a materialism that excludes history and its process…

Capital, Chpt 15, fn 4.

DJP wrote:

The quotes are all well and good, but I don't know who your highlighted passages are aimed at since no-one on here has expressed any kind of dualist philosophy?

That's not true, DJP. twc (and Brian?) didn't like my quoting of Smith when when twc wanted a 'science' quote. twc separates out so-called 'hard science', like physics, from so-called 'soft science', like sociology. This can't be done: it is methodologically incorrect.Anyone asked to give an example of 'science' is entitled to choose any discipline, from history to psychology and the rest, for their polemical purposes. Those arguing for 'science' are not allowed to circumscribe 'science' to 'physics' (or what they erroneously call, 'proper science').

[LBird]

For information. Bold mine.Dietzgen on the unity of natural and social in one science:

Dietzgen wrote:

Modern science is even to-day still animated by the bias of the materialists of the 18th century. These materialists were the general theoreticians, the philosophers of natural science, so to speak, in so far as the latter confines its study to the mechanical, that is the palpable, the ponderable and tangible. Natural science, of course, has begun long since to overstep these limits. Already Chemistry has led beyond the narrow boundaries of the mechanical, and the same is now being done in Physics by the theory of the conservation and transformation of energy. With all that, however, science is narrow and wanting in penetration, it still lacks a systematic theory of the Universe as an infinite monistic evolutionary process. The study of the human mind and of all those relations which cognition has effected in human history, that is, the things political, judicial, economical, etc., all this natural science excludes from its province, still laboring under the delusion that mind is something metaphysical, is a child of another world and not subject to the laws governing the Universe.Science deserves that reproach not because it separates the mechanical, chemical, electro-technical and other knowledge from one another and constitutes them special branches; this is quite legitimate; our reproach is only directed against the metaphysical mode of thinking in which science is caught, as it were, in a straightjacket, as is evidenced by its hard and fast distinctions and by its absolute separation of matter from mind. It is only in so far as it does not perceive that Politics, Logic, History, Law, and Economics – in short, all mental relations are natural and scientific relations, that it together with the mechanical materialists and the German idealists still remains in the metaphysical, that is in the transcendental stage.

Dietzgen on the unity of matter and mind as one reality:

Dietzgen wrote:

The Socialist materialism understands by matter not only the ponderable and tangible, but the whole real existence. Everything that is contained in the Universe – and in it is contained everything, the All and the Universe being but two names for one thing – everything this Socialist materialism embraces in one conception, one name, one category, whether that category be called the actuality, reality, Nature or matter.We, modern Socialists, are not of the narrow opinion that the ponderable and tangible matter is matter par excellence. We hold that the scent of flowers, sounds and smells are also material. We do not conceive the forces as mere appendices, mere predicates of matter, and matter, the tangible one as “the thing” which dominates over all properties. Our conception of matter and force is, so to speak, democratic….Because we Socialist materialists have only one inter-related conception of matter and mind, the so-called mental relations such as those of politics, religion, morals, etc., are to us also material conditions…

http://www.marxists.org/archive/dietzgen/1887/epistemology.htmJoseph Dietzgen (1887) Excursions of a Socialist into the Domain of Epistemology

[LBird]

Quote:

He refused propositions of militants of KAPD about cooperation, despite some similarity in theoretical analysis, because didn’t have faith in victory of world proletarian revolution in near future. He consider necessary to do long preparatory work.

http://revsoc.org/archives/2201Well, if this is a true reflection of Bogdanov’s thought, I think I do share this position with him, ALB!

Quote:

As slogan of all his life is possible to remember excellent words of Lassale: “In our rotten and decaying bourgeois world exists only two new, healthy and fresh forces – science and workers. When science and workers will unite, they in common will crush cursed old world”.

Let’s hope we can play our part in this process! Marx’s unification of science, so that ‘science’ stops being an activity of ‘experts’, and becomes a mass activity under our democratic control.Unfortunately, the rest of the article seems to move to being an apology for ‘real’ Bolshevism, which was hi-jacked by Lenin and the other leaders. I disagree with Bolshevism in its entirety.I’ll try to look at the other links later, too, ALB.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB, I know nothing of Bogdanov. Would you care to provide a short summary of what you consider to be his ideas? Especially those relevant to this discussion, about cognition, or wider scientific method.

I don't know much about him either I'm afraid because most of what he wrote has not been translated from Russian. I'm just going by what others (eg Lenin) say he said. In this 1907 article criticising Dietzgen, Plekhanov groups together as having the same sort of ideas Dietzgen, Bogdanov, Pannekoek and Unterman on "cognition":http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/dietzgen.htmPlekhanov was taking the position of 18th century French materialism that Pannekoek criticised him for. Plekhanov didn't think much of Panneloek either. See: http://www.marxists.org/archive/plekhanov/1907/pannekoek.htm#n1Here's an article by modern Russian group which also links Bogdanov and Pannekoek and provides more on what he meant by "tectology":http://revsoc.org/archives/2201Bogdanov's socialist/communist credentials are confirmed in this extract from his book A Short Course of Economic Science which the party used to recommend:http://revsoc.org/archives/7467I'd like to know more about Bogdanov's ideas myself if anybody who reads Russian can help.

Thanks for the links, ALB.I'll try to follow them up, and try to see if I can understand the similarities/differences between Pannekoek/Dietzgen and Bogdanov. On Untermann, a comrade here provided a suggestion for the book Science and Revolution, which I've bought and had a glance at. Untermann seems to be more influenced by Engels than I like, but I might be wrong about Untermann's views. At present, though, I'd separate his ideas from Pannekoek/Dietzgen.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I would urge you again to look more into the ideas of Alexander Bogdanov who had similar ideas to you on cognition, truth and the unification of science. See for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TectologyHe also meets your test of being a Communist (or socialist, same thing):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_BogdanovYou may be trying to re-invent the wheel!

ALB, I know nothing of Bogdanov. Would you care to provide a short summary of what you consider to be his ideas? Especially those relevant to this discussion, about cognition, or wider scientific method.I've looked to the links, and I certainly disagree with Proletkultism, and his lack of democratic content, given his focus on technology.[later edit]

wikipedia wrote:

The starting point in Bogdanov's Universal Science of Organization – Tectology (1913-1922) was that nature has a general, organized character, with one set of laws of organization for all objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TectologyIs this a fair statement of Bogdanov's views, ALB?How does this compare with Pannekoek's position that 'laws' are humanly-created laws, rather than 'laws of nature'? I.e. that 'laws' sit in 'knowledge', rather than in 'object'.

Pannekoek wrote:

Hence Historical Materialism looks upon the works of science, the concepts, substances, natural Laws, and forces, although formed out of the stuff of nature, primarily as the creations of the mental Labour of man. Middle-class materialism, on the other hand, from the point of view of the scientific investigator, sees all this as an element of nature itself which has been discovered and brought to light by science.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1938/lenin/ch02.htm

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Brian wrote:

Again its so obvious that your attraction towards Schaff is bordering on idolatry and therefore you are not applying critical thinking in a robustic manner towards him.  

I don't think this is fair. Complex issues like this do require a more extensive background reading than can be gleamed from reading a few forum posts. LBird says he is impressed by Schaffs theory of cognition and agrees with it, that is fair enough. The trouble is Schaff's work is hard to find and not available online. So most of us can't discuss Schaff, hence the references to Deitzgen and Pannekoek. You don't think we are Deitzgen or Pannekoek idolizers do you?

Yeah, I've already said that I disagree with Schaff over a number of issues. I've tried to expose his ideas to collective criticism, the better to advance both my own thoughts and other comrades'.As you also say, discussions 'require a more extensive background reading', which few posters seem to be prepared to do. At the very least, they could ask for clarifications and analogous explanations, which I've tried to give, with my outlines of Schaff's ideas and a description of a theory of cognition in the form of the production of an 'NHS Computer System'. These seem to have been, for the most part, ignored. Those who oppose Schaff's theory certainly haven't tried to either openly state their own theory (which they have, but probably don't recognise) or to give an analogy to help other comrades come to terms with their ideas, and to help them to contrast them with Schaff's cognitive theory, the better to illustrate both.But some posters prefer the 'individualist' approach, of using 'common sense', and make no attempt to outline their own preconceptions – no doubt, because their 'method' tells them that such exposure is not required. Essentially, it comes down to 'it's my opinion, and that's that'.Whatever it is, it's not any sort of 'scientific method', but ruling class ideas masquerading as 'personal opinion'. In fact, it's ignorance, both of 'scientific method' and the basics of Marx's ideas about 'ruling class ideas' permeating all of our thinking.However, I'm prepared to carry on discussions with comrades who want to ask questions, both of me and themselves. But comrades must tell us what the basis of their ideas are, so that we can compare and contrast, and take the discussion forward.

[LBird]

It’s my opinion that the longer-term purpose of these discussions between Communists (cognition, nature versus humanity, matter versus mind, methodology, etc.) is to produce a ‘scientific method’ that can be applied to all aspects of ‘natural humanity’. Thus, there can’t be a separation, which some comrades seem to think is necessary, between the ‘physical’ or ‘material’ world and the ‘social’ or ‘philosophical’ world. As I have shown, Marx thought that the unification of nature and humanity into one science was possible, and I think that we Communists should be attempting to do this. I see my current discussion about ‘theories of cognition’ as a very small step on the winding road to that distant goal.Any method, that we can come up with, has to be applicable to the full range of ‘science’, from physics to sociology, and taking in astronomy, chemistry, biology and psychology (and all the other disciplines), along the way.To do this, we have to take on board the best of both Marxist and bourgeois thought on the subject, and, given any suitable recent advances originating from either source, to also ditch any baggage produced by earlier Marxists, which we now consider to have been mistaken. And baggage does exist, not least starting with Engels, in my opinion.These tasks cannot be approached from the perspective of ‘individual common sense’, which is always anything but! To do so, would be similar to approaching Marx’s works on political economy from the viewpoint of today’s ‘individual consumer’ and their ‘personal free choice’. Since I assume most readers on this site will have seen through the bourgeois mystification of the so-called ‘free market’ and its ‘free choice’, and will have come to realise that we are all brainwashed within our society into its ways of thinking from birth, then I think that it should be easier for comrades to come to appreciate the similar problems facing us Communists when it comes to ‘science’. We have to actively question ‘common sense’, as much in ‘science’ as in ‘the market’.Once more, it’s my opinion that ‘science’ and ‘the market’ are the central bastions of bourgeois authority, and that production, both scientific and economic, must be put under our democratic control.One of the things that I find attractive about the SPGB is its insistence on ‘democracy’, and that the class, not a party or sect, should be the final arbiters of all decisions that affect our world society. Within this scope, I include ‘science’, and I’m hoping that comrades, perhaps given some further explanations, discussions and study, will also come to take this position.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

According to LBird I'm both right and wrong.

Yes, you're 'right' that there is an external reality. But we all agree on that, I think.More seriously, what you're 'wrong' about is how we 'understand' that external reality.

Brian wrote:

On the question of what theory of cognition do I use is for my way of thinking or particular mindset, its a hard one to grasp but also a very difficult one to answer in a definitive sense. Because firstly, with all due (self)respect my actual method of cognition in use at a particular moment in time depends on a whole host of factors like: mood; interest; enjoyment; awareness; knowledge; understanding; skills; experience; etc, etc. Obviously, these factors filter or if you prefer select which food of thought tickles my fancy at a given moment in time.

This is just good old bourgeois individualism. No scientific method, of any sort. If that suits you, then fine, but it's not 'science'.

Brian wrote:

Secondly, I prefer this situation because it allows me not to participate in the silly business of self-labelling.

I think some would call it 'self-awareness'!

Brian wrote:

Last but not least it provides a certain amount of autonomy and flexibiity through induction and deduction what particular sensation fits in with my experience of being a member of the working class.

And 'bollocks to method', eh?

Brian wrote:

Having said that and in all honesty, I'm very comfortable with the present situation…

I must admit, since other posters must feel the same way as you do, that I'm not sure why those who feel this way are participating in a thread which requires some (or much!) critical reading and thinking about present, 'comfortable', common sense ways of understanding the world, especially scientifically.All I can say, Brian, is if you're happy, that's fine by me, comrade.

[LBird]

We initiate the conversation with external reality.Reality exists, before we ask questions.But reality doesn't initiate the conversation.The conversation begins with a question.The question is a human construct.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

So it appears that LBird has dug himself into a corner where conciousness has no material base. Which from whatever angle means its a logical fallacy.

I can't believe that this nonsense still has legs!If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times! The object exists outside of, and prior to, the subject. How many more times can I say this?The question we're trying to discuss, is 'how does the subject understand the object?'.

Brian wrote:

That's me thinking for myself.

No, it isn't! You're just repeating what society has told you, all your life! It's the myth of modern science, that the object presents itself unbidden to the subject.

Brian wrote:

And means that logically our brain is not set in a vacuum for it requires something to think about which ultimately comes from our experience and practice of reproducing the species in a given environment.

Yes, the 'object' for us comes from our experience and practice! You are right!

Brian wrote:

This interaction between stimilus and response provokes thoughts and theories on what action and reaction is possible and also probable.

No, no, no!We choose what 'stimuli' (from an infinite stream) to 'respond' to, by 'selection'.The notion that 'practice' produces 'theories' is induction. If you are an inductivist, say so, and we can progress the discussion.

Brian wrote:

And when a scientific mindset of a historical period develops the knowledge and understanding that a theory is found to be tainted by the political ideology of the ruling class they decide its time to put our collective thinking caps on.

All 'science' is 'tainted' by humans. It's a human activity. There is no 'passive' route to the 'object'. Science means thinking. Thinking is human.We won't get to the root of this, comrades, until those who disagree with Schaff,OUTLINE THE THEORY OF COGNITION WHICH THEY THEMSELVES ARE EMPLOYING.Brian, which theory of cognition do you use? If you are not selecting, how do you cope with innumerable sense impressions? Why are you not overwhelmed by sensation?

[Author]

Posts