[LBird]

Since we’re trading ‘Marx quotes’:

Karl Marx, The German Ideology, wrote:

This method of approach is not devoid of premises. It starts out from the real premises and does not abandon them for a moment.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

Karl Marx, EPM, wrote:

But also when I am active scientifically, etc… then my activity is social, because I perform it as a man. Not only is the material of my activity given to me as a social product (as is even the language in which the thinker is active): my own existence is social activity, and therefore that which I make of myself, I make of myself for society and with the consciousness of myself as a social being.My general consciousness is only the theoretical shape of that of which the living shape is the real community, the social fabric, although at the present day general consciousness is an abstraction from real life and as such confronts it with hostility. The activity of my general consciousness, as an activity, is therefore also my theoretical existence as a social being.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm'Not devoid of premises'.'the material of my activity [is] given to me as a social product', 'as is even language'.For Marx, something precedes practice. 'Premises' are 'given'.But, really, trading quotes is no substitute for comrades thinking for themselves, now, in this century, using the advances of the last 150 years since Marx wrote, made by both Communists and bourgeois philosophers

[LBird]

Well, I'll take that as one vote for 'ignorance and stupidity'.Or should that be 'stupidity and ignorance'?

[LBird]

The issue of whether 'theory precedes practice' or 'practice precedes theory' surely has already been settled to most comrades minds, given the quotes which support the 'theory' position, and the absence of any justification for the 'practice precedes theory' argument?It's a no-brainer, comrades. Theory precedes practice. Even the bourgeois thinkers, catching up with Communists, have got that far!To argue otherwise, is to return to the pre-Popperian position of 'induction'.Remember Popper's 'searchlight theory of mind', which he counterposed to the earlier inductive and positivist 'bucket theory of mind'? The 'mind as a passive bucket' into which 'sensual experience' just pours itself?And what was Carr arguing, in his 'What is History?', which the SPGB actually used as a title for a meeting, if not the necessity of recognising our preconceptions which determine selection?And we Communists always say 'theory and practice'.The 'practice first' position is a fundamentally conservative stance, because it ignores the conditions that exist prior to practice, and takes the line that 'we must deal with reality, as things exists'. On the contrary, revolutionaries critically question 'what exists' and have a plan for action, to change reality. Don't we?We really should have a vote on this issue, before we proceed any further.I vote for 'theory precedes practice'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What new has been learned by anyone?

You asked for some 'explanation' of the issues, ajj.I've given an analogy of an 'NHS computer system' – did this help you, at all? I've not had much feedback, except for a comment by Brian.It's hard to judge whether the thread has been of any use, unless some other posters (not the main contributors) make an assessment.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

theory' must precede 'practice', otherwise how do we account for the moment of 'selection'?

Don't ask me, ask Pannekoek. He said it when discussing the origin (as opposed to the practice and methods) of science.

But surely we are discussing the 'practice and methods of science'?Y'know, 'cognition'.How can a 'selection' be made from a infinite stream of potential sense-impressions, originating from the object, without a 'theory'?Isn't that what the SPGB's meeting was about, which I wish I'd been able to attend?Otherwise, 'selection' (which must take place) becomes a random event – 'science as lottery' method?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why don't you just f**k off, you dim b*st*rd.

Come on, this isn't debating. Let's all play nicely 

I've been as patient as I can with twc, over two threads, in which they've been gratuitously offensive to me. We're not talking about criticising my ideas, that's fine. It's about attacking me.In fact, I'm surprised a moderator hasn't at least had a 'quiet word' with twc, about their posts. Really, twc needs a public warning. It's not an isolated event, but in almost every post they've made.Still, my apologies to the other posters.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

In other words, practice gives rise to theory.

Must be just an accident that 'praxis' is always referred to as the unity of 'theory and practice', eh?No, of course we all accept the unity, but 'theory' must precede 'practice', otherwise how do we account for the moment of 'selection'?Unless you're arguing for a blindfolded 'pin the tail on the donkey', ALB, as your preferred 'method'!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

And in his A History of Astronomy:

Quote:

Science originated not from an abstract urge for truth and knowledge but as part of living, as a spontaneous practice born of social needs. (p. 19)

So, 'science originated' 'from' 'social needs'. Even the 'spontaneity' (sic) was 'born from'. So, not 'spontaneous', but 'historical'. A poor choice of word from Pannekoek, perhaps?Not 'biological needs'.Not 'individual needs'.Social. Doesn't that imply language and thinking? Don't they, in turn, imply 'theory'?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…the stuff you’ve gleaned third-hand from Lakatos.

Why don't you just f**k off, you dim b*st*rd.If only 'action' did come before 'theory', I wouldn't have to give you instructions to follow.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Theories don't emerge from data. Theories define their data. Selection is inescapable, from an infinite stream of sense-impressions from the object.

The second and third sentences I agree with but the first is false.Many theories have emerged from data, though of course you need a prior theory to be able to take data in the first place.

I'm afraid this is incoherent, DJP.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

You should have come to the talk last night on "What is History?" where the point was made that it is even more evident in history-writing than in the "natural sciences" that what is happening is that people are selecting from an array of empirically-established perceptions to construct a picture of what did happen. Of course the picture so constructed has to bear some ressemblance to the evidence.

[my bold]Yeah, I'd have liked to! Geography dictates otherwise, I'm afraid!But, I think you meant 'the object', rather than 'the evidence'.'Evidence' has been selected.I'm sure, given the title of the talk, that this quote came up:

E.H. Carr, What is History?, wrote:

The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation.

These words apply to science.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I'm not sure what I think of that quote. Would it not be "naive realism" to think that "real individuals, their activity and the material condition under which they live" can actually be a "premise"? I'm not sure that passage really makes sense.

I think that your valid concerns, here, can be answered by looking to Lakatos' 'research programmes' and their 'hard cores'. That is, a 'premise' is part of an ontological 'hard core' that can't be questioned. This makes for a 'strange' account of science, for those who employ 'induction', as do naive realists, I think, and want to produce 'objective knowledge'.Theory always preceeeds observation, as Einstein pointed out!Theories don't emerge from data. Theories define their data. Selection is inescapable, from an infinite stream of sense-impressions from the object.Humans predetermine which 'sense-impressions' count.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I think Marx and Engels meant simply that this was the "object" of historical studies (just as the passing world of phenomena is the "object" of the natural sciences), but the passage as worded (or, rather, as translated) could be seen as a bit positivistic.

[my bold]FWIW, I do think that Marx can be 'read' in a 'positivistic' way, but I think that goes against many other ways he phrased his ideas. Marx is a poor writer, in my opinion, and very unclear on many issues. But… he is suggestive…Again, FWIW, I think Engels erroneously latched onto this 'implicit' positivism, and under the influence of his times, moved ever closer to an 'explicit' view of science that Marx didn't hold. Who was it who said, 'social being determines social consciousness'? But this would be an entirely new thread, so I'd rather not pursue this 'Engels was a positivist' line, here now. If we sort out our 'cognition', I think then is time to query Engels.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts wrote:

History itself is a real part of natural history – of nature developing into man. Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.

[my bold]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

Perhaps so, but we are still a long way off!

Yes, I agree!But there's no harm in us trying to formulate a form of 'science' that Marx thought possible.Perhaps Marx was wrong, or he is right but my own efforts are wrong-headed, and someone else might suggest a better way of trying to realise his idea.On my part, I'm yet to hear an argument that completely undermines my efforts – and I've tried on a few sites! The fact that no-one seems to be able to point out where I'm going wrong, gives me more encouragement to carry on.That doesn't mean I am right, of course.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Yes, you could be right. This method is equally applicable to the "natural sciences". Not sure that Marx said so anywhere did he, but I could be wrong.

Here we go, comrade!

Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts wrote:

History itself is a real part of natural history – of nature developing into man. Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.

[my bold]http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

[Author]

Posts