[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O7D9AyU-nLYC&dq=pannekoek+history+astronomy&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PnsYUsqiJaeM0AXV9YFY&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAAThere is a copy of this book in the party library.  He does apply cod Hegelian structures, he talks of science as the transformation of quality into quantity (for example, rather than a star being 'bright' it is a measurable figure on the luminosity scale).  Not quite Engelsian in saying such dialectics occur in nature, he seems to be implcitly saying the dialectic lies in the scientific process.

Thanks for the recommendation, YMS. I've just ordered a copy, but I won't be able to read it until next week.

[LBird]

Just to keep some info relevant to this discussion together:

LBird, from other thread, wrote:

DJPs link wrote:

SummaryA scientific theory must be testable. It must be possible in principle to prove it wrong.Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth.Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory.A "good" or useful scientific theory will make testable predictions of what should happen under new circumstances that are independent of the original problem or observation for which the theory was developed.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s2.htm  

Anderton wrote:

And so what we have from Einstein what he meant by theory as – theory determines what we observe.Einstein says: “Theory determines what we observe.” [1]This is contrary to many people’s understanding of what a theory is; they think in terms of collect data and then form a theory to match that data. Einstein instead thinks – form a theory then interpret that data from the theory. So for him if the data does not match the theory then the data has to be adjusted to fit.Einstein tells us: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" [2]This is completely opposite to most people who think if data does not fit the theory then abandon the theory for another theory. And this goes against their understanding of what the scientific method “is”—namely testing theories.Einstein goes against that method and keeps the theory no matter what experiments show.The issue then becomes what exactly is Einstein’s theory (theories) of relativity. (From now on I will just tend to say “Einstein’s theory”.) Since it does not allow itself to be tested then many people might think it was not a scientific theory; because from their philosophy a scientific theory must be testable. It would be good to know if science/physics were definitely based upon this philosophic attitude. However, we have allowed Einstein to be declared genius in 1919 that implies that we do things the way Einstein deemed and we adopt his method. So from that perspective he has radically changed things as to what a theory “is” and what science/physics “is.”This radical change that Einstein makes to the meaning of “theory” hits many people as –Einstein must have been joking. But it really reveals how deep down his philosophic point-of view is completely different to theirs.

[my bold]http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/anderton66.pdf So, we have the bourgeois myth of scientific method:- “if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the theory”;And Einstein the scientist’s statement:“if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the experiment”.Providing links to sites of scientists influenced by the bourgeois myth is not enough. We need to be clear that ‘science’ is political, and seek to really understand what ‘science actually is’, for the proletariat. It needs discussion. There are philosophical and political ideologies involved.

[LBird]

DJPs link wrote:

SummaryA scientific theory must be testable. It must be possible in principle to prove it wrong.Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth.Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory.A "good" or useful scientific theory will make testable predictions of what should happen under new circumstances that are independent of the original problem or observation for which the theory was developed.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/scimethd/s2.htm  

Anderton wrote:

And so what we have from Einstein what he meant by theory as – theory determines what we observe.Einstein says: “Theory determines what we observe.” [1]This is contrary to many people’s understanding of what a theory is; they think in terms of collect data and then form a theory to match that data. Einstein instead thinks – form a theory then interpret that data from the theory. So for him if the data does not match the theory then the data has to be adjusted to fit.Einstein tells us: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" [2]This is completely opposite to most people who think if data does not fit the theory then abandon the theory for another theory. And this goes against their understanding of what the scientific method “is”—namely testing theories.Einstein goes against that method and keeps the theory no matter what experiments show.The issue then becomes what exactly is Einstein’s theory (theories) of relativity. (From now on I will just tend to say “Einstein’s theory”.) Since it does not allow itself to be tested then many people might think it was not a scientific theory; because from their philosophy a scientific theory must be testable. It would be good to know if science/physics were definitely based upon this philosophic attitude. However, we have allowed Einstein to be declared genius in 1919 that implies that we do things the way Einstein deemed and we adopt his method. So from that perspective he has radically changed things as to what a theory “is” and what science/physics “is.”This radical change that Einstein makes to the meaning of “theory” hits many people as –Einstein must have been joking. But it really reveals how deep down his philosophic point-of view is completely different to theirs.

[my bold]http://www.gsjournal.net/old/weuro/anderton66.pdf So, we have the bourgeois myth of scientific method:-           “if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the theory”;And Einstein the scientist’s statement:             “if experimental data clashes with theory, ditch the experiment”.Providing links to sites of scientists influenced by the bourgeois myth is not enough. We need to be clear that ‘science’ is political, and seek to really understand what ‘science actually is’, for the proletariat. It needs discussion. There are philosophical and political ideologies involved.

[LBird]

 

ALB wrote:

I'm not sure but Anton Pannekoek might be on it somewhere: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/student-theses/2013-0606-200612/UUin.

From link:

C.K. Tai s Abstract wrote:

…I will argue that by looking at Pannekoek's work using the framework of epistemic virtues, the parallels between his scientific work and his political philosophy become apparent. Pannekoek himself maintained that his scientific work was strictly separated from his socialist philosophy. A far more unified image, however, has emerged as the result of this research.

Now, that would be worth a read. It could form the basis of a unified scientific method, as sought by Marx.Do you have any quotes from Pannekoek that confirm his alleged 'strict separation' of science and politics, ALB? I'm going to have a root around myself.A new thread might be best, because we don't want to derail this one (again!).

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yes, indeed! And that also applies to scientific truths

Well, yes. But not to be confused with THE Truth, which we can only get at by testing theories against reality…"Scientific truths are based on clear observations of physical reality and can be tested through observation."http://www.astronomynotes.com/chapter1/s6.htm

Must be a Communist site I haven't come across!

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Marxism is not a final, self-sufficient schematisation of history, but rather as a collection of pointers to the understanding of human affairs.  These pointers needed to be somewhat imprecise if Marxism was to take into account the complicated social processes and variety of forces at work in history. Marxism was to be understood as a "critical theory", in the sense that it sees no truths as everlasting, and was ready to drop its own ideas if experience should so dictate.

[my bold]Yes, indeed! And that also applies to scientific truths

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Bertrand Russell wrote:

The concept of 'truth' as something dependent upon facts largely outside human control…

Why aren't you concerned with exploring 'dependent' and 'largely', DJP?Russell didn't say 'truth equals facts'.You still seem to think I'm arguing 'truth equals anything'.There is a third postion between 'truth equals facts' and 'truth equals anything'.It's the position of Marx, Pannekoek and, as you show, Russell.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Basically, as long as you're not religious (or idealist), anything goes (including yours!) After all, socialism is a practical proposition, not a philosophical one.

But I think that there are political implications from what I've argued.To me, anyone who wants to leave scientists in charge of science might as well be wanting to leave property owners in charge of property. I regard 'science' as a central bastion of bourgeois authority, a bit like the 'market', in that its 'rules' are not subject to human control.As I've said, I've read other comrades argue that 'according to science…'. This is identical to saying 'according to the market…'.This all sprang from the use of that type of argument against Sotionov (remember them, long ago?). Science is not a value-free method of producing the 'truth'. I think it's bourgeois ideology to argue that it is. You can see the political problems that would flow from that.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

You're mistaken if you think there is some kind of homogenous 'party line' on this matter, you're also mistaken if you think all the contributors to this thread are SPGB members.

Perhaps there isn't a formal 'party line', even amongst the non-members, but the lack of any support at all for my arguments regarding science, truth and knowledge on this thread clearly shows that I'm in the wrong place.There's no problem, as I said, it's my mistake.

DJP wrote:

But I would like to know where or how specifically you think Anti-Duhring is antithetical to Lenin as Philosopher.

I haven't got the energy any longer, comrade. I know when I'm beaten.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Engels isn't that bad. In fact, his Socialism, Scientific and Utopian is the best introduction there is to "Marxism". It can even be called its founding document.

Now I know why our stances are different, ALB.My mistake, I've made a gross error, if the SPGB look to Engels' (and Plekhanov, Kautsky and Lenin's) philosophical views of 'materialism'.The very antithesis of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, and Pannekoek's views of praxis (the unity of theory and practice).19th century 'materialism', eh? Personally, I blame Charlie – if he'd written a bit clearer, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.[and I know Charlie wrote chapter 2.10 of Anti-Duhring]

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…as I think Engels once remarked…

Engels?!Christ, we are on a slippery slope here, comrade, if we're turning to Engels' ideas on philosophy!Perhaps you should consult within the party, ALB? How about the chap who did that talk you linked to?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Drivel. We acted before we were conscious of it. Consciousness comes after.

Marxism, Physics and Philosophy, pt.1.mp3, 30:02, said not wrote:

Practical action is conscious deliberate action.

[LBird]

Marxism, Physics and Philosophy pt.1.mp3, 29:19, said not wrote:

We make the truth

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That won't work because it assumes that the word "know" meant the same then as it does today. Which it didn't, so we'd be using the word in two different senses.

You're making this up as you go along, mate!Why not discuss what I've said about Pannekoek, and indeed Marx?We've not even got to Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend or Lakatos.I'll let you have the last word, ALB, because we're clearly not taking this forward, and the 'contributions' of twc make me despair.Thanks, anyway, for the discussion, comrade.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Drivel.

Glad to see you're keeping up with human thought.

[Author]

Posts