[LBird]

Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach (extract), wrote:

IThe chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity.

[my bold]'Humanity' cannot be removed from 'science'. It's 'method' is not a value-free method of contemplation.If humans are involved, ideology is involved. 'Scientists' are humans, and are not non-ideological beings, but are products of our class-divided society.

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

The truth is not relative to the current ruling ideology it is a constant which exists externally from the individual and society. In this sense I am using truth to mean reality.

But 'truth' doesn't mean 'reality'. 'Truth' is a human, social construct, and has a history (ie. 'truth' changes). 'Reality' is the object at which we aim our questions. That's what's at the heart of this discussion, and of late 20th philosophy of science.To argue that 'truth means reality' is to look towards positivism, which is scientifically discredited.

Ed wrote:

A good analogy for this debate I feel is the old chestnut if a tree falls in the forest with no-one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I would answer emphatically yes it does. I suspect LBird's answer would be "whatever the individual or society thinks at the current time."

You'd 'suspect' wrong. Please read the contributions I made on the site that I linked to earlier. It might give you more of a 'feel' for the parameters of this debate.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Agree that science does not produce "The Truth" but not that it produces "competing truths'. It is more useful to think in terms of science producing a tentative "truth" about some phenomenon, subject to revision in the light of further experience, empirical research and practice. There is only one such tentative truth at any time, which is not a matter of choice or point of view.

[my bold]Any study of the actual practice of science will show that this can be proved to be an untrue statement. Kuhn, Feyerabend or Lakatos show that 'competing tentative truths' just about sums up the actual practice of science.

ALB wrote:

OK, but his theory of human nature is not just a competing truth but is untrue, i.e a faulty theory for prediction, action and problem-solving.

Are you trying to claim that no anthropologists would support Sotionov's position? If some do, and also claim themselves to be doing 'scientific anthropology', how do we decide between these competing claims about 'human nature', if not through our ideological position as Communists? Don't forget, I share your viewpoint, not Sotionov's, but I'm claiming the basis of this is not some long-disproved notion of 'truth from science', but our shared ideological scientific assumptions. All scientists have assumptions – we should expose these through discussion, rather than deny them.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Just to say this topic has become very interesting.

Yeah, 'science and its method' is 'very interesting' as a topic in its own right.But, further, I think that the topic has some very profound political implications. Perhaps a new thread would be better for that particular discussion?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That's is more or less what I thought was the dominant "theory of science" today, but isn't it also yours? In which case doesn't it contradict your previous statement:

There’s a difference between the ‘dominant’ theory and the ‘latest’ theory. The latter is what I think we both agree on, but the scientifically-discredited positivist view of science is the view of science that the overwhelming majority of the public still believe. That is, that science produces the truth, that there can only be one truth, that science is socially neutral, etc. So I don’t think that my view contradicts itself. I think the bourgeoisie are happy for people to carry on believing this idea that ‘science’ is a value-free, objective, truth-producing method. For example:

Ed, post #16, wrote:

Which I'm sure you'll agree is not a scientific way to view evidence.

ALB, post #34, wrote:

It can be understood by anyone with an elementary knowledge of the scientifc findings of social anthropology.

alanjjohnstone, post #39, wrote:

Socialists do make assumptions but a phrase out of favour and unpopular these days is that our political ideas is based upon "scientific socialism", we arescientific socialists.

Ed, post #40, wrote:

Absolutely the case for socialism is scientific.

Ed, post #47, wrote:

So yeah I think socialists should endeavour to discard all ideology and only base their theories on the scientific method.

Ed, pos #50, wrote:

When you examine the evidence of the two theories one is either discredited through that process or both are. The discredited theory then becomes unscientific…It is pseudo-science which is biased by ideology, factual science is objective, proven, fact

ALB, post #52, wrote:

Socialism is, as a matter of objective fact not mere opinion, the only framework within which the problems facing the working class in particular (and humanity in general) can be lastingly solved. Socialist theory is a recognition of this objective fact.

I’d argue that the words ‘scientific’ and ‘objective’ are being used in all these posts as a synonym for ‘true’.

ALB wrote:

To tell the truth, I don't think that the "bourgeoisie" has ever held this view or that it is what "positivism" and "empiricism" teach…

On the contrary, the bourgeoisie did hold this view before Einstein, and academics even tried to use this ‘objective method’ to write ‘objective history’, von Ranke’s ‘simply to show how is was’.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke

wikipedia wrote:

While Ranke's method remain influential in the practice of history, his broader ideas of historiographyand empiricism are now regarded as outdated and no longer credible. It held sway among historians until the mid-twentieth century, when it was challenged by E. H. Carrand Fernand Braudel. Carr opposed Ranke's ideas of empiricism as naive, boring and outmoded, saying that historians did not merely report facts — they choose which facts they use. Braudel's approach was based on the histoire problème.[citation needed]Remarking on the legacy of Ranke's dictum that historians should represent the past "wie es eigentlich gewesen" (as it actually happened),[14]Walter Benjaminscathingly wrote that it represented "the strongest narcotic of the [nineteenth] century”

The same criticisms can be made of scientific method, as indeed you’ve already agreed. But this is still the layperson’s view of ‘science’, and ‘science’ is used to avoid ‘human’ problems of ideology, as I think that the comrades’ quotes above confirm.

ALB wrote:

In any event, I think we should avoid general criticisms of "science" like this as this helps intuitionists, primitivists, postmodernists and other irrationalists. Surely, we are in favour of a scientific method (even if not the outdated and rejected one you mention).

Why ‘avoid’ criticism of ‘science’? Surely that really is ‘unscientific’?But, yes, I am ‘in favour of a scientific method’, and I think we all are.But ‘science’ doesn’t produce ‘The Truth’, and it can produce competing ‘truths’, so merely appealing to ‘the scientific method’ does not get us out of our problems with humans and their ideologies.Back to our original issue with Sotionov?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Are you sure that "positivism" teaches that science can discover "Absolute Truth" or that this claim is the dominant one in contemporary theory of science?Ironically, it is Lenin's theory of "truth" (that knowledge is a mirror reflection of reality) that comes closer to this…

Yeah, positivism's view that scientific knowledge is 'True' is much the same, as far as I've been able to discover, as Lenin's 'knowledge as reflection' view.The 'scientific fact' (according to late 20th philosophers of science) is that 'absolute truth' of any part of reality can never be fully known. Humans actively create knowledge by their interaction with the external world.'Knowledge' of a cat is not a 'cat'. Knowledge reflects the questions we ask of reality, rather than reality itself.If anyone's interested in a more in-depth discussion of 'scientific method', I recently contributed to several threads on the ICC's site.One of them is:http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/fred/6429/beliefs-science-art-and-marxismThere are others, if anyone wants the links, I could provide them upon request.I hope that providing links to other groups is allowed on this site. If it's frowned upon, my apologies, I'll remove it if asked.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Or at least our view is "truer" (more accurate and so more practically useful) than theirs.

Yeah, I'd go along with that formulation of the problem.'Our view' (the proletarian, Communist perspective) is the better science, because we openly proclaim our 'observational position', rather than try to carry on with an outdated, scientifically disproven 'scientific method' of positivism or empiricism, which claims it can 'know' the external object (ie. reality) completely, absolutely, and thus produce 'The Truth'.Simply put, the reason that the bourgeoisie cling onto this 19th century view, and teach it in schools and through the media, is that this mythical 'scientific method' can serve as an unquestionable authority, much like the market claims that 'There is no alternative'.The 'Market' and 'Science': the twin bastions of bourgeois authority. We need to question the underpinnings of both. We will find humans involved. And where there are humans, there are currently classes.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I suppose it's a distinction between "absolute truth" (true by definition) and "relative truth" (true on the basis of being an evidence-based description that helps humans survive practically in nature and which can be refuted if some other description is put forward which can predict more accurately what will happen and so is more useful).

This is a better way of conceptualising ‘truth’. Although we all (as critical realists) accept that ‘reality’ exists, as an object outside of humans attempts to understand it, the access to that reality is a creative access by humans (as Marx points out in the Theses on Feuerbach). ‘Truth’ is a social creation by humans; that’s why ‘truth’ has a history. What’s ‘true’, according to science, changes over time due to newer human theories and experiment.But I still think that the example I gave, of 1+1=10, helps us to understand that this sum is a human creation, and contains assumptions. ‘10’ here, in base 2 of course, means ‘2’.If I ask what ‘14’ means, no-one can answer that without knowing which base is being assumed.If I’m using hexadecimal (base 16), ‘14’ means ‘20’ (in base 10).Einstein’s example about observation is relevant here. If I’m on a train tossing a ball up in the air, to me it simply goes up and down in a straight line.But for an observer on an embankment watching the train pass, the ball appears to be zig-zagging up and down on a slope, as the train passes. Which is the ‘truth’? The simple answer would be ‘the ball is really zig-zagging, and the person on the train is unawares’. But as Einstein says, the ‘truth’ is simply related to a frame of reference, so there are two ‘truths’ in play. This doesn’t mean the ball doesn’t exist, or that any description will do (post-modernist individual thought), but that the ‘truth’ is an inter-relationship between an object and the observer.This can be confirmed by countering the ‘simple truth’ above, by asking what motion the ball takes if viewed from  a spaceship, and the train is crossing the path of the motion of the earth at right angles. For this observer, the ball is moving with a ‘corkscrew’ motion. This ‘observer position’ can be repeatedly extended, whenever someone claims that their position is the ‘final’ one and produces the ‘Truth’.So, to discuss ‘truth’ in physics, we have to note both the object and the position of the active observer.I don’t think it takes much to transfer this notion of a ‘framework of observation’ to social science, and call it an ‘ideology’. Humans can’t escape ideology. And a further plus is that this singular method helps to provide a basis for Marx’s wish to unite the physical and the social into one human science.

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

If you disagree that there is a distinction between the two could you please provide a mathematical sum which is biased by ideology. Doesn't have to be hard 1+1 will do. (please don't make it too hard) if you can make an argument that 1+1=2 is an ideologically biased calculation I shall concede the argument …

1+1=10.The bias is in the base, comrade.

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

You can have a theory based on the best evidence available,…

But 'theories' predate 'evidence', as you go on to show in the second half of your statement.

Ed wrote:

… for instance the Higgs Boson particle which was predicted to exist before thay could actually find it because it was the most likely outcome based on the evidence they already had.

[my bold]'Evidence' is garnered after a theory is formulated by humans. Unfortunately, as every theory already contains assumptions and axioms, many of which determine just what is acceptable as 'evidence' for the 'theory', we can't get out of this problem by a positivist, inductive method, which claims to start from the unvarnished 'data/evidence'.That is the 'scientific method'. Acceptance of biases in human scientists, and that 'scientists' belong to social classes and have ideological views.

Ed wrote:

On the other hand you can have an unfounded theory, for instance, God or human nature. These theories are unfounded and have no objective evidence backing them up, the scientific view in this instance is to discard them as they have no validity.

'Science' just doesn't work like this. We now know that a 'theory' can determine its 'evidence'. If the theory has a axiom of 'the existence of god', it's still a 'valid theory'. That's why we have so much trouble with 'scientists' who lecture us about 'human nature'. They don't share our ideological assumptions. They have bourgeois assumptions, we have proletarian assumtions. But they are still 'scientists'.

Ed wrote:

For me ideology is to discard evidence in favour of an idea which best suits your needs, just like God. So yeah I think socialists should endeavour to discard all ideology and only base their theories on the scientific method.

I'm afraid your notion of 'the scientific method', as a supposedly objective, non-ideological, unpartisan 'method', is the… [gulp] long discredited bourgeois one. Sorry to be the bearer of ill-tidings, comrade.'Science' itself is an ideological minefield.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I assume by "ideological" you simply mean "in the field of ideas". Yes, socialists are engaged in a battle of ideas, but I think we need to find another word than "ideological" to express this.

Well, 'the field of ideas' is rooted in philosophical assumptions, as I think our discussion with Sotionov has shown. We clearly have some philosophical assumptions that Sotionov, and many other Communists, don't share.And as these various 'assumptions' are unavoidable, I think that calling every particular framework of ideas, which is based upon its own philosophical assumptions, an ideology, is a good starting place. I don't regard 'ideological' as meaning 'false consciousness' (though I'm sure others do), but as an openly declared acceptance of the partiality of all points of view, including our own.I think Communism is an ideology. All humans have to choose which ideology they want to employ, to build their understand of the world around. I think we should be open about ours, the better to expose others. And if they don't consciously choose, then one is provided for them by the existing ruling class. Unconsciousness of one's ideology is not the same as not having one. We all do have one. The bourgeois education system is not least in the methods of installing ideology in humans.To return to the matter of this thread, I think an examination of the different philosphical assumptions between adherents of f.a.c. and those of Sotionov's position can only throw more light on the issue, and perhaps help to reconcile various Communists, or at least clarify our differences. We need to get on with each other, now and in the future.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

As promised, LBird, here's the "scientific findings of social anthropology" you were asking about, taken from our pamphlet Are We Prisoners of Our Genes?:

Thanks for that, ALB. The excerpt confirms what I already thought, but I’ll read the pamphlet later, anyway.But I think we might be having a bit of a misunderstanding. As you go on to say…

ALB wrote:

In short, the findings of social anthropology show there is nothing in the biological make-up of human beings that would prevent them living in a socialist society (what you call 'free access communism').

…science may confirm that ‘there is nothing in the biological make-up of human beings that would prevent them living [with]… 'free access communism'’, but that isn’t the same as science arguing that ‘humans are innately disposed to f.a.c.’, either.That was the point of my earlier post,

LBird wrote:

Yeah, ‘free access’ Communism can really only be even begun to be grasped from the ideological perspective of the Communist proletarian.

…that humans must want to choose to live in a society based on ‘from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs’. There is no ‘biological imperative’ for that type of social arrangement, either, just as there isn’t for Sotionov’s position.But your reply seemed to, at the least, soft-pedal on the need for the basics of f.a.c. to be argued for, as part of a Communist ideological framework.

ALB wrote:

I wouldn't go that far. It can be understood by anyone with an elementary knowledge of the scientific findings of social anthropology. It's not "ideological" in the strict sense of the term. It's a pretty simple concept really. You don't need to be a great intellectual or a grand theoretician to grasp it!

I think it is an ideological argument, which we must actively propagandise for. Further, given our present bourgeois brainwashing about ‘naturally lazy, greedy, individuals’, I don’t think it’s as ‘simple a concept to grasp’ as you appear to argue. In fact, it goes against everything we supposedly ‘know’ about humans, according to many so-called scientists. Perhaps Sotionov’s posts back up my position, and many other Communists express doubts about f.a.c., at least in the short term, post-revolution (ie. they see a need for a ‘transition period’).So, to be clear, I’m not arguing against the SPGB position, but, on the contrary, think that it needs to be argued for. I think our disagreement with Sotionov is an ideological disagreement, rather than one which will simply disappear with time. Whilst Sotionov holds to the philosophical basics that they do, they’ll disagree with f.a.c.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yeah, ‘free access’ Communism can really only be even begun to be grasped from the ideological perspective of the Communist proletarian.

I wouldn't go that far. It can be understood by anyone with an elementary knowledge of the scientifc findings of social anthropology. It's not  "ideological" in the strict sense of the term. It's a pretty simple concept really. You don't need to be a great intellectual or a grand theoretician to grasp it !

Could you briefly outline the 'scientific findings of social anthropology', which demonstrate the (presumable) 'naturalness' of 'free access Communism', ALB? A few bullet points will do.I'm inclined to view the concept as an ideological concept, rather than a 'scientific' one.PS. We can leave the discussion about 'what is science?' well alone, please!

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I have always had a partiality to democracy by lottery as a means of administration and decision making.

Isn't sortition a dastardly plot by any ruling class to prevent the exploited class from choosing its 'best' candidates for the job? A negation of democracy?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Much more worrying, though, about [Sotionov’s] proposition is the thinking behind it, identified by LBird as a reflection of the bourgeois ideology as to what "human nature" is. It's that that's really unacceptable.

[edited quote]Yeah, ‘free access’ Communism can really only be even begun to be grasped from the ideological perspective of the Communist proletarian.Whilst any comrades try to retain elements of bourgeois thinking in their understanding [Workers? Loads of them are bone idle bastards, it’s human nature! And they’re too thick to be able to comprehend ‘free access’! Anyway, who’d freely share with the lazy? I wouldn’t: if I do ‘my bit’, so should others], the arguments for free access will seem ‘utopian’.That said, I think further discussion on ‘safety net’ social mechanisms, asked for by Sotionov, is worth doing, if only to illustrate their probable superfluousness. I should say that I think these ‘mechanisms’, in any case, would be ideological rather than compulsory. There are examples to be drawn from pre-capitalist societies that show how recalcitrant members were ‘persuaded’ to adhere to norms. These may satisfy Sotionov’s curiosity. Then again, perhaps they’ll strengthen some readers’ objections to the very notion of ‘feeding freeloaders’!

[Author]

Posts