On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:51:13 -0800 (PST) andie nachgeborenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I have always wondered about the fruitfulness of > abstract consideration of "dialectics," particularly > where they are (it is?) discussed as a "method." Here > Jim F seems to suggest the SJG thought that dialectics > was a "method" or at least a heuristic for producing > hypotheses. I have never seen any evidence that there > was ever any method for producing hypotheses, > dialectical or other.
I think he may well have used the term "heuristic," he most certainly used the term "constraining prejudice." Thus, for Gould punctuationalism was a useful alternative "constraining prejudice," to that of "gradualism," and Gould as in the passage I quoted from, did link punctuationalism with Engels' dialectical laws, which Gould seems to have thought did have some value for science as long they were not taken as expressing an exclusive or absolute truth about the world. I think he that he may have had in mind, the idea that dialectics constitutes what Gerald Holton (a writer that Gould admired greatly) would call a themata. > > To use SJG's contrast of Soviet (dialectical)-Western > (not dialectical -- mechanical? gradualist? > evolutionary?) scientific training, one would expect > to be able to test whether this supposed difference in > training made any difference in the kind of hypotheses > scientists from Soviet and non-Soviet backgrounds put > forward. Well, apparently Gould thought there was a difference between American biologists and Soviet biologists in terms of the kinds of hypotheses they were inclined to put forward, at least in regards to evolutionary biology. Gould asserted that the sort of punctuationalism that he was famous for championing was widely accepted among Soviet biologists. I am also aware that Loren Graham, who is an expert on the history of Soviet (and contemporary Russian) science, in his book *Science, Philosophy, and Human Behavior in the Soviet Union* emphasized that many Soviet scientists did take took dialectical materialism quite seriously and they wrote some significant works on the philosophy of science from a dialectical materialist perspective. www.mail-archive.com/marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu/msg00704.html > > I have not done any such study, but I am very > skeptical that it would turn up any systematic > differences in the way science was done in the USSR vs > the US, or in the kinds of hypotheses created by > Soviet and American scientists. I expect that this is > so in part because scientists (in my experience) don't > pay a lot of mind of methodological broughaha that is > not immediately relevant to work they are doing. The > "transformation of quantity into quality" (for > example),a t that level of abstraction, is not > something with obvious application to just about > anything in practical scientific wirk, so is likely to > be ignored by practicing scientists. Well, if Graham is correct, then that assertion would be wrong or at least standing in need for some qualification, since, according to Graham, many Soviet scientists did take those sorts of issues seriously and wrote about them, even during times when it was not necessary for Soviet scientists to genuflect before Marx, Lenin, and and whoever was the general secretary of the Communist Party to get support for their work. > > This is what we would expect if we buy into the > broadly Kuhnian picture of science as involving > periods of "normal" science punctauted by episodic > "revolutionary" transformations that give scientists a > new "paradigm" to work out by "normal" scientific > methods. Kuhn's analysis of scientific revolutions has always struck me as being "dialectical" in character. Furthermore, lots of Soviet philosophers (i.e Igor Naletov in *Alternatives to Positivism*) saw it that way too. > This picture of scientific activity -- which, > incidentally, sounds dialectical even though it was > developed by a nice liberal in Cold-War America (first > ed. of Kuhn's Structure of Sciebtofic Revolutions > published in 1960) -- suggests that most science is > going to be normal, incremental, evolutionary working > out of accepted big hypotheses until the general > framework cracks -- and this does not depend on the > particular training of scientists in doalectics (or > not). > > In fact all the standard examples of scientific > revolutions come from science done by > non-dialectically trained thinkers -- Lavoisier's > discovery of oxygen, Einstein's theory of relativity, > Heisenberg, Dirac, and Bohr's development of quantum > theory, etc. I'm surprised that you didn't include Darwin in that list since both Marx & Engels had some pretty interesting things to say about him. See my post on Marxmail: http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2002/msg01714.htm > > Anytway, I tink taht the meaning of diaklectics in, > for example, Hegel or (to a lesser extent) Marx is a > valid topic for inquiry, there has been less than no > payoff in the idea that there is something called the > dialectical method which can be grasp in advance of > and apart from one's scientific work in concreto and > used to adavance thatw ork. > > jks > > --- Jim Farmelant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Here is what Stephen Jay Gould had to say about > > punctuationism > > and dialectics in his book, *The Panda's Thumb. > > > > There, in the essay "Episodic Evolutionary Change," > > he wrote: > > -------------------------- > > If gradualism is more a product of Western thought > > than a fact of nature, > > then we should consider alternate philosophies of > > change to enlarge our > > realm of constraining prejudices. In the Soviet > > Union, for example, for > > example, scientists are trained with a very > > different philosophy of > > change - the so-called dialectical laws, > > reformulated by Engels from > > Hegel's philosophy. The dialectical laws are > > explicitly punctuational. > > They speak, for example, of the "transformation of > > quantity into > > quality." This may sound like mumbo jumbo, but it > > suggests that change > > occurs in large leaps following a slow accumulation > > of stresses that a > > system resists until it reaches the breaking point. > > Heat water and it > > eventually boils. Oppress the workers more and more > > and bring on the > > revolution. Eldredge and I were fascinated to learn > > that many Russian > > paleontologists support a model very similar to our > > punctuated > > equilibria. > > > > I emphatically do not assert the general "truth" of > > this philosophy of > > punctuational change. Any attempt to support the > > exclusive validity of > > such a grandiose notion would border on the > > nonsensical. Gradualism > > sometimes works well. (I often fly over the folded > > Appalachians and > > marvel at the striking parallel ridges left standing > > by gradual erosion > > of the softer rocks surrounding them). I make a > > simple plea for pluralism > > in guiding philosophies, and for the recognition of > > such philosophies, > > however hidden and unarticulated, constrain all our > > thought. The > > dialectical laws express an ideology quite openly; > > our Western preference > > for gradualism does the same more subtly. > > > > Nonetheless, I will confess to a personal belief > > that a punctuational > > view may prove to map tempos of biological and > > geologic change more > > accurately and more often than any of its > > competitors - if only because > > complex systems in steady state are both common and > > highly resistant to > > change. > > ----------------------------- > > > > I think a careful reading of Gould's words will > > indicate that he viewed > > dialectics as a heuristic for generating hypotheses > > concerning the > > behavior of complex systems. Note that he considered > > what he called the > > punctuational view to be a "constraining prejudice" > > - what sciece > > historian, Gerald Holton, (about whom Gould had > > written favorably in the > > NY Review of Books) would call a 'themata.' Note > > also that Gould talked > > about expanding our range of "constraining > > prejudices" rather than > > dogmatically insisting upon the need to replace > > gradualism by > > punctuationalism. Gould recognized that such views > > are not ultimately > > true or false but only more or less useful in > > helping us to formulate new > > testable hypotheses. > > > > Jim F. > > > > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 13:44:12 -0500 "Charles Brown" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Marxism-Thaxis] OudeyisHegel, > > > > > > Marx, and, for that matter, Jay Gould (he and Dan > > Dennett - the > > > American reductionist philosopher - fought over > > this issue) did not > > > regard > > > development to be incremental or continuous. The > > dialectic, the > > > successive > > > emergence of negations of previous conditions > > suggests that > > > development hops > > > and jumps rather than grows by inches. The > > principle of Quantity is > > > also > > > not a case of incremental change. You can think > > of it as a teapot > > > on the > > > burner or the apparent lull before a sudden > > popular rising; the > > > conditions > > > conducive to a boiling pot or a popular uprising > > cook slowly without > > > any > > > apparent sign of dramatic change until a critical > > state is reached > > > and then, > > > things happen very suddenly indeed. The concept > > of Quantity for > > > Engels and > > > Marx as for Hegel refers to the sudden change of > > state rather than > > > to the > > > accumulation of conditions that engenders it. > > > The issue really is the essentialism that Marx and > > Engels adopted > > > from > > > Hegel. The significant fact of the sudden boil of > > the teapot and > > > the > > > popular uprising is the end product of the process > > that generates > > > them and > > > not the conditions. After all, a teapot on a low > > fire is just a > > > teapot on a > > > low fire and a long, hot Summer is just a long, > > hot, Summer; they > > > both only > > > become interesting when they result respectively > > in a pot of boiling > > > water > > > and an uprising of an angry community. > > > Victor > > > > > > ^^^^^ > > > > > > > > > CB: My understanding of this is that there is a > > long period of > > > exactly > > > continuous or incremental change that is suddenly > > altered by the > > > leap, the > > > quantum leap or qualitative change. Dialectics > > doesn't deny > > > continous or > > > incremental change, rather it relates the two > > types of change, > > > quantitative > > > and qualitative. > > > > > > The temperature of the water is continously > > increasing, but the > > > surface is > > > not bubbling. At 212 degrees farenheit , > > continuous, gradual change > > > leaps > > > into bubbles burst on the surface, a qualitative > > change in the > > > surface of > > > the water. This is quantitative change turning > > into qualititive > > > change or > > > continuous change turning into discontinuous > > change. > > > > > > Quantity turning into quality is a change in the > > type of change; it > > > is > > > quantitative _change_ turning into qualitative > > _change_. > > > > > > Evolution punctuated by revolution is another way > > of saying > > > quantitative > > > change turns into qualitative change. > > > > > > Socially, the ebb and flow of reform is > > evolutionary. It is change > > > without > > > changing the mode of production out of capitalism. > > Socialist > > > revolution is a > > > leap in which the mode of production changes. > > > > > > === message truncated === > > > > > > __________________________________ > Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! > Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web > http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/ > > _______________________________________________ > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
