Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Fine, but *I* did not send *you* any brainless e-mails, first, asserting this or that of *your* work in ignorance of it. And I have formulated my ideas; you know where they are. As I said, you can ignore them totally for all I care. RL - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:20 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science equally, i can say please read Hans Heinz Holz and my paper in praksis before we can talk. if you want to exchange ideas then formulate them or leave it. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] anti-dialectics: abstraction (1)
Thankyou Ralph, but you can air your superficial and erroneous ideas to the ether, I am not listening RL - Original Message - From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:25 PM Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] anti-dialectics: abstraction (1) http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm Oddly enough, however, we find a DM-classicist like Lenin arguing along familiar lines, for all the world sounding like a born-again Realist with added Hegelian spin: Thought proceeding from the concrete to the abstract -- provided it is correct (NB). -- does not get away from the truth but comes closer to it. The abstraction of matter, the law of nature, the abstraction of value, etc., in short all scientific (correct, serious, not absurd) abstractions reflect nature more deeply, truly and completely. [Lenin (1961), p.171. Emphases in the original.] Unfortunately, Lenin forgot to say how any of this is remotely possible if abstractions are creations of the human mind. If scientific knowledge more truly reflects the world the more its abstractions are correct, how could this be if abstractions do not exist 'objectively', in some form or other, for science to reflect? If abstractions don't exist in the outside world then what could there be in nature for scientific knowledge to depict? On the other hand, if they do exist, what are they composed of and what form do they take? Poor fearing comprehension. Nothing here about Platonism. Just the nature of scientific idealization. Compare Leszek Kolakowski. Or Marx's general introduction to the Grundrisse. Traditional theorists often call such abstractions the essential features of reality, which, according to them, underlie appearances and/or the material world. In contrast to the particulars we meet in everyday life, abstractions appear to be general in form. Indeed, the use of abstractions, so we are told, allows human cognition to arise from immediate experience to more general knowledge of the world. In that case, abstractions seem to be required in order to express generality and help in the formation of scientific knowledge. But, if they are general in form, does that mean that abstractions are somehow 'spread out', as it were, dispersed over the concrete objects they collect together, uniting the seeming diversity we see in nature? Or, are they no more than 'unifying principles', which are essential for the progress of science? Perhaps they are, but more work will need to be done before it is clear just how such 'principles' are more than merely useful fictions, handy at least for boosting the morale of scientists. Lenin does not promote the former idea of abstraction, nor does any Marxist. What you call generality seems to be closer to what Marx and Lenin are getting at. Well, are abstractions like classes, then? Classes are abstract particulars of a rather peculiar sort: they are singular in form, but compound in nature. If Universals are like classes -- which exist anterior to material reality -- that would appear to suggest they are like ghostly containers of some sort, but with material contents. Does this intellectualist approach to reality therefore commit us to the existence of classes over and above their members? Indeed, does such a theory amount to a sort of bargain basement Platonism? This has nothing whatever in common with the cite from Lenin. We know that Marx Engels criticized this conception in THE HOLY FAMILY. Nevertheless, using their 'natural' abstractive skills, intrepid abstractors are supposed to be able to ignore certain features of material objects, enabling them to form more general ideas or concepts to which increasingly wider classes of objects belong. At least that is what the metaphysical brochure would have us believe. But, materialists should be suspicious of such moves: how could abstractions be material (in any sense of the word) if adepts have to disregard certain aspects of material reality to derive some idea of them? Indeed: if, according to Lenin, materiality is bound up with objective existence outside the mind, how could a single abstraction be material if it requires the exercise of mental gymnastics to conjure it into existence? Even worse, how could any of them be objective? This has nothing to do with Lenin's claims. And see Marx in Grundrisse: from vague notions of a complex whole to decisive general abstract relations to the conceptual reconstruction of the concrete. If this is correct, it would seem that the class of concrete objects could only ever have aspiring, but never successful members. Moreover, given this way of seeing things, no sentient material being would ever have the remotest idea what could possibly count as the genuine article, since bona fide concrete particulars will only emerge from their shells at the end of an uncompletable infinitary exercise in
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
What, no capitals? - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science what illiteracy. what anglo-imperilism. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Thanks Jim, I am aware of the work of most of those you list, but not all. I will have more to say about Jim Lawler's attempt to defend DM in a later Essay. RL - Original Message - From: Jim Farmelant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Cc: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:37 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 02:22:29 - rosa lichtenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim, I share with Cohen only an antipathy toward Hegel; his attempt to do analytic Marxism I reject because it wasn't analytic enough (by a long way), and scarcely Marxist. However, I greatly admired his attempt to bring clarity to historical materialism. It's a pity his detractors failed to copy his here, and quickly returned to the Hegelian mire. Rosa, It should be noted that we do have on this list andie nachgeborenen (AKA Justin Schwartz) who was in a former life a practicing professional philosopher at Ohio State and was then a proponent of Analytical Marxism, although his brand, I think, was closer to the views of Kai Nielsen and Rodney Peffer, rather than to those of Cohen and his No-Bullshit group. Also, Schwartz doesn't, I believe, share the anti-Hegelianism of Cohen, or yourself. I know that Justin, in the past, has said that he subscribes to a kind of analytical Hegelianism, expressing some affinity with people like Tony Smith, Ken Westphal, Terry Pinkard, Michael Hardimon, Robert Pippin, and Alan Wood amongst others. BTW, changing the subject just a bit. Having noticed that on your website, you devoted a significant amount of discussion to critquing Jim Lawler, you might be interested to know that he is a subscriber to this list, although I think it's been some ages since he last posted anything here. I was aware of Neurath, but my take on this is not the same as his (as you will soon see if you look at my summary of Essay Twelve -- the full Essay will appear much later). I do not accept Neurath's criterion of meaning, since I am not a positivist, logical or otherwise. But that is not the only difference. And I was also aware that I am not the first anti-Hegelian Marxist (!!); my criticisms of Hegel bear no relation to dela Volpe (or Colletti, or). Some of my most original material you will find here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm and here: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2005.htm Even though my ideas are dependent on Frege and Wittgenstein, I apply them to these areas of DM in a totally new way. Where else will you find a neo-Fregean/Wittgensteinian dissolution of (but not solution to) Zeno's paradox, for example? Or someone who shows exactly how Hegel's confusion of the 'is' of predication with the 'is' of identity is the heart of this dialectical beast? To be sure this is Bertrand Russell's point, but here I share about 1% with him. In Essays Three and Twelve I reveal how this confusion arose in ancient Greece and why leisure-dominated Greek thinkers imagined the world could be understood by an appeal to abstractions (and thus how super-truths could be derived from language alone), and how they created these abstractions by a syntactically inept interpretation of a superficial feature of Indo-European grammar, and how this destroys the capacity language has for expressing generality, thus undermining DM itself. DM thus becomes its own grave-digger; a nice dialectical inversion, this. [Re Indo-European grammar, Nietzsche had a somewhat similar idea, but I push it much further, and back it up with a totally new analysis.] Of course, I could be 100% wrong in all I say, but I defy you to find where else this stuff can be found. However I am holding back the vast bulk of the original material for my PhD thesis (for obvious reasons). RL - Original Message - From: Jim Farmelant [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:42 AM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:27:34 - Rosa Lichtenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Charles, thanks for those comments. I absolutely agree, much anti-dialectic stuff is hackneyed to high heaven. As to my claim that my ideas are largely original to me, you will have to check for yourself. What can I say...? You know. Like that Lenin is using a metaphysical concept when he analyzes John is a man. That's not exactly a new criticism. Ah, but if you check the line I take, you will see I do develop it in new ways (along neo-Fregean lines -- if you know of anyone else who has done this, I will be gob-smacked!). And where have you come across this before (posted at Revolutionary Left a few weeks ago)? I think some other people have attempted similar things in the past. You, yourself alluded to Gerald Cohen with his *Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence*. Concerning your treatment
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
that. Yes of course! I merely indicated that I had put this on the internet to prevent me having to go into lengthy detail defending my ideas with comrades who had not read what I have posted. I certainly did not intend to imply that if you read my essays, I would not discuss them subsequent to that. That would be being both arrogant and stupid. I need to know where my arguments do not work (if they don't, that is), so that I can beef them up. RL - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 12:51 PM Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science rosa lichtenstein Charles, I did not thank you for that reference in order to initiate a debate, but becasues I was genuinely grateful. And we have been through this before. [I forgot that whatever replies I made to you would go across the e-mail list, so no wonder you thought I wanted a debate.] As I said to you in an earlier e-mail, the reason I have posted all this material on the web is to save me having to make the same points over and over. Now, you can read my Essays, or just ignore them. That is up to you. But, I try not to debate this stuff with dialecticians, since I am sick of making the same points that I have been making with comrades who accept this doctrine now for over 25 years. And you lot all say the same things. I can almost put the words in your mouth for you. ^^ CB: Yes, I can see your frustration. On the other hand, you can imagine that a lot of the anti-dialectical stuff you say is the same or similar to a lot of anti-dialectical stuff I have been reading for the last 25 years. Or do you think you have some new anti-dialectical ideas ? Maybe you could highlight what you think to be the original and never seen before anti-dialectical stuff in your essays. Otherwise , it sort of the same thing but in reverse for me. You know. Like that Lenin is using a metaphysical concept when he analyzes John is a man. That's not exactly a new criticism. ^ In contrast, there is precious little in my Essays that is not original to me, whether it is right or wrong. However, I do not recognise the political disaster area called 'communism' as a success, not since at least 1924, or thereabouts. In fact, it has been a curse on Marxism, for reasons I will let you guess. ^ CB: Again,there are quite a few people who consider the Soviet Union etc. a curse. But that's kind of an old debate. ^ As a Trotskyist (and one associated with the UK/SWP -- although they would disown my anti-dialectical ideas), you would hardly expect any other judgement. No non-dialectical theories have come anywhere near the level of success that dialectical materialism has. Well I rather think bourgeois ideology in general is more successful, especially if dialectical materialism apes its thought-forms (you can find evidence for this at my site). Practically 100% of the planet is governed by their market, their fragmentary 'democracy', their oligarchic system -- now largely aped by most communist parties. ^ CB: Yes, I'd attribute that to capitalism's military might, not to their anti-dialectical whatever. ^^^ If truth were tested in practice we'd all be bourgeois, as indeed communist parties have become over the years. If that is a success, then the word has changed its meaning since last I looked. ^ CB: Well, there's dialectics, ebb and flow. Developments are not in a straight line. There was enormous initial success. Now there's a setback. That's dialectics. ^^ If you still think communism can be chalked up as a success, that is your affair, but it will mean that we are so far apart politically that successful communication between us will be impossible. CB: Communism is the only thing that has had any success whatsoever in replacing capitalism. What other alternative has had success ? ^ However, my criticisms of dialectical materialism are independent of whether or not communism/Marxism has been a success or not (I merely use that tag-line as a controversial clutcher), since I do not accept practice as a criterion of truth -- I just use it to embarrass those who do. Why this is so is also explained at my site. CB: So you are anti-materialist as well as anti-dialectical ? ^ Dialectics does not hold up as a theory, whatever disasters (or otherwise) it has helped inflict on Marxism. I have made my case for this (or at least one third of it so far) at my site. As I say, you can read what I have to say, or ignore it. I am sure the class-struggle will proceed the same whatever you decide to do. RL ^ CB; Basically , I don't want to read something that you don't want to discuss. If you want to discuss it, I'll read it, otherwise...I mean I'm not going to read
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
This is an odd comment! The class struggle is not dependent on the 'dialectic', an idealist notion Hegel pinched from Hermetic philosophers. We do not need this mystical theory to provide a scientific account of history. In fact, it gets in the way, since it is incomprehensible. Anyway, the objection confuses our abiluity to comprehend the class struggle with it actually continuing despite us. After all, the class struggle pre-dated Hegel RL - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science rosa, charles, sorry for geting involved in this talk. just one remark: rosa says class struggle will go on. how can she say that if she rejects the concept of dialectic. since it is dilectic itself that reveals itself in the class strugle and if she says class struggle will go on then she in fact relies on the concept of dilectic. if she rejects dilectics and nonetheless says class struggle will go on then she in fact rejects to analyse why class struggle will go on. the claim that it will somehow go on is not sufficient for s scietific point of view and to secure that the enemy is defeated. best, dogan.. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Ralph, As far as my comments on wave-particle duality were concerened, I was of course not trying to resolve this paradox (how could I? I am not a physicist!). I was merely pointing out that given the thesis that all of reality is contradictory, dialecticians should advise physicists to stop trying to resolve this paradox, since they have an a priori solution to it. In that case Physics can only advance by ignoring this advice. In the Essay from which this is taken I give much more detail, but since you have skim-read what i have posted, you missed it. [I did try to tell Charles that this is why I have posted all this stuff -- to stop me having to keep making these points!] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm In Note 14, near the bottom of the page (and in the main body of the Essay linked to this note). And I only posted this in my last e-mail to Charles to show him that my ideas are original, they are not hackneyed objections to DM (or 90% of them are not!). RL - Original Message - From: Ralph Dumain [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 2:11 PM Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science When I was first apprised of this web site, I read a few chapters, but did not make it to the text quoted My initial impression was that the author was a victim of an extremely sectarian milieu and had to go through quite an ordeal digging herself out of it. The marks of this sectarianism are all over the web site including its statement of purpose. Furthermore, the problem in Marxism can't be the heritage of Hegel, as in fact the propagandists of diamat knew little of Hegel. Presumably here we are talking about the dialectics of nature lifted from Hegel's naturphilosophie, and specifically the concept of contradiction as applied to nature. As I've argued for well over a decade, there's a lot of sloppy thinking in this department. I was curious as to how one would handle the wave-particle duality, but Rosa's treatment of the problem is not 100% clear to me, though I understand the paradox she presents. In classical dialectical terms, the issue would be the relation between subjective and objective dialectics. From Engels on, their immediate unity has been assumed in most standard presentations. Soviet philosophers debated these issues among themselves starting in the 1950s and divided into opposing schools. These debates were not incorporated into popular textbooks, but some of the embarrassing arguments of the Stalin era disappeared. (You can get a flavor of the latter from John Somerville's horrid book on the subject.) By the '60s, whatever their differences, most Soviet philosophers would agree that contradictions must be removed from scientific theories. The Trotskyist movement was just as bad, perhaps even worse, and in party contexts, never improved at all, though various Trotskyist intellectuals functioning in academia were in a position to develop more intelligent ideas. But there is a submerged tendency of criticism as well. In an obscure document written by CLR James at the time of the 1940 split, James stated that Trotsky did more damage to the dialectic in 10 weeks than Eastman et al had done in 10 years. Circa 1943, Jean van Heijenoort argued pseudonymously with Novack and others about the conflation of subjective and objective dialectics. There is of course a huge segment of the Marxist tradition that is Hegelian while abjuring the dialectics of nature, i.e. standard diamat. And there are many who have used the term 'dialectical materialism', e.g. James and Horkheimer, who meant nothing at all related to standard diamat. It is not clear from the following passage how physicists have actually removed the contradictions in quantum mechanics, or for that matter, between quantum theory and relativity. And how has the principle of complementarity been resolved? At 01:27 PM 3/1/2006 +, Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: For example, DM-theorists generally argue that the wave-particle duality of light confirms the thesis that nature is fundamentally dialectical; in this case, light is supposed to be a UO of wave and particle. Precisely how they are a unity (i.e., how it could be true that matter is fundamentally particulate and fundamentally non-particulate all at once) is of course left eminently obscure -- and how this helps account for the material world is even less perspicuous. This alleged UO does nothing to explain change -- unless we are supposed to accept the idea that light being a particle changes it into a wave, and vice versa. But what is the point of that? What role does this particular 'contradiction' play in either DM or Physics? At best it seems to be merely ornamental. [UO = Unity of Opposites.] Now, if we put to one side the 'solution' to this puzzle offered by, say, Superstring Theory, there are still
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
mss is rather odd. Dirk Struik seems to have been purely descriptive, while Paulus Gerdes makes extravagant claims for Marx, and Raya Dunayskaya's disciples are clearly out of their minds. In general, a peculiar deference for Marx (and sometimes Engels) is maintained, even by people who don't sanction certain conceptual abuses. At 02:55 PM 3/1/2006 +, Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: Ralph, As far as my comments on wave-particle duality were concerened, I was of course not trying to resolve this paradox (how could I? I am not a physicist!). I was merely pointing out that given the thesis that all of reality is contradictory, dialecticians should advise physicists to stop trying to resolve this paradox, since they have an a priori solution to it. In that case Physics can only advance by ignoring this advice. In the Essay from which this is taken I give much more detail, but since you have skim-read what i have posted, you missed it. [I did try to tell Charles that this is why I have posted all this stuff -- to stop me having to keep making these points!] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm In Note 14, near the bottom of the page (and in the main body of the Essay linked to this note). And I only posted this in my last e-mail to Charles to show him that my ideas are original, they are not hackneyed objections to DM (or 90% of them are not!). RL ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
parties tend to be small, divisive, and ineffectual.
Trotskyist parties are all small, divisive, and ineffectual. The CPs,
prior to the 1950s, were comparatively large and powerful. As for class
origins, neither Marx nor Engels nor many of the leading intellectuals who
followed them were proletarians. What does this say about the class
nature of _all_ their ideas? There is, I think, a link between the ideas
propounded by revolutionary ('new class') elites and their social
function, however your characterization of the relationship is poorly
expressed.
(3)
I am not blaming Marxism's lack of success solely on the acceptance of
Hermetic ideas lifted from Hegel. What is being claimed is that this is
one of the reasons why revolutionary socialism has become a bye-word for
failure. It is thus alleged that dialectics is part of the reason why
revolutionary parties are in general vanishingly small, neurotically
sectarian, studiously unreasonable, consistently conservative,
theoretically deferential, and tend toward all forms of substitutionism.
. . .
As a causal explanation, this is silly. It might be more accurate to say
that the slippery aspects or usage of DM serve to forestall analysis,
criticism, and accountability. This is especially so in sectarian
contexts.
(4)
And yet, dialecticians claim that their theory is the mainspring of
Marxist politics, and that dialectics is the guiding light of all they do;
it is not a peripheral feature of revolutionary socialism. The inescapable
conclusion is, therefore, that practice has shown that their theory has
failed, and failed badly. Because dialecticians claim such a prominent
role for dialectics, the failure of Marxism points directly at Hegel's
door.
This is bad reasoning. At most, the finger points to the bogus claims of
dialecticians.
(5)
We have no alternative, therefore; we have to re-think our ideas from
scratch, like the radicals we claim to be.
To that end I propose a suitably radical starting point: the rejection of
the theory that practice has already refuted -- Dialectical Materialism.
Three billion or more workers cannot be wrong. We can't keep blaming our
failure on their false consciousness.
This is silly reasoning. Apparently the argument is that the advocates of
truth in practice are hoisted by their own petard. But there is no real
logic in this argument.
(6)
Some might wonder how I can count myself as both a Leninist and a
Trotskyist while making such profound criticisms of the ideas that both
Lenin and Trotsky regarded as fundamental to Marxism.
Already an indication of hermetic sectarianism.
(7)
In fact, and on the contrary, a slavish acceptance of everything these
great comrades had to say on dialectics, just because they said it, and
just because the vast majority of comrades think highly of it, would be
tantamount to spitting on their graves.
The constant use of the word 'comrade' throughout this text is nauseating.
Normal people do not use the word 'comrade'. The very word excludes the
vast majority of readers who don't belong to political cults.
(8)
Academic Marxism has almost totally been ignored in what follows. [The
reason for this is explained more fully in Essay One.]
Rightly or wrongly, this site is aimed at impacting on the class struggle
by seeking to influence those who are involved in it. Since active
revolutionaries still accept, to a greater or lesser extent, classical
forms of DM, they alone are being addressed in what follows.
Academic Marxism (mercifully) has had no such impact, or none of note, and
probably never will. Very little attempt has been made therefore to engage
with this theoretical cul-de-sac.
Sectarian bullshit.
At 02:27 PM 3/1/2006 +, Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:
Ralph,
You made this assertion a week or so ago, and I denied it. I have never
been subjected to sectarianism (or not any of much note|).
How you worked that out beats me.
And I find you attempt to distance Hegel from the philosophy I am
criticising odd too.
Even so, since I rubbish all philosophical theories (ranging from all the
classical ones you can name right through to Engles's naive views, and
including Hegel's mystical clap trap) as ruling-class a priori
superscience, your superficial skimming of my site is doubly in error.
RL
___
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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Ralph, As I have said, I am not interested in anything you have to say. End of correspondence. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Apologies, one or two problems crept into the last e-mail after I ran a spell check. Here is the correct version: Charles, This passage was a response to several comrades who held the views I criticise, and it seemed to me it dealt with more general ideas that others held. So it was a targeted passage. You will note, however, the hypothetical form and subjunctive mood of the arguments. I do not therefore assert the things I am criticising. As I am sure you are aware, that is the point of using those linguistic forms. I am surprised you then read what I had to say assertorically. 1) Does what you say logically follow from your premise statement ? This is a very interesting use of 'logically follow', more of that another time perhaps. However, you will note the wording I use which cannot be forced in the direction you want it to go. I say: However, and this is the problem, in order to do this such a theory must contain contradictions itself or it would not be an accurate reflection of nature. I do not pass an opinion about accurate or inaccurate contradictions (and not just because the phrase accurate contradiction -- to which you help yourself -- is bizarre in itself), but because the nature of the contradictions themselves is an irrelevance. I am asking about the theories that contain the contradictions (whatever the status of the latter), so my point stands. As far as your substantive claims go, I can see no way round this comment of mine: Dialecticians have thus so far failed to distinguish contradictions that are the mere artefacts of a defective theory from those that supposedly reflect 'objective' features of the world. How could you possibly distinguish these? Much of the rest of what you say founders on this point. 2) CB: Then there's the problem that reality does contain contradictions. So, science ought to reflect this fact. Now that is an a priori assumption you do not justify. And no matter how well-attested the theory, or how well-confirmed it seems, you could not tell whether the theory that 'accurately' reflected contradictions in reality was defective or not. Which is another way of saying, once again: Dialecticians have thus so far failed to distinguish contradictions that are the mere artefacts of a defective theory from those that supposedly reflect 'objective' features of the world. This is of course, quite apart from the odd idea that nature contains something linguistic. You might as well have said: Then there's the problem that reality does contain questions. So, science ought to reflect this fact. Or: Then there's the problem that reality does contain fairy tales. So, science ought to reflect this fact. You seem to have swallowed Hegel's Hermetic fantasies whole. How you can then criticise me for presenting arguments you allege do not follow is something of a puzzle. 3) Where do you get that DM holds that science should remove all contradictions from scientific theories? Well, since I do not say this I do not suppose I will be able to tell you the answer to your invention. In fact, I say: scientists will have removed every (or nearly every) contradiction in order to have reached that point, if DM were correct. Note the use of the bracketed expression. Note also the use of hypotheticals and subjunctives: However, according to DM, scientific theories should rightly be replaced by ones that depict reality as fundamentally contradictory, this despite the fact that scientists will have removed every (or nearly every) contradiction in order to have reached that point, if DM were correct. I am trying out every conceivable possibility. Now I may have missed some out, but it does not help if you misread what I have said. [I was actually responding to an article by Phil Gasper, whom I am sure you have heard of, and another by Paul McGarr, where they implied as much.] You will note in my introductory essay that I point out that DM-fans cannot read. And this has been my experience 'debating' this topic with you Hermeticists for over 20 years (as I told you the other day): none of you can read. At least you are consistent (but shouldn't you be inconsistent??). 4) Why does the contradictoriness of practice prevent it from being a test of the correspondence of a theory with reality? Once again, I deal with this at my site. It is very tedious having to field aimless questions I have already answered. Let's walk you through it one more time: I have posted these Essays on the Internet to prevent my having to do what you are now demanding of me. I do not really care if you totally ignore what I have to say, totally disagree with it, or something in between. But I do mind half-baked questions when I keep telling you to read what I have to say before your trigger-finger twitches into life again. Of course, if you don't want to read my Essays, fine. But no more if these random questions, please. You are like the critics of Marx, who read one sentence
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
You can find it in extensive detail at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/ RL - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:03 PM Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science Charles, Thanks fot that! Just what I needed to plug a tiny hole in my anti-dialectic thesis. Rosa L ^^^ Rosa, What is that thesis again ? Charles ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Charles, I did not thank you for that reference in order to initiate a debate, but becasues I was genuinely grateful. And we have been through this before. [I forgot that whatever replies I made to you would go across the e-mail list, so no wonder you thought I wanted a debate.] As I said to you in an earlier e-mail, the reason I have posted all this material on the web is to save me having to make the same points over and over. Now, you can read my Essays, or just ignore them. That is up to you. But, I try not to debate this stuff with dialecticians, since I am sick of making the same points that I have been making with comrades who accept this doctrine now for over 25 years. And you lot all say the same things. I can almost put the words in your mouth for you. In contrast, there is precious little in my Essays that is not original to me, whether it is right or wrong. However, I do not recognise the political disaster area called 'communism' as a success, not since at least 1924, or thereabouts. In fact, it has been a curse on Marxism, for reasons I will let you guess. As a Trotskyist (and one associated with the UK/SWP -- although they would disown my anti-dialectical ideas), you would hardly expect any other judgement. No non-dialectical theories have come anywhere near the level of success that dialectical materialism has. Well I rather think bourgeois ideology in general is more successful, especially if dialectical materialism apes its thought-forms (you can find evidence for this at my site). Practically 100% of the planet is governed by their market, their fragmentary 'democracy', their oligarchic system -- now largely aped by most communist parties. If truth were tested in practice we'd all be bourgeois, as indeed communist parties have become over the years. If that is a success, then the word has changed its meaning since last I looked. If you still think communism can be chalked up as a success, that is your affair, but it will mean that we are so far apart politically that successful communication between us will be impossible. However, my criticisms of dialectical materialism are independent of whether or not communism/Marxism has been a success or not (I merely use that tag-line as a controversial clutcher), since I do not accept practice as a criterion of truth -- I just use it to embarrass those who do. Why this is so is also explained at my site. Dialectics does not hold up as a theory, whatever disasters (or otherwise) it has helped inflict on Marxism. I have made my case for this (or at least one third of it so far) at my site. As I say, you can read what I have to say, or ignore it. I am sure the class-struggle will proceed the same whatever you decide to do. RL - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 6:12 PM Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science Rosa Lichtenstein You can find it in extensive detail at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/ RL ^ CB; What about the fact that Marxism has not been a failure in practice, but a pretty big success compared to all other theories ? That seems a main weakness in your argument. Marxism has been a success, not failure. There are giant Communist Parties still, and there were bigger ones before. No non-dialectical theories have come anywhere near the level of success that dialectical materialism has. ___ 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
Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
Charles, Thanks fot that! Just what I needed to plug a tiny hole in my anti-dialectic thesis. Rosa L - Original Message - From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marx andthe thinkers he inspired' marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 8:21 PM Subject: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science [Marxism] People's History of Science Louis Proyect Cliff Conner's A People's History of Science by Louis Proyect Book Review Conner, Cliff: A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives and 'Low Mechanicks', Nation Books, New York, 2006, ISBN 1-56025-748-2, 554 pages, $17.95 (paperback) (Swans - February 27, 2006) Cliff Conner's A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives and 'Low Mechanicks' does for science what Howard Zinn did for American history. It is an altogether winning attempt to tell the story of the ordinary working person or peasant's contribution to our knowledge of the natural world. Just as scholars like Zinn remind us that a slave, Crispus Attucks, was the first casualty of the American Revolution, so does Conner show that humble people were on the front lines of the scientific revolution. Over the course of this 500 page encyclopedic but lively effort, we learn about unsung heroes and heroines, like Antony Van Leeuwenhoek, a seventeenth century Dutch linen draper who began using magnifying lenses to examine fabrics but went on to pioneer the use of microscopy in the scientific laboratory. He was looked down upon by the scientific establishment as neither a philosopher, a medical man, nor a gentleman... He had been to no university, knew no Latin, French, or English, and little relevant natural history or philosophy. In addition to telling their stories, Conner challenges conventional thinking about how science is done. At an early age, we are indoctrinated into thinking that science starts with pure ideas and then descends into the practical world. In reality, many of the greatest breakthroughs in our knowledge of the world were a result of the practical need to solve a pressing problem, some of which were related to mundane matters of trade and bookkeeping. Perhaps no other example in Conner's book dramatizes this as perfectly as the rise of numeric symbols, which came out of the routine economic activities of farmers, artisans and traders. Specifically, Sumerians devised symbols to keep track of grain. Rather than repeating the symbol for each grain multiple times, they devised a shortcut where the grain symbol would be drawn once, and prefixed with a numeric symbol. This technique was developed in lowly counting rooms rather than in the court hierarchy. The next big breakthrough, positional numeration, also had common traders as midwives. This technique makes a digit's value dependent on its relative position in a number. For example, 9 in the number 2,945 means nine hundred but it indicates 90 in 2,495. Imagine how difficult it would be to do simple calculations without such a system. Try adding the Roman numerals MMCMXLV to MMCDXCV without cheating (converting to positional numbers) and you will see how difficult it is. This is not to speak of the daunting task of multiplying them! The introduction of the place-value system (together with the symbol of zero to hold empty columns) is particularly relevant to Conner's mission in creating a people's history of science. To begin with, it democratized arithmetic by making it accessible to all levels of society. Secondly, it did not originate with elite mathematicians but with anonymous clerks -- perhaps ordinary accounting clerks -- in India between the third and fifth centuries AD. Finally, this revolutionary innovation relied not on mathematics journals or other scholarly venues, but was transmitted by merchants pursuing their trade on routes between India and the rest of the world. full: http://www.swans.com/library/art12/lproy34.html -- www.marxmail.org ___ 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
