From: cbcox-AT-rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Carrol Cox)
Subject: Metaphysics, Science, and other Hotly Contested Topics
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 10:50:33 -0600 (CST)


    I feel like the Brazilian Butterfly that generated the hurricane
in Texas in chaos theory.

    When I replied to Rahul on the causes of low wages (rather casually
I thought) I (a) focused, really, on just one word, "MAIN," and (b) thought
I was only commenting on someone Mahul quoted, not on Mahul's own position.
On the latter point I was apparently wrong; it seems Mahul does hold to
that mode of explaining economic phenomena. I am going to proceed casually
in this posting, expecting in advance that I'll have to retreat from or
reformulate much of what I say, depending on what responses I
get to it.

    Now the pissing contest that developed between Rahul and Siddarth
didn't seem to illuminate much, and I am not going to make any use of
Siddarth's arguments (which implies no judgment of them, just that I
don't want *unintentionally* to step into someone's line of fire).

    On what is science. Rahul denies being a logical positivist, but
of course logical positivism is just one of many varieties of positivism,
and I think he at least has to broaden and deepen whatever distinction it
is he draws between his version of what science is and positivism.

    I don't see how his conception of science can give a very good account
of (to name just a few) paleograpy, paleontology, geology, morphemics,
phonology, mathematics (which despite his disclaimer, is either a science
or a Platonic realm of eternal truths), historical linguistics, some
forms of archaeology, et cetera. And if these are not sciences, then
quite frankly science is not a very interesting entity, since it threatens
to be just a buzz word for physics. And while Dawkins and Gould have
expressed some sharp differences with each other, they might be seen
as possessing one very important feature in common: neither is a
scientist by Rahul's characterization. (This is probably wrong, but
I would like to see how Rahul would establish their scientific
qualifications.)

    Probably biology and political economy are better points of departure
for studying "what science is" than physics, and both philosophical and
popular conceptions of science have been distorted by taking physics as
the paradigmatic science. Making physics central to the definition of
science has often in the last century led to various forms of idealism;
it is simply not *obvious* enough in physics, or not as "in-your-face-
obvious" as it is in biology and political economy that labor, the
active transformation of the world by human activity, is the basic
materiality, and the ultimate source of all human knowledge.

    I'll have to continue this post later; I have too many other
things to do now.
    Carrol







     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---