Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 13:16:37 -0600
From: Lisa Rogers <LROGERS-AT-deq.state.ut.us>
Subject: reduction, was economic field theory


Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 04:32:13 -0600

Subject: Economic field theory

On July 5, 1996, HansE wrote, in reply to Rahul:
... I should perhaps have said, positivism is a "mixture of
empiricism and monism which nowadays passes as the correct
interpretation of what scientists do."  It was not a critique of
science but a critique of positivism.  In the positivist world
outlook, which is shared by many scientists although it is in
contradiction to what they do as scientists, the world lacks "depth"
(this is the "empiricist" part of it), and this "flat" world is
governed by just one kind of lawfulness (this is the "monist" part of
it).

Lisa: *correct interpretation* according to whom?  Just scientists? 
I often get the impression that it is a lot of the [pomo] critique of
science that is sure that science and scientists are all stuck in
naive 19th century positivism, while from inside science, it seems to
me that we're not.

What do you mean by *depth*?  I'm not sure what you mean by *kinds*
of lawfulness either.  

HansE: I believe you that you wouldn't want to say that reductions of
higher-order to lower-order sciences "are always possible in
principle."  But I disagree with the reasons why you wuld not want to
say it.  You would not want to say it because it is a too sweeping
statement, and because you think one cannot know this kind of thing.

Bhaskar claims that one can infer, from the fact that science is
possible, that the world is stratified, i.e., governed by different
sets of laws that arise on different levels and which are not
reducible to each other.  

Lisa: I don't see how this follows.  I tend to agree with Rahul on
this.

HansE: Of course, some are reducible, chemistry
is reducible to physics, but others are not.  Most importantly,
societies are not reducible to individuals.  The claim that this can
or should be done is pro-capitalist ideology.

Lisa: How can we tell if something is reducible or not?  Can anything
be partially reducible?  I think it can, and I think of this in terms
of "abstraction", similar to Marx's use of that term in Capital.

Your last line bothers me, because if people make up their minds that
any *reduction* is inherently pro-capitalist, then how can they
assess anything fairly?

This is a sore spot with me, because I've seen a lot of things
unreasonably dismissed by the leftish as soon as they see any hint of
*individuals* or a variety of other devil words.  It goes so far as
to claim that any reference to individuals, costs or benefits, etc,
for _any_ species or in evolutionary biology is all inherently
pro-capitalist, which I disagree with entirely.  

I'm glad you think that _some_ things are *reducible*, but I have
found it common in leftish rhetoric, among most social *scientists*
in general, and certainly in pomo trends, to treat *reduction* itself
as a magical evil word and positivist/science sin.  And it still
leaves me wondering how to tell if something is reducible or not.

You know what I mean?

Lisa



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