From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept-AT-turk.net>
Subject: Re: analogy
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 02:36:39 +0300


>Carrol:
>>I think it is very important to
>>knock down most (and perhaps all) analogies between physics and
>>economics, politics, etc.
>
>Zeynep: I vote YES.
>
>Lisa: I tend to agree, re: most of such analogies that I've seen, but
>I'm curious as to your reasoning for this position.  My argument is
>that most of them are bad analogies, i.e. they are not very
>parallels, or twisted in order to try to support some point, or
>misleading or useless at least.  But some are not.  Some processes
>have similar dynamics, and analogies may be useful in understanding. 

Actually, this is also connected in my mind to what Carrol said:

>    Incidentally--if one goes back and reads in the lives and
>activities of the early bolsheviks, one finds that one broadly
>shared element among them was an absolutely insatiable appetite
>for knowledge--in *EVERYTHING*, not just in economics and politics
>and related (e.g. philosophy) topics. The same is true, of course,
>of both Marx and Engels--and over and over again they pay respect
>for that element in earlier thinkers.

In 19th century the bourgeoisie was a rising class and truth serves a rising
class. Science and scientists -almost across the board- had a motivation and
belief that the more they learned about the world, the more their case would
be proven.

20th century, the bourgoisie is no longer a class fighting against
feudalism. It is a decayed, degenerate obstacle to a better world. Truth
does not serve it well. 

Social sciences lie through their teeth. The "hard-core" sciences lie in
more indirect, sinister ways. 

Take computer science. We have had much better systems, theories of those
systems, etc. for decades now. Microsoft and IBM come dump unto us a joke
called DOS - which is such a big backward step from the point computer
science had advanced then, I have no words to describe. It is like
deliberately not using the internal combustion engine. 

So, the best computer scientists have for the past decade worked to develop
for the awful operating systems like DOS then Windows. I believe that
similar things must be happenning to all sciences that have practical
applications.

So, I generally mistrust mainstream "science". That is not to say all that
is developed is wrong, or not useful. I think most are *meant* to mislead.
But, I think it is necessary to question it into shreds before using it for
analogies.  Especially about what is not developed, instead of staying
within the framework of what is developed.

Also, Marxists have taken an easy route, imo. You must understand what you
claim to reject. Intellectual laziness and easy dismissals do not serve the
truth too well either. I do know all great thinkers of any stature have read
the works of their opponents down to the last footnote- so what they put
forth was strong stuff. Hence, it had practical consequences for the fight.

Zeynep



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