File spoon-archives/marxism2.archive/marxism2_1996/96-07-10.220, message 134


From: ROSSERJB-AT-jmu.edu
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 15:27:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Thomas Kuhn


     I just wanted to follow up a bit on one or two
of Rahul's remarks (I'll be disappearing for an extended
period of time after tomorrow), given Kuhn's recent death.
     1)  You can't have it both ways, Rahul.  On the one 
hand you cannot maintain, as you did, that one must do
something genuinely original in the natural sciences to
get a Ph.D. while simultaneously maintaining that "anyone
can get a Ph.D if they hang around long enough" as you 
did vis a vis Kuhn and his Harvard physics Ph.D.  I know
plenty of ABDs who never got theirs.  I just saw one today
here at UW-Madison who had a similar topic to mine and is
in his 50s.  Washing dishes so he can hang around the scene.
     2)  I was glad to see you agree that it might not hurt
physicists to study some philosophy/methodology.  But we all
know that time is tight and it is hard to get people to even
study anything even in connected areas within their discipline,
at least if they want to be successful "normal scientists" (keep
your eye on the goal, don't deviate!).
     3)  I knew Kuhn personally, which does not mean that he was
right about everything (and you're no Kuhn ("thank heavens," say you):-)).  
But I would note that he regularly and frequently objected to the misuse 
and misapplication of his concept of "paradigm."  Granted that much
of the fuzziness is there in his _Structure of Scientific Revolutions_,
but at various points he argued that it came from the idea of a 
centrally organizing experiment or example which could provide the
foundation for a broader theoretical framework and approach.  This does 
not seem overly mushy to me.
     4)  One point that has not been addressed is Kuhn's argument that
a paradigm shift involves a change in language, or if you prefer, the
meaning of words in a language.  Thus the development of and acceptance
of the theory of relativity actually changed the meaning of the words
"space" and "time."  
     5)  This is to somebody else, sorry I don't remember who.  But the
claim that dialectics applies to economics and politics but not to
natural sciences can also be debated.  I note that probably a majority 
of professional economists would tell you that they attempt to use the
scientific method, recognizing fully the difficulty of carrying out 
controlled experiments, etc., that they have an abstract theory , just
like the physicists (much of it stolen from the physicists), that Marx
has been shown logically and empirically to be wrong about fundamental
things (labor theory of value out the window, see transformation problem
and, yes, there are varying organic compositions of capital across sectors
empirically; falling rate of profit highly conditional, see Okishio Theorem)
and that thus they can proceed in a pragmatic "whatever predicts best"
manner just like the hard physicists.  Thus, discussion of Marx, dialectics,
and such stuff is to be left to a bunch of soft-headed history of thought
types, sort of like Kuhn in physics, who hard types like mathematical 
theorists and econometricians can duly ignore.
     BTW, as an aside to you, Rahul:  I picked up a hint from one of
your posts that you are a grad student.  Are you in danger of becoming
one of those "permanent ABDs" from spending too much time on the nets?
Better be careful (same goes for you too, Baroness), although the various
lists you haunt would be the worse off without your "disciplining," :-).
Barkley Rosser


     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005