Date: Tue, 18 Jun 1996 01:03:59 +0000
From: lisa rogers <lrogers-AT-burgoyne.com>
Subject: Re: Dialectics of Nature


Well, Adam, I thought I _was_ asking just what it is that I can get from 
DN.  I'm asking you what is Engels saying about Q/Q and what is it based 
on?  No, I cannot produce examples from evolution, because I don't think 
that way.  But no matter how many "examples" one lists, that would not 
constitute a demonstration of its general usefulness or validity, or 
show how it is a better way to understand what is going on than some 
other way of thinking.  Examples alone do not explain things.

When I ask "so what?" that is not just to "dismiss it", I really want to 
know.

Adam wrote:  A framework
> which is useful, however, guides and helps organise investigation. I think> that dialectical materialism is such a useful framework for both 
social and> natural phenomena. I think the reason it is a useful 
framework is that reality> really is, firstly material, and secondly a 
dynamic, changing whole made> up of many interacting parts. Many 
scientists, trapped within a more classical> approach, seem surprised 
each time they rediscover this. Dialectical materialism> would lead us 
to expect it.

Lisa:  How does dialectics "organise investigation" ?  I am familiar 
with something called a "research strategy", (I think Marvin Harris 
[cultural materialist anthropologist] does a pretty good job of 
explaining what that is and comparing several different strategies 
within anthropology.)  If DMat is a useful method of thinking and 
learning stuff in physics and biology, this scientist wants to know!

Also, where does this view of "classical" science come from?  I don't 
recognize it from actually growing up with it, studying science since I 
was about 12.  Many scientists?  Which ones?  Of course nature is 
material, dynamic and interconnected.  What is more to the point of 
trying to appreciate DN is the question of what "classical" science and 
its method were at the time that Engels wrote, in the 1870's.  According 
to his own account, physicists of that time were finding 
interconnectedness and such, but not by a priori philosophy, by hard 
work.  They figured out and _demonstrated_ by the methods of whatever 
"classical" science they had at the time, that mechanical [kinetic] 
energy could be converted into electricity, then into heat, etc.  That 
they had been previously wrong and were making advances in understanding 
is a standard example of the progress of normal science, isn't it?  [Not 
that I believe any pure myths of pure science or anything silly like 
that, but I'm asking, _how_ would dialectics have helped the development 
of physics, as Engels at least hints that it would?] 

I appreciate your story of the Green critique of science, but I think it 
gets even worse.  Not only did Engels and others make the same 
"critique" over a hundred years ago, not only has science possibly 
changed, it is also a diverse collection of methods and such, and I'm 
not sure that the earlier critique of science was entirely on the mark 
in the first place!   

Lisa earlier wrote:
> > Engel's DN uses the evaporation of water as an example of "quantity into> > quality" [which you cite] - this does not establish Q/Q as a 
generally> > useful principle in my mind.
Adam replied: 
> Of course that example wouldn't convince you of it in general. It's just one> aspect of a general phenomenon. Surely evolution in general 
would supply countless> examples.

Adam also wrote: 
> It's just that I think you can approach any of the Marxist classics, especially> those which rely on specialist knowledge which has become 
outdated, as something> you can learn from, or something you can just 
slag off. So, you can ask, what is> Engels trying to say here about the 
transformation of quantity into quality ? Or,> you can just dismiss it, 
saying "I can understand water boiling without dialectics,> so what's 
the point ?"

Adam: 
"What do you mean by> Marxism ? Do you consider yourself to be a 
Marxist, in the sense you choose> to define it ?"
... 
> so far, nothing you have said about anything has shown any point of contact between> Marxism and your ideas. [ Of course, this in itself 
does not invalidate any single one> of them ]. Do you not think this 
observation is true ?

Lisa:  I don't know.  I suppose that your "observation" is based upon 
your own definition, but I'm more interested in discussing Engels, 
science and dialectics than definitions of marxism right now, or 
definitions of me or you. 


Finally, Engels, recommending a method of investigative, scientific 
thought:

In order to understand the separate phenomena, we have to tear them out 
of the general inter-connection and consider them in isolation, and 
there the changing motions appear, one as cause and the other as effect.

_Dialectics of Nature_ Internat. Pub. 1940 page 174 [from notes for DN]


Best wishes,
Lisa


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