Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 12:11:20 -0600
Subject: Re: Engels, dialectics, etc -Reply -Reply


I [lisa] previously wrote:
> I hope someone will state what exactly is meant by a "dialectic in
nature"

Adam replied on 9-6-96:
Perhaps I would put forward a provisional answer to this as :

"The dialectic, for a Marxist, are the laws governing motion, change
and development, of the material world. When we say "there is a
dialectic in nature" , what we mean is that the laws governing
motion, change, and development in nature are at some high level the
same as those which apply to human society." [paraphrase: but not
identical because of consciousness.]

Lisa: Now I'm curious what you mean by "laws governing" something.  I
see no use and have no use for the language of "natural laws" in my
science training, it seems archaic and misleading.  Bhaskar uses such
language in his analysis of science or phil-sci, but I'm not sure yet
just what he means by it.

> Why is such a discussion important ? 

Lisa:  No, Adam, that is not what I asked.  I asked why you think it
is important to believe that "nature is 'dialectical'" per se.  When
some talk of "dialectics" _does_ make sense to me is when it just
sounds like "good science", well within my experience/thought, by
another name.
When I talk of science, sometimes others say "Aha, that is
dialectical!"  [Ehrbar did that just the other day.]  Then I wonder,
well, what is the point of "dialectics" per se, if careful critical
iconoclastic thought is already covering that ground?

Especially when the commonest use of argument about "dialectic" seems
to be as a critique of science?  This is one of my biggest gripes
with much of the current critique of science, whether 'dialectic' or
pomo or whatever, is that it beats a dead horse, a "science" that
does not always seem to be existing at all, from my point of view.

Am I such a strange scientist, or just a good one?  Certainly we
should know that "science" and "scientists" are not just one uniform
stereotype.  Yet some "critique of science" seems to assume exactly
that.  The image of science which is "critiqued" is also falsified by
being locked into some time period in the past, chained to the views
of some one or a few philosophers of science, and exemplified by a
few horrific cases which may not be representative.  

Adam also wrote: What I would refer to as the "classical" scientific
method has suffered a number of severe blows in the 20th century.
Scientists can, for a while, at least, conduct investigations into
their own particular area, more or less in isolation, almost without
any explicit methodology [ie, within the "classical" method, as
practised today].
But at extremes of size or speed or age or complexity, or as
different areas of science are integrated, this underlying
methodology, IMO, breaks down. And I think it is precisely in these
grey areas that science is being done today.

Lisa:  I don't recognize a science I know of in this description. 
Perhaps you could clarify your meaning for "classical" and
"methodology".

Thanks,
Lisa


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