File spoon-archives/marxism2.archive/marxism2_1996/96-09-20.183, message 54


Date: Fri, 13 Sep 96 09:59:48 GMT
From: Adam Rose <adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: Re: Engels, dialectics, etc -Reply -Reply



Lisa writes:
> 
> 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.
> 

The language IS archaic.

It's like "dictatorship of the proletariat", when "workers power" or
"workers state" would do.

When Marx talked about the "TENDENCY of the rate of profit to fall", he
meant exactly that, a tendency, which sometimes can not operate because
there are other, stronger, countervailing tendencies.

Anything which claims to be "general laws of motion" has therefore to be
stronger than a mere tendency - so people use the word "Law". I think
the problem with this word is that in class societies, Laws are things
imposed by a minority on society, not things which emanate from society.
So the word itself gives us some bad feelings, and don't quite convey 
the required meaning. So out of a combination of laziness, stroppiness,
and lack of a better alternative, I use Law. Anyway, I mean something
stronger than a tendency.

BUT, part of marxist dialectics is what Paul McGarr describes as
"radical anti reductionism". So in its own terms, just because there are 
GENERAL laws of motion, this doesn't give us an explanatory powers in
any particular domain, as for instance, Newton's or Einstein's Laws of
Motion do.


> > 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.
> 

The primary use of dialectics for a marxist is as a tool to change
the social world. [ eg my example with Trade Unions on m1 ].
Marxists, whether they have explicitly thought about dialectics or not,
are always saying things like "I don't disagree with anything you've
said, but I think that's only one side of the truth" ie "you're
being undialectical".

Its second most important use is to counter the bad science when
applied to society. [ eg Sociobiology ie genetic reductionism,
certainly in its popularised form; sociological arguments to prove
we're all middle class; phsychological arguments against socialism;
with and against the green critique ]. So yes, a critique of some
science, for the reason that it is not scientific.

Its third most important use is for scientists themselves. If they
can get along without it, well, fine. Marxists who aren't scientists
discuss questions like "Is there a dialectic in nature ?" in order
to clarify what they mean by a dialectic in society.

I remember reading a book on chaos theory. It kept saying things like
"order turns into randomness. And then this randomness has a complex
order to it. This qualitative changes are produced by small changes
in quantity ! Can you believe it ? And it happens all over the place,
in many different areas of the natural world ! Wow !" 

My reaction to this was two fold - as a Marxist, a sort of bored "So what ?
I knew that all along. What do you want , a medal ?" On the other hand, I
shared the authors' excitement, because this does contradict a lot of the
framework within which mathematics and computer science is done today, even
though formally, its limits have been reached a long time ago ( Godel, etc ).

In order to push at the frontiers of human understanding, the old,
classical methodology ( paradigm, framework ) , which was helpful,
necessary, useful, had to be broken, discarded, thrown aside.
And this movement came out of people working within that tradition, as
the "general laws of motion" would predict.

Perhaps the point for scientists, is that instead of continually having to 
rebel against the dominant methodology in order to progress, it may be
better for them to have a method, based on a view of the natural world,
which helps them. When scientists come to this point of view ( as they do
>from time to time ) good. If they don't, well, they don't.

> Am I such a strange scientist, or just a good one?

I think good science increasingly has to be dialectical science.
Mechanical materialism in many areas had gone as far as it can in many
areas. Whereas in its day it helped a huge expansion of human knowledge,
it increasingly becomes a barrier. Science is increasingly look at the
"grey areas" between reasonably isolatable areas of nature, or the extremes
of size, speed and/or complexity.

I think this explains why chaos theorists and biologists find themselves
agreeing with Engels, whereas this did not occur in Engels' time.

> 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".
> 

I don't believe you, Lisa.

I did physics and chemistry until I was 16, physics and maths until 18,
maths until 22. it makes sense to me and everyone else who has gone
through a similar experience. The only thing I remember from my brief
brush with biology is the tedious classification of animals.

I just don't believe you don't know what I'm talking about. In fact, I think
you know what I'm referring to a hundred times better than I do. I also
think your approach to science informs and is informed by your approach
to society. I think I can see similarities, from what you have posted
on the marxism lists.

I also think you're being slightly unfair to those of us who do think there
is a dialectic in nature. We have a view of nature, and a methodology which
flows from that view. What's yours ? If you do not think the "critique" of
mechanical materialism applies to the theory and practise of
modern science today, or to your own theory and practise, how would you
describe these things ?



Adam.


Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------



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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005