Is it possible to justify Historical Materialism??

[ComradeRed]

OK, I am really bored now, so I am wondering if it is possible to justify the theory of Historical Materialism through the scientific method?

[Djehuti]

Yes, ofcource. Marx built almost all his reasearch on the hypotetic deductive method (a method that has been used by many great scientists, Galilei (the first real scientist), Darwin, etc) , and he used it very well.

Popper is known to be the first to have formulated this method if not invent it, but this is false. William Whewell (in The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences from 1840) was long before Popper. Popper could not even use the method himself. Popper was a fool. He had really much in common Galileis prosecutors, in his wiev on science. Read for example Imre Lakatos critique on Popper.

[Essential Insignificance]

The basic, central elements of scientific method (nowadays) are as follows:

1. Characterization

2. Hypothesis

3. Prediction

4. Experiment

Did Marx, in your opinion, go though these steps when formulating his theories of historical materialism?

The vast majority of people have now become accustomed to accept that science is the "ultimate passage" to the foundations of "truth", that science alone is the only way to "pure" knowledge. Two thousand years ago religion offered this, but fortunately, people have generally negated these past follies. Two thousand years from now, there might be another "way", to try and understand the world, more accurately then we do now.

What made sense toady, might not make sense tomorrow!

In the 16th century it was customary in books written about logic; to read the inductive formulation; "that all swans are white"--and you know what happened-- they discovered Australia!

"Supposed" knowledge derived from scientific method is in a constant flux; you can't step it to the same meadow (science) twice. :lol:

Scientism's main arguments are based solely on inductive logical formulations, or, in other words--that future events will always resemble past events--that the sun will rise tomorrow or that qualities inhering in--supposed matter--will always remain uniform; that fire will always "unquestionably" warm me.

We then go on to form the association of ideas that produces the habit of expecting the effect whenever we experience the cause.

Humans by their nature are unable to predict the future with certainty and are always lead to believe inexorably; that, which seems to make the most sense from their interpretation and cognition.

Mankind has to rest content that nature, irresistibly inclines them to believe; but let it be said that there are no "absolute guarantees".

I think that Marx's historical materialism is a science insofar as it establishes a hypothesis that seemingly makes "sense" at present time--like all scientific formulations!

[redstar2000]

If you compare historical materialism to physics or chemistry, then historical materialism "fails the test".

But there are other sciences which admittedly lack the precision of physics or chemistry yet are nevertheless considered legitimate sciences.

Sciences like archeology and paleontology try to figure out "what really happened" based on fragmentary evidence...and the heated polemics between researchers in those fields bear a striking resemblance to polemics between Marxists.

But the best parallel might be between historical materialists and those who study long-range climate changes. The test of "climate models" is their ability to "retrodict" what has already happened; to see if a given model of climate can predict what has happened so far. A good model in historical materialism ought to be able to meet the same test...can you start with feudal conditions, for example, and "predict" the rise of capitalism?

This also imposes major restrictions on what you can predict for the future; those who try to use historical materialism to predict when and where the next wave of proletarian revolutions will break out are very much like someone using a long-range climate model to predict tomorrow's weather.

You may just as well admit that you're guessing.

I think historical materialism is the best guide we've found so far to human history; but I would not dispute the contention that it could be a lot better than it's been so far. Many bright people are deterred from getting into this field because there's little academic prestige (or money) in it.

It's like deciding to become a Marxist economist...you won't get that appointment to the faculty at Harvard if you do that.

It may well be that historical materialism as a science won't really blossom until some decades after the revolution...when really bright people might be attracted to the field.

Until then...

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

But the best parallel might be between historical materialists and those who study long-range climate changes. The test of "climate models" is their ability to "retrodict" what has already happened; to see if a given model of climate can predict what has happened so far. A good model in historical materialism ought to be able to meet the same test...can you start with feudal conditions, for example, and "predict" the rise of capitalism?

This is actually true of allweather and climate prediction. Might be interesting to take the same approach, and attempt a computer model to generate the likely outcome...

[redstar2000]

Might be interesting to take the same approach, and attempt a computer model to generate the likely outcome...

It's been done in a rather primitive way...at the Santa Fe Institute (formerly known as the Los Alamos Nuclear Labs -- they had an "image" problem).

They started with a classless society and "proved" that classes would "inevitably" emerge.

Wha? :o

Well, you see their model was built on the assumptions common to class society ("self-evident truths" in their eyes) so, of course they "proved" what they started out with.

The big problem for us is that of the number and weight of particular "causes" and how they reinforce or weaken each other...like climate modeling only worse.

I think it could be done...but I don't expect the resources to become available until long after the revolution.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:10 PM
OK, I am really bored now, so I am wondering if it is possible to justify the theory of Historical Materialism through the scientific method?
it' s not a theory since it hapens right now!
don' t need a computer model for it.just dollars and some economics equation :lol: :lol:

[Essential Insignificance]

' s not a theory since it hapens right now!

It's happening "right now" because you have accepted it as happening accordingly to Marx's outlook.

Theories revolve around "things happening". Theories try to explain the world; it is of no consequence if something is happening now -- supposedly to negate itself as a theory.

A theory is what explains what might be happening. Even if something is happening, "unquestionably", it still doesn't imply that it's no longer theory.