Karl Popper

[crippled sloth]

Just finished the open society, and I must say I'm a big fan. Doesn't quite take his constructive ideas to their logical (libertarian socialist) conclusions - and the open society series is sorely in need of a "volume 3: market ideology" - but great ideas none the less.

What is particularly impressive is the comprehensive analysis and demolition of historicism and economic determinism (if only the radical left took this critique on board and buried this horrendous method for good). I'm interested in any marxist responses people can recomend.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Kuhn owns liberal/bourgeois philosopher Popper big time. :)

Popper's stuff about conservative science reeks too much of authoritarianism, and limits scientific development. Then there's the problem of induction, and the fact that his own "falsifiability" test is incapable of being falsifiable.

[dez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:38 am
his own "falsifiability" test is incapable of being falsifiable.
lol

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by in_motion+April 26, 2007 12:23 am--> (in_motion @ April 26, 2007 12:23 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 03:38 am
his own "falsifiability" test is incapable of being falsifiable.
lol [/b]
^^^ Ask ComradeRed. <_<

[I&#39;m merely assuming that you were laughing at what seems to be circular logic, but induction - that basis of modern science - is circular logic, too.]

[ComradeRed]

I am a "working" theoretical physicist, and I have read bits and pieces of Popper (this piece (http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/popper.htm) really makes my blood boil as a physicist&#33; :angry:)...and he seems like a back seat driver to science.

As though a guy with a Ph.,D. in philosophy who took a high school course on physics suddenly becomes an expert on how every science works&#33;

The big thesis of Popper is that a theory is scientific if it explains a large body of empirically observed phenomena and it can be "falsified".

The problem is that "falsifiability" is not "falsifiable".

That is not equivalent to saying "If observation contradicts a theory, then the theory is incorrect."

Science works by formulating explanations of empirically observable phenomena, then articulating the explanations to predict better and better results.

There are times when entire schools of thought need to be cast aside, and new schools erected in their place (one of the basic rules of science mind you is that if a school of thought, or a paradigm, is "wrong", it isn&#39;t caste aside but replaced with a superior paradigm with a different set of tools used to analyze phenomena).

For example, special relativity replaced Galilean relativity...or quantum mechanics replaced newtonian mechanics...or general relativity replaced newtonian gravity...or...

One exciting paradigm shift that will happen in the next 10 to 15 years (maybe less&#33;) is a complete revolution in quantum mechanics (whatever will replace it will be called "quantum mechanics"), the abandonment of String theory, and (perhaps even&#33;) a unified field theory(&#33;). These are just my predictions, of course, I am no oracle.

As for how this applies to Marxism, Marxism is a paradigm not a theory&#33; That is a serious problem for Popper&#39;s criticism.

The Marxist paradigm has several analytic tools, e.g. historical materialism, class struggle, an entire school of economics, etc.

Some of Marx&#39;s tools are rather useless (e.g. dialectics), some were in need of empirical support (e.g. the labor theory of value, although a one Mr. Anwar M. Shaikh), and some are in need of elucidations (e.g. Historical Materialism).

Popper&#39;s criticisms would be, I imagine, revolving around a rather incorrect assessment of Marxism as a theory rather than as a paradigm.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:50 am
As though a guy with a Ph.,D. in philosophy who took a high school course on physics suddenly becomes an expert on how every science works&#33;

The big thesis of Popper is that a theory is scientific if it explains a large body of empirically observed phenomena and it can be "falsified".

The problem is that "falsifiability" is not "falsifiable".

That is not equivalent to saying "If observation contradicts a theory, then the theory is incorrect."

Science works by formulating explanations of empirically observable phenomena, then articulating the explanations to predict better and better results.
^^^ What about the problem of induction? [Mind you, I agree with what you said in this part.]


As for how this applies to Marxism, Marxism is a paradigm not a theory&#33; That is a serious problem for Popper&#39;s criticism.

The Marxist paradigm has several analytic tools, e.g. historical materialism, class struggle, an entire school of economics, etc.

Some of Marx&#39;s tools are rather useless (e.g. dialectics), some were in need of empirical support (e.g. the labor theory of value, although a one Mr. Anwar M. Shaikh), and some are in need of elucidations (e.g. Historical Materialism).

Popper&#39;s criticisms would be, I imagine, revolving around a rather incorrect assessment of Marxism as a theory rather than as a paradigm.

Well said, EXCEPT perhaps that part about dialectics. <_<

"But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel’s system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science—radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements—have been a remarkable confirmation of Marx’s dialectical materialism despite the teachings of the bourgeois philosophers with their “new” reversions to old and decadent idealism." (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm)

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 06:09 pm
^^^ What about the problem of induction? [Mind you, I agree with what you said in this part.]


The problem that I have with the "deduction/induction" "dichotomy" is that in practice NO ONE ever stops and says "Wuh-oh, I&#39;m using induction/deduction, I better rethink this through&#33;"

Hell, you could use a magic 8-ball, and if you get the right results you&#39;re golden&#33;

Of course it&#39;s kind of hard to justify your reasoning ("Step 8, I used my magic 8-ball to realize that all signs point to yes" :lol:).

I think though that Hume&#39;s criticism of induction is still valid and unanswered by Popper to a large extent.

Popper from what I have seen simply ignores the critics of induction.

But the problem of falsifiability not being falsifiable is rather problematic (more so than verifiability "not being verifiable" <_<).


Well said, EXCEPT perhaps that part about dialectics. <_<

"But Marx did not stop at eighteenth-century materialism: he developed philosophy to a higher level, he enriched it with the achievements of German classical philosophy, especially of Hegel’s system, which in its turn had led to the materialism of Feuerbach. The main achievement was dialectics, i.e., the doctrine of development in its fullest, deepest and most comprehensive form, the doctrine of the relativity of the human knowledge that provides us with a reflection of eternally developing matter. The latest discoveries of natural science—radium, electrons, the transmutation of elements—have been a remarkable confirmation of Marx’s dialectical materialism despite the teachings of the bourgeois philosophers with their “new” reversions to old and decadent idealism." (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/mar/x01.htm) Yes yes, Lenin thinks that dialectics are the greatest thing since sliced bread <_<

Now the question I always ask: Is this true?&#33;?

"All signs point to no" :lol:

Largely because there is no criteria for deriving the antithesis from a proposition, nor how to "combine" two propositions into a "synthesis".

Have you ever stopped to think that "Hey, Hegel&#39;s work reflects the ideas of the ruling class of early 19th century Prussia and thus is reactionary&#33;"

That would make Hegel the-coal-miner&#39;s method is just as reactionary as his conclusions.

How dialectics are used in practice (today) is to ramble on for a while whilst speaking with ostentatious wording and to deliver a point that is seemingly disconnected from any reasoning whatsoever.

The one question that presents itself most readily is: is there any advantage to using dialectics that dialectics itself retains solely?

Dialecticians haven&#39;t provided a coherent proof, so that would imply there is no superiority of dialectics rather than "metaphysical" formal logic.

THIS IS NOT the same as saying that we should reject holism (particular because we are dealing with empiricism that is not reproducible), nor should we suppose that anything is constant other than change.

A Marxist should stop and assess Lenin&#39;s proposition: philosophy is little more than the ideas of the ruling class (either the current or an antiquated one). It would be more revolutionary to reject philosophy outright than to formulate (or accept a formulation of) a philosophy.

I would suggest instead to study applied math as it&#39;s useful, unambiguous, and precise.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A Marxist should stop and assess Lenin&#39;s proposition: philosophy is little more than the ideas of the ruling class (either the current or an antiquated one). It would be more revolutionary to reject philosophy outright than to formulate (or accept a formulation of) a philosophy.

I would suggest instead to study applied math as it&#39;s useful, unambiguous, and precise.

That science philosophy course I took was only for the purpose of wholistic education that forms part of my degree requirements. :)

All that stuff of mine about Popper, KUHN, induction, constructivism, etc. - that&#39;s just floaters to float your boat. ;)

In terms of math, I LOVE math, and the relevant form of applied math for me is finance. :)

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:00 pm
That science philosophy course I took was only for the purpose of wholistic education that forms part of my degree requirements. :)
I was referring to all of philosophy rather than a specific branch of it. Just get rid of the whole damn field, put it in the dumpster of history&#33;


In terms of math, I LOVE math, and the relevant form of applied math for me is finance. :) You see, unlike philosophy, you can actually prove things with math.

For Marxism to become a science, it first must be placed on a mathematical basis. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+April 26, 2007 03:05 am--> (ComradeRed @ April 26, 2007 03:05 am)
[email protected] 25, 2007 07:00 pm
That science philosophy course I took was only for the purpose of wholistic education that forms part of my degree requirements. :)
I was referring to all of philosophy rather than a specific branch of it. Just get rid of the whole damn field, put it in the dumpster of history&#33;


In terms of math, I LOVE math, and the relevant form of applied math for me is finance. :) You see, unlike philosophy, you can actually prove things with math.

For Marxism to become a science, it first must be placed on a mathematical basis. ;) [/b]
^^^ In the case of scientific socialism, math (economic applications) is merely ONE prerequisite. Besides, it is already a political science.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:13 pm
^^^ In the case of scientific socialism, math (economic applications) is merely ONE prerequisite. Besides, it is already a political science.
I think that there is math that can be applied here.

For example, rational choice theory presents itself.

But it is lacking, it acts against how historical materialism would dictate.

Thus we would introduce a Hilbert space for institutions, and "creator" and "annihilator" operators for these institutions based on material conditions and the deformation of the Hilbert space based on the history of the society (which means that it&#39;s a nonlinear, constrained system), these institutions would generate the set of choices, and material conditions would weigh each choice depending on the agent&#39;s relation to the institutions and the material conditions (yeah, I have been thinking about this for a while now). The only problem that I have is with generating material conditions, but as with all things it&#39;s only a matter of time until this problem is resolved :)

We can continue to make things more accurate by making things contextual with topos, and so on and so forth.

With Marxism, you cannot really effectively seperate out "political science" from "economics" from...without destroying the structure of the Marxist paradigm.