Re: Marxism as science -Reply

["Bernard J. Goitein" <bjg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pete-
You say, "If anything, observation hinders science....?"
What, then, is the proper role of empirical data for science?  Or do you
propose reliance on pure reason as a better source of knowledge (sounds like
my dim memories of Plato)?
Bernie Goitein

On Tue, 18 Apr 1995, Pete Bratsis wrote:

> Sorry, I got cut off.  Continuing -
>
> This conception of science is directly opposed to that held by empericists.
> Science is not based on observation.  If anything, observation hinders
> science since it creates this focus on apperences and a fixation with
> the first experience.  Thus, we will 'abstract' or 'generalize' from
> this experience so that our particular relation with reality becomes
> what Bachelard would term 'false' science.  (For a brief example
> see ch. 5 of The Psychoanalysis of Fire, or, read The New Scientific
> Spirit).
>
> At any rate, I am tring to make explict that AM is not necessarily
> more 'scientific' than other Marxisms - although it certainly is more
> empericist than most others.
> (An excellect examination of the misrepresentations of science
> through empericism and its negative effects within contemporary political
> theory is John Gunnell's  Between Philosophy and Politics.)
>
>
> It is also no less 'bullshit' just because it adopts empericist methods.
> For example, what we could term
>       I AM HAVING COMPUTER PROBLEMS  WILL CONTINUE LATER>
>
> PETER BRATSIS
>
>
>
>
>
>      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

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