Re: [Marxism] Re: Popper

[Jim Farmelant <farmelantj@xxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 00:49:18 +0000 "paul illich"
<paul_illich@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Nestor,
>
> you wrote of Popper:
>
> >This is why he can't consider "evolution" scientific.  Of course he
> can't
> >test it.  Nobody can, unless one has an alternative planet to play
> with.
>
> Frankly, I doubt that Popper would have found the theory of the
> Big bang to be "science" as such either - philosophy; mysticism;
> eschatology; pseudo-creationism perhaps, but science, no.

Curiously enough, the proponents of the Steady-State cosmology,
back in the 1950s (Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred
Hoyle) drew explicitly upon Popper's philosophy of science
in the formulation of the  methodology that underlied their
investigations. Bondi, in particular, was taken with the
idea of formulating a cosmology that could be falsified
by empirical data. And indeed, Bondi took great pains to
formulate the Steady-State theory so that it would be
possible to state explicitly what sorts of observations
could falsify it.  And indeed, in the mid-1960s, with
the discovery of 3° K remnant microwave radiation
which suggested that the universe did indeed have
a definate origin, the theory was in fact falsified,
as Bondi freely admitted.

(See: the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article,
"Cosmology: Methodological Debates in the 1930s and 1940s"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology-30s/ ).

>
>

>
> Nestor also wrote:
>
> >"It turned out to be fortitious for Popper that the critique of
> Marxism
> >which had originally been forged in the context of the debates of
> the
> >Austrian Social Democrats turned out to
> >especially useful for the cold warriors in waging ideological
> warfare
> >against the Soviet Union."
> >
> >Not fortitious.  Not at all.
>
> Couldn't agree more that this was not fortuitous. Dullards miss his
> valid argument about historicism and teleology and jump on his
> bitter
> invective. This was a big mistake of Popper's.

There is also the question of whether Marxism is historicist
in Popper's sense.  Arguably, thecrude vulgarized versions of
Marxism that were propogated by the Stalinists and others,
fit the bill, but it seems doubtful to me that the same can
be said for more sophisticated varieties of Marxism.

>I find it interesting
> and shameful that his clear-headed philosophy should be hamstrung by
> his own hatreds. However, on the subject of bitter invective
> hamstringing
> arguments, steady on there Nestor!
>
>
> cheers
> Paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Marxism mailing list
> Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism
>


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism