[Marxism] Popper

["Jurriaan Bendien" <andromeda246@xxxxxxxxx>]

Paul, you wrote:

> Once, however, a necessary prediction leading from a theory is shown to be
> false, the theory is dead-wood - or at least the relevant aspects of the
> theory.

Lakatos however suggests that an "anomaly" for a theory in this sense is
precisely what fuels the growth of knowledge, since, rather than abandon the
theory, it prompts attempts to save the theory by extending it, in order to
save it from refutation.

The concept of corroboration already suggests a weaker type of
confirmation - i.e. positive evidence that a theory is true, but not
necessarily compelling evidence.

Also, as I mentioned, Lakatos suggests often clusters of theories are being
tested at the same time, and it may be impossible at a given time to know
whether to attribute a false prediction to false theoretical assumptions, or
to the given experimental conditions.

The general point is that science normally operates with far more theory
than the data really warrants, i.e. our ability to theorise exceeds our
ability to test theories; Lakatos suggests it may be just as rational to
continue maintaining a theory, as it is to abandon it, when confronted with
an anomaly.

What the sociology of science adds to this, is that the decision to adhere
to or abandon a theory may be influenced by social factors external to the
scientific argument. Theories may linger on not so much because of their
intrinsic scientific merit, but because of social values/interests generated
by a social system or their practical utility. In part, this is what Marx's
critical concept of ideology is all about - e.g. he argues the political
economists were unwilling to accept the conclusions that followed from their
own theorems if thought through to the end, because of vested interests (the
"furies of private interest").

Essentially Lakatos suggests a weaker concept of rationality is necessary
for a rational reconstruction of scientific activity, i.e. that of
non-arbitrary theory choice and a non-arbitrary assessment of the evidence.
Theory-choice maybe be reasoned and based on evidence, but there may exist
no logic that necessarily forces a particular theory-choice, nor evidence
which is absolutely compelling evidence forcing its acceptance.

Only with the benefit of hindsight we may be able to reconstruct scientific
activity as rational - as Hegel says, 'When philosophy paints its grey in
grey, then a shape of life has become old, and with grey in grey it cannot
be rejuvenated, but only recognized for what it is. The owl of Minerva
begins its flight only with the falling of  dusk.' We are wise after the
event - when the event occurs, we may not be able to say which procedure is
more rational than others.


If a particular argument or evidence is regarded as compelling, this may
only be because of their implications for the coherence of the theoretical
structures which we already have. Thus Lakatos suggests that adhering
"dogmatically" to a theory may be rational or reasonable, provided that it
is accepted that maintaining a theory despite the evidence is a
methodological decision, and does not reflect a claim about the absolute
truth. Lakatos suggests that if theories were abandoned at the drop of a
hat, no comprehensive explanatory structure would ever be built up.

This is similar to Hegel's notion of dialectics as a logic which goes beyond
(transcends) formal logic, i.e. a way of thinking which, although maybe it
cannot be formalised in strict deductive terms (because it moves between
different logical levels, combining induction and deduction), is
nevertheless non-arbitrary. Marx's critique of Hegel however is that in part
his inferences are arbitrary anyhow, mainly because of a wrong vantage point
or point of departure, which did not enable an understanding of the object
of study in its internal necessity, i.e. Hegel induces premisses on the
basis of a false ontology.

Marx's own critique of political economy is also a rational reconstruction
of a science - as he says, his aim was to "bring a science through criticism
to the point where it can be dialectically represented". This rests on a
view of human action which depicts it, even if not complete rational,
nevertheless as non-arbitrary because it is constrained by factors necessary
for human survival and growth.

Jurriaan


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