Ralph Dumain
So I guess you're right. I'm not contributing to the positive technical elaboration of emergentism in or out of the scientific community, though in fact in discussions involving practicing scientists there is from time to time an informal conviction that some version of emergentism is necessary, esp. with regards to the mind-body problem. Now is scientific practice 'revolutionary practice'? Will 'revolutionary practice' inform scientific practice? Well, one of the purposes of my blog, if you'll check its archive, is to track the breakdown of rationality in decaying bourgeois society, including the sciences and especially their popularization, as they strain at the cutting edge of their theories and problems--cosmology, evolutionary psychology (sociobiology), cognitive science, artificial intelligence--and begin to disintegrate at the limits of their world-conception. But no philosophy can dictate a positive way forward; it can only exercise a critical and thematic function. As for the relation between political revolution and a revolution in prevailing scientific orientations, there is a diffuse, general relationship in that felt dissatisfaction and need for alternatives may lead to rethinking of assumptions and changes of direction, but the specific 'revolutionary practice' in science must be intrinsically related to its own development. The changes in orientation that are societally broad as well as specifically cognitive must include a challenge to the vacillation within bourgeois thought between positivism and mysticism. ^^^^^ CB: Most of my discussion is negative critique. My only claim to an affirmative contribution or synthesis is my "For Women's Liberation" in which I attempt to synthesize Marx's historical materialism grounded in production and classes with reproduction and the focussed role of women in caring and all around reproductive labor. As to practice, my thought is that women have a special role in making personalities, and that insights into this process might help us to change people's minds politically and otherwise. Marxist psychology must be rooted in women's liberation. With respect to natural sciences, regrettably my thoughts always tend to the grimly critical, and I cannot think of a way to avoid it. That is, there seems no way to avoid the bourgeoisie hijacking great advances in natural science to make weapons of mass destruction. Marx and Engels anticipated science becoming a direct force of production. This cannot happen without the extraordinarily dangerous side effect of making W'sMD, that is , science becoming a direct force of destruction. Even if one segment of capitalist medicine develops a cure for cancer, for example, the net contribution of capitalist natural science to humanity is potentially negative with its being the basis for nuclear weapons, biological weapons , etc. I sincerely feel profound regret in writing this. I beg someone to critique this negative critique of the outcome of advances in natural science to this point in history. I want someone to show me how to be optimistic about the progress of science in the capitalist context. In other words, as we discuss the relationship between philosophy and natural science, a theme in our discussions is whether philosophy, dialectics , et al. might contribute to more effective scientific methods of discovery. But then at that point I hit a big wall, because I think, "if philosophy or dialectics or an emergentist perspective did contribute to more effective discovery of natural laws, in the current political context, there is nothing to prevent the dominating militarist elements of the bourgeoisie from perverting said discoveries to make some new superweapons that we haven't even imagined." It's not even that some segments of capitalist society won't use scientific discoveries for good. It is that the militarist segments might make something so horrible that the humanitarian benefits of other discoveries don't make up for the harm of the weapons. It's like we need the socialist revolution in order for natural science to go on any further safely for humanity ! It is a new angle to "Socialism or Barbarism ". I admit that my critique is a negative critique, with very little affirmative contribution. I admit that it imposes a very bizarre and repressive dilemma to any natural scientist who takes it seriously. I can't think of a way out of the dilemma. It all gives me the blues. _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
