Showing posts with label philosophy of science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy of science. Show all posts

Thursday, December 12, 2024

Marxism and Natural Sciences by Y.M. Uranovsky

 Natural science has to do with a relatively changeable nature ; on the one hand, as a result of the industrial activity of many generations, on the other hand (as the further development of science has shown) as a result of man's action upon it through the medium of investigation of observed processes.

The essence of the processes of nature cannot be understood without taking man's practical activity into account, which depends on the condition of productive forces and social construction. Only by starting from the practice of social life (industry, classes, social conditions) can human nature be understood as a part of nature as a whole, not only in the sense that man's psychology and ideas show their class essence, but in the sense of taking account of those natural (biological) changes to which he is subjected, when, in the process of changing reality, he also changes himself.

The method established by Marx spells the doom of naturalism in all its variations which looks on human society and man as an ordinary "child" of nature : the socio-power school (Podolinsky, Ostwald) ; the geo-political (Rutzel, G. E. Graf, etc.) ; every kind of bio-sociological school, starting with social-Darwinism, from Karl Kautsky's attempts to supplement Marx with a doctrine of the instincts as the starting-point for the analysis of social relationships, or the efforts of the Austro-Marxists to correct Marx by the teaching of Freud, explaining religion and culture by biological factors, right down to the philosophy of modern fascism (O. Spann) which tries to base itself on a biological theory of completeness and a doctrine of races in the organic world.

Marx breaks down all kinds of teaching on freedom of will by showing that social being determines social consciousness and in this way extends the objective method to the study of the most complex social phenomena.

In place of inconsistent, abstract, materialist monism (Spinoza, French eighteenth-century materialism, Feuerbach), Marx lays the firm foundations for a materialist monism which is not abstract, but concrete, dialectical, consistent, taking account of the specific nature of human society, of all the inner connections between nature and man in their historical development. Marx gives a method and an outlook in which the dialectic of nature and the dialectic of history are indissolubly connected together.

In Marx's views the historical primacy of nature is not in any way broken. Even before the triumph of evolutionist ideas Marx establishes the following premises : the theory of creation is destroyed, as is shown by the natural sciences (geognosis) ; nature develops, it is in process of becoming even before the appearance of man ; the development of nature goes spontaneously, is immanent, selfgenerated ; the organic world (and man) arose through generatio æquivoca ; life has not always existed as Thomson, Helmholtz and other representatives of the "absurd doctrine" of panspermy uphold. It follows that Marx understands this generatio æquivoca not as being the conception and birth of higher organisms without the intermediary of seed and parents (the mediæval form of this doctrine of generatio æquivoca, spontanea aut primaria), but in the sense of self-movement, selfdevelopment, i.e. in the sense which is in accordance with the chemical theory of the origin of life and the evolutionary theory of the origin of man, established within a decade and a half by Darwin's theory.

In a deep internal connection with these new views of the object of the natural sciences, of nature, Marx develops an absolutely new outlook on the science of nature, on natural science.

Even in the works belonging to the Holy Family Marx analyses, with greater power and depth than any of his predecessors (Bacon, Spinoza, the French materialists and philosophers of the age of enlightenment), the cultural-historical and social significance of natural science. Marx reproaches the philosophers for not taking into account the role and importance of the natural sciences. Natural science is not an external factor of usefulness for man or a chance factor of enlightenment. It is internally bound up with the most essential form of human activity, with practice, with industry, with the development of labour.

Industry is a practical relationship of man to nature, natural science, a "theoretical relationship". Industry is the basic form of practice, natural science, the foundation of human science. Industry discloses the real powers of man, and natural science is such a "real power", "a potential of production". Marx establishes the empirical origin and practical function of natural science and apportions a very important social role to natural science.

It follows that the power of Marx's analysis, surpassing all that had hitherto been written on the importance of the natural sciences, is determined by the fact that Marx knew how to generalise with genius the objective data of the epoch. Marx did not invent theories but summed up the experience of history and modern life. He often refers to the "gifts of science" which Davy, Liebig and others made to humanity.

Thursday, November 16, 2023

Americans losing faith in science and scientists, but still value gov't investment in field: study

 

Americans losing faith in science and scientists, but still value gov't investment in field: study

The Museum of the Bible opens its new exhibition titled “Scripture and Science: Our Universe, Ourselves, Our Place" on Jan. 19, 2023, in Washington, D.C. The Christian Post/ Nicole Alcindor

While a majority of Americans still have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists and believe science has had a mostly positive impact on society, an increasing minority are expressing strong levels of distrust in scientists and the impact of their work on society, a new study from the Pew Research Center shows.

The study, which includes a survey of 8,842 U.S. adults, was conducted Sept. 25-Oct. 1. Researchers also found that despite the growing distrust of scientists and the impact of their work on society, a majority of Americans still value government investment in the field.

“Despite declines in ratings of scientists and science, a large majority of Americans continue to see government investments in science as worthwhile. And most place at least some importance on the United States being a world leader in scientific achievements,” Alec Tyson, associate director of Science and Society Research, and Brian Kennedy, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center wrote.

Nearly 80% of Americans agree that government investments in scientific research are generally good for society.

In general, though, only 57% of Americans say science has had a mostly positive effect on society. This share is 8 percentage points lower than it was in November 2021 and 16 points lower than it was before the dawn of COVID-19.

Some 34% of Americans believe the impact of science on society has been equally positive as negative, while another 8% say the impact of science on society has been mostly negative.

Even though 73% of U.S. adults noted that they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests, researchers noted that since the early stages of the pandemic, trust in scientists has fallen 14%.

The share of Americans who said they have a great deal of confidence in scientists fell from 39% in 2020 to 23% today.

The share expressing the strongest level of trust in scientists — saying they have a great deal of confidence in them — has fallen from 39% in 2020 to 23% today, while some 27% of Americans say they have not too much or no confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. That share was 12% in April 2020.

Confidence in medical scientists and scientists has shown a general decline, but researchers found it to be more pronounced among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in recent years, researchers said.

Some 38% of Republicans “now say they have not too much or no confidence at all in scientists to act in the public’s best interests,” according to Pew.

While the study found the decline in confidence in scientists to be more pronounced in Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, the decline was also noticed among Democrats.

In November 2020, the share of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents who had a great deal of confidence in scientists was 55%. That share is now 37%.

“But unlike Republicans, a large majority of Democrats (86%) continue to express at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. The overall differences in partisan views remain much more pronounced today than they were prior to the coronavirus outbreak,” the researchers noted.

While 70% of Republicans said science had a mostly positive effect on society in 2019, less than half, or 47% of that group, now say the same. Some 69% of Democrats say science has had a mostly positive effect on society but that share is still 8% lower than it was in 2019.

Despite the declines in public confidence in scientists, 73%, and medical scientists, 77%, Americans still had more trust in them and their work than, public school principals, religious leaders, and police officers.

Among American adults, 69% expressed a great deal or fair amount of confidence in police officers, 65% in public school principals and 53% in religious leaders.

A majority of Americans also said they “have not too much or no confident at all” in journalists, business leaders and elected officials.

Contact: leonardo.blair@christianpost.com Follow Leonardo Blair

Monday, May 15, 2023

Said in 1929--But Still Applicable to Some "Official Scientists" Today

 


This very unphilosophical irruption [of a scientist] into philosophy was, however, in one way enlightening. It threw a light backwards on the speaker's previous proclamation on things on which he has more right to speak. Even in those things he betrayed a curious simplicity common among such official scientists. The truth is that they become steadily less scientific and more official. They develop that thin disguise that is the daily wear of politicians. They perform before us the most artful tricks with the most artless transparency. It is like watching a child trying to hide something. They are perpetually trying to bluff us with big words and learned allusions; on the assumption that we have never learnt anything--even of their own funny little ways. Every leader-writer who thunders "Galileo" at us assumes that we know even less about Galileo than he does. Every preacher of popular science who throws a long word at us thinks we shall have to look it up in the dictionary and hopes we shall not study it seriously even in the encyclopaedia. Their use of science is rather like the use made of it by the heroes of certain adventure stories, in which the white men terrify the savages by predicting an eclipse or producing an electric shock. These are in a sense true demonstrations of science. They are in a sense right in saying that they are scientists. Where they are perhaps wrong is in supposing that we are savages.

–G. K. Chesterton, “The Mask of the Agnostic.” 

Sunday, February 2, 2020

War on science? Pardon me, while I laugh!

War on science? A war on science? Science requires questions! Science requires questions about questioning everything! What matters is reality! You think that you can understand reality. You think that you can understand truth. Get real! You can not understand reality. Reality involves questions! Do you ever question your beliefs? Do you ever question what society supports? Not all cultures acknowledge science! They are into tribal council things! How dare you judge them! You and your western vapor worship! Worship of reason is worship of vapor! Reason is vapor! You go after it, and it leaves! Question every thought! Question every idea! What matters is truth!

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Stop Giving Power to People Who Don't Believe in Science? Hans Solo says

Harrison Ford: "Stop Giving Power to People Who Don't Believe in Science"

"Celebrities typically use their platforms to unfold awareness on vital problems. But whereas several folks became numb to their warnings, there is one thing concerning Harrison Ford that creates folks stay awaken and listen.



Maybe it's the cult following he's acquired from playing heroic characters like Indiana Jones and Han Solo."

Excuse me, but since when do non scientists get to define how we live our lives? And isn't science something that you should question and re-question over and over? why do we have to worship the past?

Why is truth not allowed to exist anymore?

 Why is truth not allowed to exist anymore? Why is basic reality banned from our lives? Nobody believes in basic logic anymore! Truth judges...