Gurdur

P.S. Wuppertal not only has the Engels family home as a museum, it has a great still-used piece of 19th-century engineering, <a href="http://www.elevator-world.com/magazine/archive01/9712-001.html-ssi" target="_blank">the Schwebebahn, or "Floating Train" (elevated railway)</a>.

Plus a short train trip of 30 Km away is <a href="http://www.ecr.org/conferences/ecr1997/wir/rmuseum.htm" target="_blank">the Roentgen family home, now turned into a museum too</a>, Roentgen being the inventor of the X-ray tube and procedure.

Think about that ! More reasons to drop by, eh ?

Celsus

Well, I know very little about Engels the caretaker, but from what I know of Engels the activist and writer, the entire fracas over the Second International would have been bad enough on its own. More seriously, it was he who introduced determinism into Marxist dialectics. I'm not sure whether it was just Engels alone, or in collaboration with Marx, but the introduction of the idea of "objective necessity" was taken on wholesale by Trotsky and his vanguardists. Engels also rejected the principle of revolution "only from below". This determinism and rejection of grassroots organisation paved the way for Lenin, Trotsky and then Stalin to completely warp any good Marx might have originally intended.

So yes, I hate Engels.

Joel

Primal

Because it is not really testable nor was it based on any sort of tests/researc. Its mainly all conjecture. To this date I have yet to ever hear of either the National Academy of Sciences or Scientific American seriously proposing Marxism as a scientific theory.

No, there's been found to be very little in the way of correlation between revolutionary viewpoints and political/philosophical loyalties...that's what Frank Sulloway showed.In any case Marxism where it has been tested has failed the tests.

The events that affected pre-modern societies illustrate much of what happens today and much of the background of current events i.e. modern societies. Had African been with large domesticated animals instead of Europe...we'd have a very different type of modern history.

Also China is not really much of a counter-point; Diamond admits that culture plays a role. But a continent wide role for thousands of years? Unlikely.


Those are some of the core predictions in Marxist theory...their failure very much damaged Marxism. As is the idea that a person's psychology and philosophy is determined by economic class(totally untrue and unwarranted in modern psychology).

The fact is Marxism, much like Freudianism; was never based on testable data.

Celsus

Hi Primal,

By the first standards, almost all of anthropology, economics or sociology is pseudoscientific. The institutions you mention have very little to do with sociology or economics, and it is not their purpose to argue against or support political philosophies.

I think you misunderstood my point. What I'm saying is that whether or not Marxist philosophy is accepted by the working class is irrelevant to Marxism (as it exists today).

That's true, it set the grounds for economic differences at the outset. However, what happens now has much less to do with the environment. What does the environment have to do with the US' economic weight now? What does the environment have to do with the EU's attempts to contest this? What does the environment have to do with the crises in the Middle East? What does the environment have to do with the Cold War? Anyway, as I recall, his example of China postulated that isolationism around the 1500s had a strong effect until the arrival of Europeans and the defeat during the Opium War (1897).

You are singling out a single idea about psychology, which has very little to do with Marxism, right or wrong. I'd be very wary with your assertions unless you back them up with a hard argument. I'm not sure that you are actually familiar with Marxism after Marx either.

Anyway, I don't want to get too embroiled in this argument. I've only posted because Marxism is probably one of the most caricatured and misrepresented political philosophies anywhere (after anarchism probably). If you would like to continue this debate, please bear in mind that I am not a Marxist.

Primal

These institutions usually recognize anthroplogy as do major scientific journals. I believe economics and sociology are not science, as they really contain no rigorous standards or solid theories.

I'd agree with that, but this has nothing to do with my points.

It set the stage for inertia that is still affecting the world today. And enviroment still plays a role albeit less of one.


Oil and desert. Had the Middle East remained a bread basket instead of becoming arid we'd have a very different history.


Yes, again some cultural effect. Likely because China was isolated for so long. Diamond goes over this.


Wrong, the idea of class consciousness and economic background determining one's attitudes/philosophy played a big role in marxist thought.


I know enough to know it is not a science. Just like freudianism; I'm not familiar with the writings of every neo-freudian but I know the basics of why it has been debunked. Nor do I have to examine every creationist branch or the history of creationism to realize creationism is not science.

I know marxism and misrepresented a lot, as is fruedianism and the new age movement; that doesn't mean any one of them is credible. Anarchism is a very poorly thought through belief system imo. In any case I have no problem with Marxists claiming Marxism is philosophy, or even a "scientific philosophy" i.e. comoatible with much of science. Though that is likewise questionable. I take issue with people calling Marxism a science, it is not a science. It is a philosophy.

Celsus

Hi Primal,

Do you realise that economics, sociology, etc. are considered "social sciences"? Furthermore, now I know you don't know what you're talking about because there is no real distinction between cultural anthropology and sociology. Inasmuch as sociology is a "social science", Marx's theories, which shaped much of modern sociology, are as scientific by the standards of any 19th century social science. You seem to be using an extremely narrow definition (which is limited to the physical sciences), which if you will explain to me fully, I will be happy to consider. However, so that I'm not merely arguing from definition or authority, let's review "science".

Science originated from philosophy - described as "natural philosophy" to differentiate itself from moral and metaphysical philosophies. The aim of science is simply to explain events, processes or phenomena through testable laws and theories. The theories must be rejected, modified or confirmed in the light of tests and experiments. The social sciences can't put society in a test tube - tests are different for the different disciplines. Instead, surveys, statistical trends, demographic indicators, gender disparities, class, etc. are all vital parts of the measurement of information for the social sciences. That is their empirical basis, and further analysis of these trends are used to test them.

Statements like "economics and sociology ... contain no rigorous standards or solid theories" shows willful ignorance. Here's an example: Epidemiology (which grew out of sociology) is a statistical analysis of correlation of environmental factors with diseases. If carried out rigorously, it detects trends in advance of scientific research, which then has to follow in its heels. In the 1800s, the link between cholera and polluted water was verified first by epidemiological surveys (which were simplistic by today's standards), then by medicine. Today, the link between circumcision and lower HIV risk was also detected, first by epidemiological surveys (through very sophisticated elimination of external factors), then by medicine.

Because Marxists have modified their theories (although you know nothing about these modifications, you admit), they are genuinely interested in orienting their theories to standards of the social sciences: statistical analysis, financial flows, demographic studies, etc. Do you think they do no research? Perhaps you also wish to show me some "rigorous standards and solid theories" in anthropology, and I will give you equally rigorous standards and solid theories in economics and sociology. Anyway, you do realise that Scientific American covers work by economists, don't you?

You keep saying that "the idea of class consciousness and economic background determining one's attitudes/philosophy played a big role in marxist thought." I am saying that that is irrelevant, then now you say you agree with me? Furthermore, as I have mentioned before, that quote of yours is a complete straw man. You admit to knowing little about Marxism, but you insist that your preconceived ideas of it are true. And I have given you examples (works of Freire and Gramsci, too long to list here) which exactly repudiate your straw man.

Thank you. Man has become far more influential on the (natural) environment than the environment is on man. Hence, Jared Diamond's thesis only works in premodern societies. Why do I keep having to repeat myself? Should I remind you that this admission will overwhelm the reason you initially brought up Diamond? ("Jared Diamond proves that it is largely enviroment; not economic structure, which determines the fates of societies.") But if you disagree, let's continue.

This is a fine time to do a comparative study. Sudan, like the Middle East, has oil. Its proven reserves are 262.1 million barrels of oil (and likely to be more, as countries generally underestimate, since Laws of Supply and Demand (there's a proven economic theory for you) dictate that lower supply means higher prices, and prospecting is hampered by civil war - estimates of the total reserves are around 3 billion barrels), production (in 2001) is an estimated 209,000 barrels per day. Sudan was once considered a potential breadbasket for the entire Middle East region, its climate and soil being better than the Middle East, and with, as late as the 1960s, a better industrialised agricultural system and transport network (Nile and railroads) than the other countries. Explain to me, using the environment as the principle factor, why Sudan has completely gone to shit, while the rest of the Middle East, troubled as it may be, has far superior standards of living, education, wealth, etc.

And this is not a one off: Why has Malaysia done so much better than Indonesia? Why has Thailand done so much better than Laos? Why have the ex-Soviet states done so much better than Afghanistan? Why did Japan do so much better than the Philippines? Why did the East Asian Tigers do so much better than the rest of the Third World? Why has AIDS become such a killer in Africa, and not South America and South and Southeast Asia? Environment - "guns, germs, and steel" explains precious little in the modern world, even if it was an extremely useful explanatory tool when we were dominated by the environment. Marxism pseudoscientific or not, would probably explain things a lot better than Diamond (and I doubt it is his intention to do so).

&lt;snip&gt;

Inasmuch as you have clung to your straw men despite everything I have said to you, your analogy is false. You can't judge a theory which you have misrepresented by your misrepresentations. I hope you don't take this post personally, but the reductionism of someone claiming that it's all down to the environment is far more pseudoscientific than any Marxist, and the assertion that social sciences aren't sciences is downright ridiculous.

Joel

Primal

A lot of "social sciences" do not count as actual science. For the most part anthroplogy is in some cases and history as well as psychology are just beggining to.

Actually there is. Where did you get this from?


A lot of sociology is merely psuedoscience. The entire discipline is a mess with loose methods, and four main theories all of which are on equal ground due to a lack of solid data and adherence to principle.

Yes, but a lot of this is done very sloppily and open up to too much bias. Science has progressed from the old newtonian way of looking at it.

Really, how so? Tell me what the dominant theory is or how they plan on confirming or disconfirming whatever theories they have and I'll believe you. Until then I'll continue to label it what it is: sloppy.

For example I here much debate between functionalisyts and conflict theorists but nobody really brings in any solid data. Just a lot of "what ifs" and rvision. That is not science.

That is why the social "sciences" and physical sciences are divided.


Yes, they used hard data and resolved a lot of controversy.

Sure they do, but its all skewed. What fits with the ideology is kept, what doesn't is thrown out. Tell me of these modifications; did they modify them greatly? Because if that's the case it's not really marxism they are defending is it?


They do...when? If so, have they decalred Marxism a scientific theory yet? Has ANY major scientific journal or institution or even nobel prize winning scientist?

Well I thought you meant socioeconomic status was irrelvant to personality.


Who says I know little of Marxism? I've read much of Marx and speak to those active in Marxist groups regularly.


Whataver. Philsophers...not scientists.If you have any hard data proving Marxism is a science present it.

No it doesn't. Because premodern conditions 1) Set the stage for modern conditions. 2) Because enviroment still plays a role. It may play less of a role but still plays a role nonetheless. Also, keep in mind Marxists made pre-modern predictions of social development as well: which have all been disconfirmed by Diamond.


Because I'm not blindly accepting your statements.


Umm, how so? You admit that for "premodern" societies it was enviroment and not economics, hence disproving marxist theory.


I have no idea. Do you? It is simply an anaomaly, likely one for historian to answer. The fact is though enviroment plays a role. To assume it just played a role in the past and has magically stopped playing a role in the fates of human societies is unreasonable.

Also, are you saying Diamond was wrong in regards to what determined the fates of premodern societies? Because that's what I am talking about i.e. setting the stage.

That's nonsense. Marxism explains no better. Typical God in the Gaps type argument, I see it with creationists all the time.

Can you explain this with evolution? Explain this? Explain this? Nope...well then the best answer is creationism. What just because a layperson like me can't explain it on the spot...and note these answers would probably require a lot of research, means that Marxism is true or enviroment plays no serious role?

Sorry pal but it doesn't work that way. To this date enviroment is the best explanation for any modern society and we are still somewhat dominated by it. Many answers to your question are likely be found in premodern conditions.

Why are Europe,America and China in charge instead of vice versa?

Diamond may fall short in certain areas for now, but at least it makes some progres.. Marxism doesn't make any progress at all, just conjecture and rivison.


Are they misrepresentations? You claim this a lot but have little to show for it.


Oh talk about straw men. I claimed this when?


Straight from the horses mouth. Tell me what is the dominant theory of sociology? How were the current dominant theories established? What is the definition of a social problem? Sociologists often times like to say biology has no relevant influence on behavior despite compelling scientific evidence and the fact that this is inconsistent with evolutionary theory....how do you explain this? Many sociologist ascribe to "Interactionist" theories of psychology i.e. personality is determined by what "role" a person is given: however most psychologists and cognitive scientists do not support this theory in any way....how do you explain that?

All the answers will show in part why sociology is a pseudoscience. And why the so-called social sciences, which by your very admittance are destinguished from the more solid disciplines we call science, is anything but science. Thank you and good night.

Celsus

Primal,

As I have already stated, you are using an extremely narrow definition of science. Social sciences do not work the way the hard sciences do. Secondly, Marx's critique deals with the capitalist mode of production. It also attempts to understand the emergence of capitalism from feudalism. It does not deal with pre-modern society. Anyway, I understand your dislike for the social sciences. The methodology is often rather loose, and most "big theories" have failed to account for historical specificity. That said, I think just because sociology does not come up with general theories does not negate it as an explanatory tool.

If you haven't noticed already, there is a time and place where Diamond's theories work. History is a constant transformation (we owe this perception to Marx) - there are no universal principles or general theories - unless you deny the existence of free will and experience in humans. Even where we see trends in history as repeating itself, the modes of production, the social thought, and humanistic progress ensure that it is impossible to return to a situation in the past. Inasmuch as society evolves, then in understanding the history of evolution, we must understand the historical contingency that set various social institutions in place. Each is unique, there are few overriding principles in sociology that transcend all time, culture and location. Attempts to do otherwise have failed.

Ontological explanations may not count as science to you, but this is where the sciences originated. Sociology is a young science and basically has much work to solidify its methodology. Inasmuch as Marx defined sociology, Marx's work isn't any more pseudo-scientific than the rest of sociology. Anyway, I this discussion should be broadened to a critique of methodology in the social sciences. Do you wish to continue?

Joel

P.S. In the interest of keeping this civil, I apologise for introducing digressions and replying to your digressions, which is making this thread too long. I hope you forgive me. I think the crux of the issue is methodology of the social sciences, which is what I'm interested in dealing with. Note that epidemiology is a social science with good methodology. Economics is another, except that the impulse to use critical studies as a platform for general theories has harmed it sufficiently.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]

PPS. Explain your definition of science, the methodologies required, and then we can see whether economics or sociology meet the criteria. Note that for it to be a useful definition, you must be realistic about the properties of the field, and it must also be logically or practically possible for those two fields to carry it out. If you feel that it is not logically or practically possible, say so.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>

Primal

Yes, a time and place where Diamond's explanations work and then for some mysterious reason: Just stop altogether and are irrelevant anyways. Kind of like how creationists say evolution works...but only to a point and just stops.

Celsus

Primal, your constant reference to creationism has made it apparent that it is an intentional ad hominem attack because it is a complete distortion and misrepresentation. Surely you can do better than arguing from analogies?

As I have already mentioned (reasons why Diamond no longer works), we are no longer as dominated by the environment as we once were, which means that the assumptions in Diamond's framework no longer work. Second, history is a constant process of transformation. Inasmuch as an understanding of social relations, modes of production, discourse, etc. are taken into consideration, we have thus far not once repeated themselves, and different theories are needed for different eras. What worked in explaining international relations in the Cold War for example, would be pathetically irrelevant today.

Third, you rightly criticise methodology in social sciences, yet the most fundamental criticism of its methodology is that it does not consider the specific nature of historical and geographical characteristics of individual societies. In doing so, one recognises that theories are always going to be specific to a time and place. In this, I have no doubt that you misunderstand Diamond and doing his ideas a disservice. Fourth, in examining evolutionarily derived aspects of society, in order to understand the characteristics, one must proceed firstly with an evolutionary history of the society. Bats are not birds for good reason, nor will they ever be. Just because many societies share similar features, it does not mean that there are universal guiding principles, unless they are generalised to a point of uselessness.

Fifth, you will have to show me your definitions of science and its proper methodology. If we are going to carry the creationist analogy, you have specified "kinds" in science (thus far, hard sciences + anthropology), while excluding certain "kinds" as pseudo-science (sociology except for the branch of epidemiology, and economics). Otherwise you are just making assertions. It looks like this is going to go back to basics just to get a reasonable discussion, so here's a nice thought to leave on:

Joel

(BTW, I noticed in the most recent SciAmerican, there is a news report from the field of sociology. Shouldn't be in Michael Shermer's Skeptic? )

Edited for paragraphs and emphasis

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: joejoejoe ]</p>