Had an argument where someone tried to tell me historical materialism is “necessarily true” and therefore not scientific or useful. Only response I can think of is that dialectical materialism is a philosophical framework, and isn’t subject to the same rules of falsification as a hypothesis. It feels somehow unsatisfying.

Have any of you encountered this argument before? What do you say to it?

  • @redtea
    4•2 years ago

    2/3:

    “Dr. Popper says, with truth, that “every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen” (CR. 36). Thus a “good” or “genuine” scientific law, as distinct from a pseudo-scientific one, can always be expressed in the form: “So and so cannot happen.” For example, the first law of thermodynamics tells us “You cannot build perpetual motion machines”, and the second law tells us “You cannot build machines that are one hundred per cent efficient”. This way of expressing laws brings out very well their practical value. Thus the laws of thermodynamics instruct machine-technologists about the limits of practical possibility within which they can operate (indeed, it was in connection with the construction of steam engines that these laws were first discovered). An engine cannot run without fuel, and the task of the designer is to construct an engine in which the energy of the fuel will be most efficiently converted into work. That allows a very large but not unlimited range of possibility for the construction of engines. But, of course, if someone did contrive an engine which ran without fuel, or which was one hundred per cent efficient (it would be a kind of fairy-tale engine), that would falsify the laws of thermodynamics—and technologists would have to undertake some new and very fundamental rethinking of their concepts. No one expects this to happen, but it is imaginable (i.e. it can be described in fairy tales). The laws of thermodynamics are thus falsifiable but not falsified. That is, no doubt, why they are considered to be such very “good” laws.

    “The fundamental laws which Marx formulated as governing social development similarly “forbid certain things to happen”. They say that there must always be a certain kind of correspondence between forces of production and relations of production. This allows all manner of things to be done within the bounds of such correspondence, but denies the possibility of going outside those bounds. From the point of view, therefore, of social action—or what Dr. Popper calls “social engineering”—it says what is possible and what is not possible. For example, to use all the resources of modern technology for human welfare is possible, but not without reconstituting property relations in correspondence with the social character of production—it is not possible to combine such use of resources with capitalist ownership and capitalist profit. What Marxism “forbids to happen” can be imagined as happening—indeed, in many democratic countries the principal political parties make a parade of such imaginings at every general election; but it never happens. If uninterrupted economic development were to be combined with capitalist enterprise and capitalist profit, then Marx’s theory would be falsified—just as if a perpetual motion machine were built the laws of thermodynamics would be falsified.

    “The “social engineering” which treats Marxism as reinforced dogmatism is thus just about on a level with ordinary engineering which treats the laws of thermodynamics as reinforced dogmatism. Dr. Popper maintains that the true scientist, always eager to test his theories in every conceivable way, devotes his main energies to trying to contrive falsifications. This view of scientific work overlooks the fact that a scientific attitude also demands the guidance of practical undertakings in accordance with scientific discovery. Dr. Popper seems to think that a scientific attitude towards the social discoveries claimed by Marx would enjoin continually trying all manner of means to go against the laws which Marx formulated, in the hopes of falsifying them. The scientifically-minded person must try to preserve capitalism so as to see whether Marx’s laws cannot be falsified. The Marxist who, accepting the laws, advises the abolition of capitalism, is a mere dogmatist and lacks any conception of the ways of science. This is like saying that chemists should practise alchemy, in the hopes of falsifying the laws of chemistry; and that engineers should devote all their ingenuity to constructing perpetual motion machines.

    “But Dr. Popper formulates his objection to Marxism also along the following lines. Marxism forbids certain things to happen, but nevertheless some things which it forbids do happen. In that case the Marxists admit to having made a mistake, but say that, all the same, “the fundamentals” of the theory have not been falsified. That shows, says Dr. Popper, that the theory is nothing but a reinforced dogmatism. It has formulated its “fundamentals” in such a way that they cannot be falsified. It is not a scientific theory, which submits itself to tests, but an unscientific theory which evades every test.

    “The Russian Revolution has been alleged, by Dr. Popper and others, to provide a case in point. Marx certainly said at one time that the socialist revolution would begin in the most advanced industrial countries. He “forbade” it to begin anywhere else—but in fact it began in Russia. But when this falsification of an earlier prediction (or prohibition, for every prediction is a prohibition) took place, Marxists simply said that certain specific features of social development in particular countries had been underestimated; the revolution began in Russia because “the chain breaks at its weakest link”.”

    • @redtea
      5•2 years ago

      3/3:

      “Does a candid examination of this example really support the allegation that Marxism is reinforced dogmatism? On the contrary, Marxism remains falsifiable. Marxists can, it is true, readily account for the socialist revolution starting in Russia. But if it had started, say, in the Far East or Central Africa, or if it had never started at all, that could not have been accounted for, and really would have falsified Marxism. But it did start, and started where Marxism permitted it to start. In point of fact Marx himself, in his later correspondence, wrote that his observations were leading him to the conclusion that revolution was unlikely after all to start in the industrial countries. Things were happening in these countries to postpone the revolution he had earlier expected, but in Russia to accelerate it. His approach to questions was the normal one of a scientific thinker who is continually ready to revise former estimates in the light of new evidence, but does not find it necessary to scrap the whole fundamental theory of his science every time such a revision is indicated.

      “Similarly the fact that after the Second World War there was for many years full employment in Britain, in contradiction to Marx’s statements about capitalism always creating “a reserve” of unemployment, does not lead British Marxists to conclude that the whole Marxist theory of capitalism and socialism has been falsified, but only that certain special conditions had temporarily come into existence in Britain.[*]

      “Scientists generally agree that if predictions made in the light of a general theory are falsified, and it is then proposed to “save” the theory by adding “supplementary hypotheses”, the theory must none the less be scrapped if the only evidence offered for the supplementary hypotheses is that they save the theory. Thus, for example, the old Ptolemaic theory that the planets move in circular orbits round the earth failed to accord with observations, but was “saved” by postulating irregularities, or epicycles, in the motions of the planets. However, because the only evidence offered for these epicycles was that they saved the theory, scientists now generally agree that observation has falsified the Ptolemaic theory.

      “It has been suggested that this is how Marxism is “saved” whenever what happens deviates from a prediction. But in fact the Marxist procedure has never been to invent supplementary hypotheses. For example, to account for full employment in Britain we do not invent a supplementary hypothesis—a kind of economic epicycle. We simply examine what has actually happened, which has by no means exceeded the bounds of possibility allowed by the general theory of Marxism, and find that it has led to consequences predictable and accountable within the theory. And similarly with the Russian Revolution.

      “The rescue of Marxism in such cases is interestingly paralleled by a second example from the theory of planetary motions. After the Ptolemaic theory had been supplanted by Kepler’s laws, certain irregularities were observed in the motion of the planet Uranus which did not accord with the predictions made by the laws. So it was suggested that there was in fact another planet, whose existence had previously passed unnoticed, the influence of which would account for the irregularities. Sure enough, this other planet (now named Neptune) was observed when telescopes were directed in the right direction—so Kepler’s laws were “saved”, since they did not “forbid” there being another planet but allowed for its existence. It is just the same with Marxism, when social “irregularities” (such as the Russian Revolution or full employment in Britain) take place—we look for and find the causes of these “irregularities”.”

      [*] I added this footnote to point out a Marxist response to this problem. Kwame Nkrumah argues that capitalist powers managed to export their internal contradictions to their colonies (See Neocolonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism). So on a global scale, Marx was still right, capitalism continued to need and create a reserve army of labour even after WWII. But that workforce was largely located outside of Britain. Moreover, we now know that technology (e.g. automated tills at supermarkets) has coincided with higher unemployment, and that the low unemployment in post-war Britain was short-lived. So the post-war data viewed from within Britain did not refute Marx’s general theory. The Brits simply ignored or lacked relevant data. You may like to follow up this section with ‘4. Does Marxism Allow Logical Contradictions’ in the same Cornforth chapter, as people who claim that Marxism is not falsifiable tend also to believe that dialectical contradiction means that Marxism accepts logical contradictions.

      • @xanthespark
        3•2 years ago

        But, of course, if someone did contrive an engine which ran without fuel, or which was one hundred per cent efficient (it would be a kind of fairy-tale engine), that would falsify the laws of thermodynamics—and technologists would have to undertake some new and very fundamental rethinking of their concepts. No one expects this to happen, but it is imaginable (i.e. it can be described in fairy tales). The laws of thermodynamics are thus falsifiable but not falsified. That is, no doubt, why they are considered to be such very “good” laws.

        I think this was the only part that confused me a bit.

        Sure enough, this other planet (now named Neptune) was observed when telescopes were directed in the right direction—so Kepler’s laws were “saved”, since they did not “forbid” there being another planet but allowed for its existence. It is just the same with Marxism, when social “irregularities” (such as the Russian Revolution or full employment in Britain) take place—we look for and find the causes of these “irregularities”.”

        I think I get it. The most important framework from which to understand the validity of a theory is what it forbids, not what it doesn’t account for. So if a prediction is made with a theory serving as a base, and that prediction is proven to be false, it doesn’t mean the theory as a whole is necessarily untrue. It just means that the prediction was untrue. Whoever made it did not account for certain factors that, when further examined, could be perfectly consistent with the theory as a whole.

        Anyhow, this was an excellent read, comrade. Thank you for sharing.

        • @redtea
          1•2 years ago

          You’re welcome.

          To follow up…

          To me, your first quote just says that creating a fuel-less engine would disprove the laws of thermodynamics. There is a temptation to say, ‘but such an engine is impossible!’ That reply begs the question (uses the conclusion as a premise – look up ‘syllogisms’ and logical fallacies if this is unfamiliar; understanding these can help to pick out the flaws in anti-communist arguments). We can only say that it is impossible to build a fuel-less engine because the laws of thermodynamics have not been disproved. Were such an engine built, it would falsify those laws, and engineers would need a new theory to explain the new engine. I don’t know if this makes things any clearer.