Re: The 'formalising' of dialectics.

On 9 Jul, 16:13, Tom Cod <t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> The question for me is what background do any of these characters have
> that makes them experts on physics and the philosophy of science?
> advanced degrees in physics, chemistry or biology?  peer reviewed
> articles?  etc. etc.  It just seems that they are spouting forth their
> own lay, albiet somewhat educated opinions in the manner of creation
> science experts.  As far as "In Defense of Marxism", I recall that
> excellent work which to my recollection dealt with the nature of the
> Soviet Union, not vulgar expositions of philosophy.   It seems to me
> that as is sometimes said about the law, these individuals "know just
> enough to be dangerous" meaning to give a scientific rationalization
> to their views that can sound somewhat convincing-and mystical-to the
> uninitiated.
>
> Engels and Trotsky were great political leaders, not scientists,
> although they, particularly the latter, were influenced by Darwin and
> developments in science which they sought to popularize and defend,
> drawing certain inferences to social history from these conclusons.

Whilst Engels and Trotsky were not scientists they were well educated
in philosophy something most scientists are not.  The major problem
for natural scientists in drawing philosophical conclusions from their
work is that the logic they use is quite formal and little changed
since the philosophers of the middle ages.  Now this leaves natural
science in a somewhat 'aimless' position which can do a lot of
valuable empirical research and create the conditions for the rapid
development of technology but is socially very backward and
conservative.

Your arguments are remarkably close to those that Bogdanov used
against Lenin to which he wrote 'Materialism and Empirio-criticism'
in reply in 1908, interestingly enough 100 years ago.

Roger