Off List Re: Freedom and equality?

[bill fancher]

on 9/3/00 9:23 AM, Jim Farmelant at farmelantj at juno.com wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 02 Sep 2000 20:08:17 -0700 bill fancher <fancher at pacbell.net> writes:
> on 9/1/00 5:28 AM, Carrol Cox at cbcox at ilstu.edu wrote:
> 
>>> Peter,
>>> 
>>> If you have a fairly decent grasp of Edelmann's theorys, sketching them out
>>> further for the list would be a valuable contribution. We (the marxist
>>> tradition) have bungled too often by putting all our eggs into this or that
>>> scientific theory which then dissolved, but still I feel "neural darwinism"
>>> comes closer than any other psychological/neurological theory I know of to
>>> lending support to Marx's critique not only of the 'old' materialism but
>>> also of the bourgeois "abstract -- isolated -- individual." Someone quoted
>>> Skinner's "Consciousness is a social product," but that is too mechanical --
>>> i.e., it puts the machine (society) on one hand, the isolated invidual on
>>> the other as the "product." As far as I can grasp them, Edelmann's
>>> conceptions allow for consciousness existing only within social relations,
>>> but not separating it as an isolated billiard ball.
>>> 
>>> Carrol
>>> 
>> The idea that we should espouse scientific theories based on whether they
>> lend support to an ideology, rather than their conformity to facts,
>> expanatory usefulness, and conceptual simplicity is one that I find
>> repellant.
>> 
> Sorry Bill but I would have to agree with Les that your reading of Carrol's
> query is way over the top.  It seems to me that Carrol was posing a perfectly
> legitimate question in asking to what extent that Neural Darwinism is
> compatible with Marxist views of social relations.  As I recall, you seemed to
> have no objections to my attempts (such as they are) to relate Skinner's
> radical behaviorism with Marxism.

I have no problem with attempting to show that Skinner's results support
Marxist ideology. I would object if you had tried to present support of
Marxist ideology as a REASON for accepting Skinner's work. As I recall, you
did not do that.


> BTW from what I know of Neural Darwism
> (which is not much) it seems that it should be quite compatible with radical
> behaviorism in psychology. For one thing both theories rely upon a
> selectionist causal model. Actually from what I have seen of Carrol's posts to
> LBO-Talk, the Marxism List and other lists, he has always been a stickler for
> getting scientific statements right even if they contradict his and other
> progreessives' political prejudices.  I don't think that he is about to
> reintroduce us to the joys of Lysenkoism.
> 
The reason given for espousing neural darwinism is that it supports Marx.
The reason for rejecting behaviorism is that "it's too mechanical". These
are not scientific, but ideological considerations.

What we expect of neurology is that it reduce behaviorism. It must account
for the empirical results of behaviorism, not disprove them, as Carrol seems
think neural darwinism might. (He could very well be wrong. I'm not familiar
with Edelman's work and thus have no opinion.)


>> 
>> That the suggestion to push this theory on the list was to have been secret,
>> so as to have it appear that "We (the marxist tradition)" was not behind the
>> effort, illustrates the sort of political methods that I find reprehensible.
>> 
> Aren't we getting just a little paranoid here.
> 
Perhaps, but given the record with respect to behaviorism, perhaps not.

I'm done with this topic.

-- 
bill

"Truth unfolds in time through a communal process." CQ