"I do not think historical materialism is "a science." Neither do I think that "a science" is best understood as defined by a distinctive subjective matter, contrary to Greg."
I was very careful in my expression, though it is an unusual one and understandable that it should be missed, but I did define science as an ontological system defined by its subject matter.
Science cannot be defined by its practice, the closer you get to this "practice" the more it dissapates, unless we use practice as a broad term meaning what scientists do when they do science. Nor can a science be defined simply by its subject matter as you have read my statement.
An Ontological system such as Hegel's Logic is self-supporting and complete, yet has room enough to endlessly develop itself. Obviously most sciences have such room, are self-supporting (in reference to their subject matter) even if some are not yet complete there is no doubt they strive to complete concept (not the same thing as complete knowledge of a subject area).
It is the ontological nature of science which explains one of its most powerful features, the integration of "scientific knowledge" (read scientific theories). Newtonian conceptions were not thrown out, but "found their proper place" by the development of the science. It is the logic of the concepts and their relationship to the subject matter that makes it scientific.
So-called "scientific practice" much lauded but very difficult to actually pin down in any meaningful way. The so-called practice is just a number of mediating conceptions useful for creating ideas, testing them and debating them but does not produce the reliable system it is often purported to be. In short science can only be known by its product, a coherent, logical, interrelated concept of the subject matter.
Such a product may be produced after endless physical testing, miles of statistical "proofs" or as is more often the case with significant discoveries the imagined solution to imagined questions sorted-out over a cup-of-coffee. If the solution fits and accords with reality, then the scientist is faced with the daunting task of designing some proofs which hopefully demonstrate the practical and rational application of the idea. However science begins and ends with a ontological conception.
Science is distinctly non-ideological, not that ideology does infect it, and it is often expressed through ideological conceptions, but at its core is a logical conception (theory) which relates to the body of logical conceptions which define the science and in turn relate it to reality.
Distill the ideology out of sciencific publications and what you are left with but a growing body of phenomenological logic. Caught in the social production of such knowledge scientists are some of the worst ideologues for what they do, enmeshed in a form of intellectual production they constantly get the theory mixed up with the means of debate, the illustrations (the demonstration) with the actual proof (which is always rational and real) and a primitive objectivism which they cannot really explain but is there somehow.
As for HIstorical Materialism being a science, well that depends on what is meant by science - it is certainly not the science as most scientists would have it - which is what our heritage of Marxism tries so superficially to imitate, but then again there is science and there is "science".
MY point about this is that there is a complete conception of Historical Materialism despite the fact that most of us disagree as to what that is and hence hanker after imaginary flavours. It exists for the most part dorminant within a body of works so glossed over and superficially understood that the ontological conception is lost. In most sciences this does not matter so much, but most scientisits are not faced with the complexities of our subject matter, which makes simply having a whole lot of unrealted theories bussed under the title of Hiostorical Materialism makes fertile ground for ideological fanatsies.
My point is that we need to address Historical Materialism seriously and with rigor, we need to aim to understand the complete system, understand the role that different parts play and from this pose real questions and seek real answers. Less than this is juvenile coimic-book stuff and society as a whole has out-grown such nonsense though our movement wallows in such purile past-times.
Greg Schofield Perth Australia g_schofield at dingoblue.net.au _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/) * Powerful filters. * Create you own headers. * Have email types launch scripts. * Use emails to automat your work. * Add comments on recieve. * Use scripts to extract and check emails. * Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions. * LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX. * A REXX interpreter is freely available. _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________