Every hundred or so years, scientists change their minds; one century nature is fundamentally discrete/atomic, the next it is continuous/non-atomic.

I'd not put too much faith in the latest fad; history suggests you would be unwise to do so.

Oh yes. There is no scientific progress, just a cyclical alternation of scientific "fads". I forgot that.

Luís Henrique

So, is all science just a "fad" to you? At what point would you accept a scientific paradigm? Does historical unreliability mean more than immediate physical evidence?

-Alex

BTOT:

When scientists change their minds so often, what other word describes it?

'Fashion'?

Ok, I can live with that.

And, at every stage, both sides in this long running feud have claimed they have 'evidence' on their side.

Oh dear, hit another dogmatic nerve. Naughty Rosa!

LH:

Of course there is scientific progress, but not, unfortunately, everywhere. And this is as good an example as any of a long-term stalemate.

And, as we both know, a recourse to sarcasm is a sure sign you have no effective response.

Does that conclusion surprise you?

Luís Henrique

Are you being sarcastic?!

Luís Henrique

Well yeah, but you must concede that science does get it permanently right every now and then too. Our computers wouldn't work, otherwise. If some 'fashion' in computer science changes, will my laptop stop working?

-Alex

My laptop stopped working when I first used wifi. Technology sometimes gets it right, science by definition doesn't have the final word on anything.

LH:

No, deadly serious -- unlike you.

BTOT:

No, but the explanation of why it works will change, and many times.

Re: BurnTheOliveTree

I would also recommend reading The Jewish Question by Abram Leon, who mastered the dialectical method and wrote on the history of the Jews. More recently however, the latest speeches given by Nick Beams on the current economic crisis is one of the best examples of how Marxists seek to understand current events.

Also, Toward a reconsideration of Trotsky’s legacy and his place in the history of the 20th century by David North is an excellent introduction to Trtoskyism.

Sorry, it seems I can't post links yet! Strange web site... Any way, just Google it if you are interested.

RB:

An excellent book, but that is because there is no dialectics in it.

This is just absurd! Explain, clearly, how Abram Leon does not employ the dialectical method in his book.

RB:

He does not mention this theory, nor use any of its concepts.

Unless, of course, you know differently.

Prove it. Prove that Abram Leon, one of the most famous Marxists to live during the Second World War was in no way a Marxists, had no scientific conception of history and disposed of dialectics in his book.

"The Jewish Question - A Marxist Interpretation", the title should be enough to show that this is something of the opposite to what you are saying, but all one has to do is enter the brilliant pages to find this "The scientific study of Jewish history is yet to transcend the stage of idealist improvisation" And further on he goes into the various theories being presented at the time in order to delineate himself from them:

"The preservation of the Jews is explained by all historians as the product of their devotion through the centuries to their religion or their nationality. Differences among these historians begin to appear only when it comes to defining the “goal” for which the Jews preserved themselves, the reason for their resistance to assimilation. Some, taking the religious point of view, speak of the “sacred trust of their faith”; others, like Dubnow, defend the theory of “attachment to the national idea.” “We must seek the causes for the historical phenomenon of the preservation of the Jewish people in their national spiritual strength, in their ethical basis, and in the monotheistic principle,” says the General Encyclopedia which contrives in this way to reconcile the various viewpoints among the idealist historians."

Then, a paragraph down, this excellent paragraph is found:

"To study the evolution of this question is not exclusively of academic interest. Without a thorough study of Jewish history, it is difficult to understand the Jewish question in modern times. The plight of the Jews in the twentieth century is intimately bound up with their historical past. Every social formation represents a stage in the social process. Being is only a moment in the process of becoming. In order to undertake an analysis of the Jewish question in its present phase of development, it is indispensable to know its historical roots."

I find it hard not to quote the entire work but we can clearly see that Leon is entering into a study completely in line with that of dialectical materialism, especially as noted in the emphasis. However, I will end the quotations with one last paragraph

"In the sphere of Jewish history, as in the sphere of universal history, Karl Marx’s brilliant thought points the road to follow “We will not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but we will look for the secret of the religion in the real Jew.” Marx thus puts the Jewish question back on its feet. We must not start with religion in order to explain Jewish history; on the contrary; the preservation of the Jewish religion or nationality can be explained only by the “real Jew,” that is to say, by the Jew in his economic and social role. The preservation of the Jews contains nothing of the miraculous. “Judaism has survived not in spite of history, but by virtue of history.”"

I believe your chosen task, Rosa is quite simply falsification and confusion. It is beholden on you now to show how dialectics does not enter Leon's work when it is so clearly evident in the above extracts. All of which can be found at the lovely Marxists Internet Archive, just Google it.

RB, as I said, plenty of Historical Materialism in this excellent book (which I first read probably before you were born), precious little dialectics -- which is why it is so good.

I think you are the fabricator here.

Nice try, only it wasn't.

I see very large amounts of dialectics in my quote, tell me, old one, how this sentence does not contain dialectics; "Being is only a moment in the process of becoming. In order to undertake an analysis of the Jewish question in its present phase of development, it is indispensable to know its historical roots."

You actually have to refer to my posts Rosa. It's pathetic having to actually ask you to rebut me with evidence.

All things are in the process of becoming, in continual motion and therefore, the only way to understand anything is to place it in it's historical development, this is the core of dialectics and this is what Leon is referring to in the above quote.

RB:

As I said, very little dialectics in the entire book, despite your propensity to exaggerate.

[I did a search of the Marxist internet site, and there are a few dialectical terms in the book, but they can be counted on the fingers of two hands, and Leon does very little with them.]

Is this the same person who ignored all my arguments and then proceeded to insult me?

I think it is...

This is just a statement of faith, but even if it were correct it would not show that dialectics was the best theory to explain change -- in fact, as far as theories go, this fourth rate example of mystical metaphysics does not even make the bottom of the reserve list, so poor is it.

Here is why:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=249

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...&postcount=250

The full argument can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

I'm not going to read your links which are just diversions. Tell me clearly, how Leon constructs his argument and how this is in no way in relation to dialectics.

You say "As I said, very little dialectics in the entire book, despite your propensity to exaggerate." so what is in this book? You cannot just state things, you have to provide evidence and quotations from the book as I did to prove my point. You have not done so.

You also say "This is just a statement of faith, but even if it were correct it would not show that dialectics was the best theory to explain change -- in fact, as far as theories go, this fourth rate example of mystical metaphysics does not even make the bottom of the reserve list, so poor is it." So how is my "fourth rate" description of dialectics, describing " All things are in the process of becoming, in continual motion and therefore, the only way to understand anything is to place it in it's historical development" different from Leon', who says "Being is only a moment in the process of becoming. In order to undertake an analysis of the Jewish question in its present phase of development, it is indispensable to know its historical roots."?

It would make for a nice change if you actually answered my questions and referred directly to my quotes and examples and stopped shooting out links instead.