Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:39:59.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physics as a Mode of Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Aristides Baltas
Aristides Baltas
Affiliation:
Physics DepartmentNational Technical University, Athens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Starting from the thesis that a science constructs the knowledge of the part of the world allotted to it, the present paper aims at bringing together all the various aspects of physics (structural, epistemic, historical, social) under a unified conceptual framework — that provided by the Marxian concept “mode of production.” After an introduction providing the initial plausibility grounds for the undertaking, the concept is analyzed into its conceptual elements in Part I of the paper. The analysis presents the reconstruction initiated by Louis Althusser and developed by his followers. Part II starts from a characterization of physical problems. This offers a basis for “reading” physics in the terms introduced in Part I. The rest of Part II is devoted to the identification of all the aspects of physics with the conceptual elements in question. The paper aims at three things: to uncover the connections holding among seemingly disparate aspects of physics, usually discussed in almost total independence from each other; to take full account of the social dimensions of physics without vindicating social constructivism; to show that the boundaries separating the disciplines of philosophy, history and sociology of science are more arbitrary than usually considered.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1993 , pp. 569 - 616
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Althusser, L. 1965. Pour Marx. Paris: Maspero. (English translation London: NLB, 1977).Google Scholar
Althusser, L. 1971. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” In his “Lenin and Philosophy” and Other Ersays. London: NLB.Google Scholar
Althusser, L. 1972 Lénine et la Philosophie suivi de Marx et Lénine devant Hegel. Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Althusser, L. 1974. Philosophie et philosophie spontanée des savants. Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Althusser, L. 1976. “Soutenance d'Amiens,” in his Positions. Paris: Editions Sociales.Google Scholar
Althusser, L., Rancière, J., Macherey, P., Balibar, E., and Establet, R. [1965] 1971. Lire le Capital, 2 vols. Paris: Maspero. Reissued in 4 vols. in the Petite Collection Maspero. (English translation including only the contributions of Aithusser and Balibar: Reading Capital, London: NLB, 1968.)Google Scholar
Bachelard, G. 1933. Les Intuitions atomistiques.Paris: Boivin.Google Scholar
Baltas, A. 1986. “La confutabilitá del materialismo storico e la strutura della pratica politica.” Nuova Civiltá delle Machine, nos. 3/4:21–35.Google Scholar
Baltas, A. 1987. “Ideological ‘Assumptions’ in Physics: Social Determinations of Internal Structures.” In PSA 1986, Vol.2, edited by Fine, A. and Machamer, P. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Baltas, A. 1988. “The Structure of Physics as a Science.” In Theory and Experiment, edited by Batens, D. and van Bendegem, J. P. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Baltas, A. 1989. “Louis Althusser and Joseph D. Sneed: A Strange Encounter in Philosophy of Science?” In Imre Lakatos and Theories of Scient Change, edited by Gavroglu, K., Goudaroulis, Y., and Nicolacopoulos, P.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Baltas, A. 1990a. “Once Again on the Meaning of Physical Concepts” In Greek Studies in the Philosophy of Science, edited by Nicolacopoulos, P. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
Baltas, A. 1991. “On Some Structural Aspects of Physical Problems.” Synthese 89:299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltas, A., and Gavroglu, K. 1980. “A Modification of Popper's Tetradic Schema and the Special Relativity Theory.” Zeitschr für aligemeineWissenchafts theorie 11(2):213–37.Google Scholar
Balzer, W., Moulines, C.-U., and Sneed, J. D. 1987. The Architectonic of Science.Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bettelheim, C. 1968. La Transition vers l'économie socialiste. Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Bettelheim, C. 1970. Calcul économique etformes de propriété. Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Bettelheim, C., and Sweezy, P. M. 1972. Lettres surquelquesproblèmes actuels du socialisme. Pans: Maspero.Google Scholar
Braverman, H. 1974. Labor and Monopoly Capital.New York: Monthly Review Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, G. 1987. Althusser: The Detour of Theory.London: Verso.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1978. Against Method. London: NLB, Verso.Google Scholar
Feynman, R. 1975. The Character of Physical Law. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1979. Posthumous Writings. Edited by Hermes, H. et al. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, G. 1986. Atom and Individual in the Age of Newton.Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenthal, G. 1988. “Towards a Social History of Newtonian Mechanics: Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossman Revisited.” In Scient Knowledge Socialized, edited by Hronszky, I., Fehér, M. and Dajka, B. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadô, 193–212.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. 1988. Science as a Process.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karsz, S. 1974. Théorie et Politique: Louis Aithusser. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. 1976. Proofs and Refutations.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. 1978. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Imre Lakatos, Philosophical Papers, 2 vols., edited by Worral, J. and Currie, G. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1977. Progress and Its Problems.Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. 1982. “Physique et Mathématiques.” In Penser les mathématiques, edited by Guénard, F. and Lelièvre, G. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Lipietz, A. 1979. Crise et inflation, pourquoi? Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. C. 1965. “On Faraday's Lines of Force.” In Collected Scient?flc Papers, edited by Niven, W. D. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Moulines, C.-U. 1984. “Links, Loops, and the Global Structure of Science.” Philosophia Naturalis 21 (204).Google Scholar
1986. “The Ways of Holism.” Nous, 313–30.Google Scholar
Pera, M. 1987. “From Methodology to Dialectics: A Post-Cartesian Approach to Scientific Rationality.” In PSA 1986 vol.2, edited by Fine, A. and Machamer, P. East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Pera, M. 1988. “Breaking the Link between Methodology and Rationality: A Plea for Rhetoric in Scientific Inquiry.” In Theory and Experiment, edited by Batens, D. and van Bendegem, J. P. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Poulantzas, N. 1968. Pouvoirpolitique et classes sociales.Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Rey, P. P. 1971. Colonialisme, néocolonialisme et transition au cap italisme. Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Rey, P. P. 1973. Les Alliances de classes. Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar
Sneed, J. D. 1971. The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics.Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stachel, J. J. n.d. “Marx's Critical Concept of Science.” Manuscript.Google Scholar
Stachel, J. J. 1974. “A Note on the Concept of Scientific Practice.” In For Dirk Struik, edited by Cohen, R. S., Stachel, J. J. and Wartofsky, M. W.Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
Stegmuller, W. 1976. The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchting, W. A. 1982. “Productive Forces' and ‘Relations of Production’ in Marx.” Analyse und Kritik 4(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchting, W. A. 1986. Marx and Philosophy. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchting, W. A. 1990. “Some Unsettled Questions Touching the Character of Marxism, Especially as a Philosophy.” Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 14(1):139–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TLP. See Wittgenstein 1981.Google Scholar
Weinberg, S. 1977. “The Search for Unity: Notes for a History of Quantum Field Theory.” Daedalus 107:17–35.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. n.d. “On Concepts, Hints, and Horses.” Manuscript.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. 1981. Tractagus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar