G. The Marxist conception of science
1. Marx’ attack upon philosophers is unnecessarily harsh. Philosophers have usually always expected changes in practice to result from their system of ideas (although there are exceptions of course). With respect to changing human life, Marx makes no allowance for the fact that advances in the social sciences are frequently prerequisites for changing human life and historically their development followed after development of natural sciences.
2. The attempt to eliminate speculation and reduce theory is an error committed by numerous well-qualified scientists; and Marx is no exception. A book worth reading on this issue is Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Speculation and theory are essential to scientific progress.
3. It may be agreed with Marx that: (1) the ultimate aim of knowledge—and of the social sciences, in particular—is the improvement of the human condition. (2) Philosophers and scientists also have been less active in bringing about social change than they should have been. (3) They sometimes fail to recognize that practical knowledge and hence practice is an essential concomitant of theoretical knowledge (4) The Non-activist approach leas to knowledge becoming a tool of the prevailing power structure of the society. On the other hand it may be that (1) The satisfaction of curiosity, or knowledge for the sake of knowledge cannot and should not be entirely eliminated as an aim of knowledge and (2) Not every search after knowledge fits into the “activist mold” and (3) Advances in knowledge can and often enough, do occur in the absence of a commitment or effort to better the human condition.
