Reason and Science in Danger.

Thomas More wrote: “…to take up the same struggles fought by Copernicus, Galileo and Darwin.”

Err… the class struggles fought on behalf of the bourgeoisie, and its making of our contemporary world?

Both ‘reason’ and ‘science’ have a class component, so, as a democratic socialist, I’m all in favour of ‘Bourgeois Reason and Bourgeois Science‘ being ‘in Danger‘.

Any apolitical, ahistorical and asocial ‘defence’ of ‘Reason and Science’ as being about ‘Objective Truth’, ‘Eternal Verity’ or ‘Absolute Knowledge’, places us into the hands of the bourgeois elite, and helps support capitalism.

Of course, that is not to say there isn’t a danger from ‘conspiralunacy’, flat earthism and Illuminati-ists – and indeed postmodernism – but unless we locate the origins of ‘reason and science’ in an historical and social context, and the political forces involved in their creation, and why they did so, we risk becoming advocates of the mythical ‘politically neutral science’ which supposedly ‘impartially discovers the existing world’ by the agency of an elite of ‘disinterested scientists’.

This is 2020, not 1820. Even by 1920, the myths of ‘Objective Science’ were obvious, to anyone who followed Physics, Mathematics and Logic. All three, as depicted in the 19th century, turned out to be untrue.

Fighting mysticism by supporting elitism is not the answer: democratising ‘Reason and Science’ is.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by LBird.

Thomas More wrote: “So socialism will change the laws of physics, the orbits of the planetary spheres, gravity, and biological descent through modification?
These things are bourgeois and not valid once one embraces socialism?”

Well, if not democratic humanity (‘socialism’), who will change all these things?

Pannekoek, for example, mentioned that the so-called ‘laws of physics’ are a social product, and Marx held that our task is to change ‘nature’, not to ‘contemplate’ it.

Of course, all the examples that you mention have changed, many times, throughout history, as different social classes have built a ‘universe’ in their interests, to their purposes. And, of course, each has claimed that their ‘universe’ is the one ‘True’ universe. The bourgeoisie, of course, are no different.

It always surprises me that socialists seem to have no actual knowledge of physics, mathematics, logic, chemistry, etc. and how they actually originated and developed, and just where they are now.

It’s almost as if these socialists believe the ruling class idea that the ‘Universe’ is just sitting there, waiting to be discovered, and that the bourgeoisie already know how to do this magic trick, and simply contemplate ‘what exists’.

I’m not sure of your political view of ‘science’, Thomas, perhaps you do want to ‘contemplate’ what is ‘valid’, but personally I’m with Marx on this issue, and want to change ‘Our Universe’.

Plus, ‘validity’ is a judgement, and thus contains an ethical element, and, within a socialist society, only the masses, not a self-selecting elite, will determine it.

Our political choice is ‘Who changes the laws of physics?’ Either an undemocratic elite or a democratic majority. I know which I think socialism involves.

The unchanging universe is a conservative construct. Why would socialists start from that premise, in their science?

That’s not the view of the SPGB but of some weirdo who frequents this forum. It’s open to anyone including weirdos.

Just to reiterate ALB’s point, L Bird is a non member who frequents these boards, due to the democratic and open nature of the party we do not close down those who we don’t agree with but attempt (sometimes very frustratingly) to engage them in debate.

I also take on board your viewpoint on Attenborough, to some extent. The anti science movement appears to be backed by those elements of the capitalist class who are most endangered by recent scientific findings. Perhaps the growing anti science debate might actually be a positive thing, in as much as if this kind of propaganda is being put out there it must be because those who are threatened by the scientific evidence are feeling the heat. If the antibodies of reaction are active, perhaps the virus of revolution is in the air?

As far as I can tell he is the only living person who interprets Marx in the way he does. That’s not to say he is not an affable at times interesting contributor, and he does have a sense of humour and irony, however he is not representative of our views.

Thomas More wrote: “So what he says about Marx isn’t true?”

No, it’s entirely true. I can give you the quotes, if you wish (although I’ve given many quotes from many thinkers in the past, and they’ve had no effect upon the ‘materialists’ – it’s almost like a cult).