Gnostic Marxist
- This topic has 446 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote: “It is not acceptable to give as answer the fact that he considered (as do I) scientific theories to be “social products”, for reasons that have been explained ad nauseum.”
“It is not acceptable” is a political opinion, robbo, that I do not share.
I think ‘it is entirely acceptable’, and since we agree that ‘scientific theories’ are ‘social products’, to ask ‘who’ socially produces, and ‘how’ do they do so.
And then further, once we have an answer to ‘who’ and ‘how’, to discuss the ‘social practice’ arising from these answers. This follows Marx’s method of ‘theory and practice’ – the ‘theory’ consciously determines the ‘practice’, and for a Marxist and democratic socialist they can’t be separated, as you wish to do.
You’ve never answered this political question once, never mind ‘ad nauseum’.
I think ‘it is entirely acceptable’, and since we agree that ‘scientific theories’ are ‘social products’, to ask ‘who’ socially produces, and ‘how’ do they do so.
No LBird you are misrepresenting what I said
It is perfectly OK in itself to ask ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so but what is NOT OK is to use the excuse that scientific theories are social products to justify the crackpot idea that these theories – tens of thousands of them – should be voted upon the global population
Contrary to what you claim, I have no problem with recognising Marx’s theory and practice are inseparable. But nowhere in Marx’s theory that, I am aware of, is there any suggestion that the scientific theories should be validated by a democratic vote of the global population. Democracy will of course be an integral part of socialist society but not to the ridiculous extent that you posit.
Once again you have dismally failed in your desperate efforts to substantiate your non-Marxist gloss on what you call “Marx’s theory” by failing to provide even a single citation where Marx suggested anything so daft as voting on scientific theories!
robbo203 wrote: “It is perfectly OK in itself to ask ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so…”
I agree, robbo, perfectly OK.
So, ” ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so?“
Once again you have dismally failed in your desperate efforts to substantiate your non-Marxist gloss on what you call “Marx’s theory” by failing to provide even a single citation where Marx suggested anything so daft as voting on scientific theories!
You still ignored the direct question Robbo asked.
I agree, robbo, perfectly OK.
So, ” ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so?“
LBird why do you point blank refuse to answer the point I made, viz
It is perfectly OK in itself to ask ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so but what is NOT OK is to use the excuse that scientific theories are social products to justify the crackpot idea that these theories – tens of thousands of them – should be voted upon the global population
I am not so much concerned here with the academic question of who socially produces scientific theories as whether those theories should therefore be voted upon
Please answer my direct question as to why you think they should be voted upon – what purpose would a vote serve – and also why you consider Marx felt they should be voted upon as well. Citation needed
Your silence on this matter will finally confirm you haven’t got a clue about what you have been gabbling on about for so long….
robbo203 wrote (yet again): “It is perfectly OK in itself to ask ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so …”
So (yet again), “‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so?“.
Once we have the answer to this ‘perfectly OK’ question (the ‘who’ and the ‘how’), discussion about the ‘why’ (and the ‘whether’ and ‘should’) will progress rapidly.
In fact, the ‘who and how’ answer will determine the ‘why/whether/should’ answer.
No just you answer the straightforward damn question below instead of waffling.
why you think they should be voted upon – what purpose would a vote serve – and also why you consider Marx felt they should be voted upon as well. Citation needed
Your silence on this matter will finally confirm you haven’t got a clue about what you have been gabbling on about for so long…..
By coincidence in the course of scanning articles from the Socialist Standards of the 1920s I have just done one from August 1925 in which an opponent makes this criticism:
“Fifty years ago — which was an age of triumphant Science — it was widely believed that in matter and motion there had at last been placed in man’s hands the key to the interpretation of the universe and all its contents, including man himself. Fifty years ago that was ; but time in the interval has wrought many changes. Science, now wiser and less confident, recognises its limitations and confines itself to a description of things as they appear to us, being silent about them as in their ultimate nature they are. Materialism is no longer regarded as a truth of science.
Neither is materialism an established truth of philosophy. It amounts to no more than a philosophic speculation; and it is endorsed to-day by few thinkers of repute. The main reason for this, briefly expressed, is that the theory cannot reach its starting-point. Thought itself bars the way. You can never get to a position beyond thought where you are face to face with matter per se — where you have matter pure and simple — and then show thought evolving from it. Matter in its primordial form — the atom with its electrons — is always matter with an element of thought already present in it. Anyone who grasps the significance of this statement will at once see how precarious a basis materialism is for Socialism.”
So (yet again), “‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so?“. Once we have the answer to this ‘perfectly OK’ question (the ‘who’ and the ‘how’), discussion about the ‘why’ (and the ‘whether’ and ‘should’) will progress rapidly. In fact, the ‘who and how’ answer will determine the ‘why/whether/should’ answer.
BS, LBird, Who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE to the question of whether scientific theories should be democratically voted upon by the global population. You are warbling on irrelevantly to distract attention from the fact that you are incapable of explaining WHY such a global vote should be held or HOW it is even logistically possible to organise.
The really funny thing about all this is that you were the one complaining that the rest of us here don’t “engage” with your ideas but you have flat out refused to engage with the above point from the get go
Who precisely is involved in the social production of scientific theories is not of any great interest to me. I know I haven’t contributed anything to the development of string theory in astrophysics. I doubt if you have either. No doubt a number of people with some familiarity with astrophysics would have contributed to this theory. In that sense it is socially produced. The same would be probably be true of other scientific theories even if a different set of people would likely have been involved
But so what? Even if the entire global population was engaged somehow in the development of string theory , how would this justify the need for a democratic vote on it?
Now kindly answer this question and also answer the question I posed earlier: when did Marx suggest that scientific theories require a democratic vote by the global population???
Citations please and no dodging the question any more….
robbo203 wrote: “…LBird, Who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE …”
Neither I nor Marx share that political opinion, robbo.
The ‘social producer’ is the most fundamental of Marx’s concepts, and so is found in all his notions of ‘mode of production’, ‘forces of production’, ‘relations of production’, ‘associated producers’, ‘exploitation’, ‘classes’.
It’s the starting point for discussing Marx.
ALB wrote:
“By coincidence in the course of scanning articles from the Socialist Standards of the 1920s I have just done one from August 1925 in which an opponent makes this criticism:“Fifty years ago — which was an age of triumphant Science — it was widely believed that in matter and motion there had at last been placed in man’s hands the key to the interpretation of the universe and all its contents, including man himself. Fifty years ago that was ; but time in the interval has wrought many changes. Science, now wiser and less confident, recognises its limitations and confines itself to a description of things as they appear to us, being silent about them as in their ultimate nature they are. Materialism is no longer regarded as a truth of science.
Neither is materialism an established truth of philosophy. It amounts to no more than a philosophic speculation; and it is endorsed to-day by few thinkers of repute. The main reason for this, briefly expressed, is that the theory cannot reach its starting-point. Thought itself bars the way. You can never get to a position beyond thought where you are face to face with matter per se — where you have matter pure and simple — and then show thought evolving from it. Matter in its primordial form — the atom with its electrons — is always matter with an element of thought already present in it. Anyone who grasps the significance of this statement will at once see how precarious a basis materialism is for Socialism.””
It seems, ALB, that the Socialist Standard chose its ‘opponents’ well. ‘Materialism’ is a basis for Leninism, not Socialism.
robbo203 wrote: “…LBird, Who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE …”
Neither I nor Marx share that political opinion, robbo.
Once again, LBird, you misrepresent me
I didn’t say the question of “who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE” per se
I said it has ” ZERO RELEVANCE to the question of whether scientific theories should be democratically voted upon by the global population.
Can’t you read properly? You are going from bad to worse
Marx did not argue that scientific theories need to be voted upon. This is entirely, and utterly uniquely, your point of view. You alone, as far as I know, are the only person probably in the entire universe to hold this crackpot idea
Yet you seem incapable or unwilling to defend it and have studiously evaded answering any question concerning this crackpot idea of yours
ALB wrote:
“By coincidence in the course of scanning articles from the Socialist Standards of the 1920s I have just done one from August 1925 in which an opponent makes this criticism:
It is certainly a good article and reply.
Matthew Culbert wrote: “It is certainly a good article and reply.
It’s an interesting historical article, only marred by the conclusion.
One party, Archie McArthur, is an idealist, who argues that the ‘divine’ is the active subject.
The other party, GILMAC, is a materialist, who argues that the ‘material’ is the active subject.
Neither follows Marx, who argued that ‘humanity’ is the active subject.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.