Gnostic Marxist
- This topic has 446 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Any knowledge of the history and social importance of ‘science’ makes me wonder how you can assume those three beliefs: ‘practice’ (no, it’s a ‘theory and practice’), ‘obscure’ (no, this is a conscious product of bourgeois science, to hide it from the majority), and ‘no practical impact’ (no, the impact on society of science is enormously important).
LBird
I didn’t suggest the impact of science on society was not enormously important. That’s not my argument. Scientific research for example leads to technological innovations which often have significant practical impacts on society – which impacts, I agree, should be subject to some measure of democratic control
But we are not talking the application or implementation of such innovations, we are talking solely about the development of scientific theories themselves which you want to subject to democratic control. I would argue this is neither desirable – it would inhibit scientific enquiry and investigation as well as serve no purpose – nor is it remotely practical. How can 8 billion people vote on some arcane theory such the concept of anti- matter when the overwhelmingly majority of us know little or nothing about this concept? How do you even go about organising such a global plebiscite anyway for this and thousands and thousands of other scientific theories anyway
You say
I would regard Marx’s ‘revolutionary science’ as a fundamental part of democratic socialism, the theory and practice of which would be taught through a democratic education system, to enable all to understand and participate in this ‘science’.
I am not opposed to the idea of a broad brush approach to raising people’s interest in science and encouraging them to become more scientific literate but at the end of the day its still going to be the specialists who are going to be, perforce, the ones who will be involved in expanding the frontiers of science, rather than us, if only because they have the necessary expertise and training to do so in their specialized field of science and we don’t. There is no getting around this point however much you try to, LBird
For the general population, and even the scientists themselves, large chunks of science will inevitably remain obscure if only because the whole body of scientific knowledge has grown so huge and complex that no one individual is capable of absorbing anything more than a tiny fraction of it.
robbo203 wrote: “…we are talking solely about the development of scientific theories themselves…”
No, I’m talking about ‘social production’ (just as Marx did), which includes ‘theories and practices’, which are inescapably linked. You write about ‘theories themselves’ as if they exist outside of their own social production. No, ‘theories’ emerge from societies, not from ‘themselves’, nor ‘clever individuals’.
So, if you argue that ‘theories’ will not be subject to democratic controls, you must specify to whose control they will be subject. This is a political (and thus philosophical) question. If you want to argue ‘specialists’ (who apparently will have abilities not available to the majority), then fine, but that’s a political position that I don’t share, and that I think will prevent the self-emancipation of the proletariat and the development of democratic socialism. It’s also Marx’s position – it will lead to the separation of society into two, with the smaller part controlling the larger part.
robbo203 wrote: “…at the end of the day its still going to be the specialists who are going to be, perforce, the ones who will be involved in expanding the frontiers of science, rather than us, if only because they have the necessary expertise and training to do so in their specialized field of science and we don’t. There is no getting around this point however much you try to, LBird“. [my bold]
Well, I’ve never ‘tried to get around this point’, robbo!
My whole point is that it’s a political and philosophical stance that I don’t share, and that I argue Marx didn’t, either.
Your political and philosophical ideology separates society into two (‘specialists’ and ‘us’), and takes present social production (‘they have’ and ‘we don’t’) as eternal.
I regard Marx’s ‘revolutionary science’ as the self-emancipation of the proletariat and its democratic organisation of all social production. The whole point is that ‘we’ will have the ‘necessary expertise and training’, because the creation of this is a necessary part of building socialism. In fact, I think that the emergence of (for want of a better phrase) ‘proletarian universities’ which challenge those of the bourgeoisie, and eventually begin to replace them in both ideas and activities. I would think that proletarians would get a better education, which would give them a scientific advantage over those still stranded in bourgeois academia.
robbo203 wrote: “For the general population, and even the scientists themselves, large chunks of science will inevitably remain obscure if only because the whole body of scientific knowledge has grown so huge and complex that no one individual is capable of absorbing anything more than a tiny fraction of it.” [my bold]
Ironically, robbo, I see this as an argument for the democratisation of science.
There are, even at present, no ‘specialists’ who can out-think the rest of society. This will be even more the case in the future.
‘The whole body of scientific knowledge’ is a social product, which changes with time and place (ie. it’s a socio-historical ‘body’), and since it’s the product of society, only society can determine its shape and content.
And for a democratic socialist society, that determination can only be democratic.
Well, I’ve never ‘tried to get around this point’, robbo!
My whole point is that it’s a political and philosophical stance that I don’t share, and that I argue Marx didn’t, either.
Your political and philosophical ideology separates society into two (‘specialists’ and ‘us’), and takes present social production (‘they have’ and ‘we don’t’) as eternal.So are you now backtracking on your earlier position when you seemed to agree there would indeed be specialists in a socialist society in the sense of individuals who have undergone intensive training over a long period of time to equip them with the particular skills required to accomplish certain very complex tasks?
Take for example a neurosurgeon. If you are saying there will be no specialists in a socialist society then presumably you mean
1) there will be no neurosurgeons in socialism – a very bad idea particularly for people in need of neurosurgery!
or
2) We will all be neurosurgeons – also a very bad idea for reasons that are all too obvious
I frankly don’t care what Marx had to say on the subject. Some of his observations relating to the emergence of the “polytechnic worker” able to perform any task society required was complete baloney. You cannot operate a large scale complex modern society without some degree of specialisation, some division of labour. The difference in socialism is that 1) it wont be a coerced division of labour and 2) it will be less well defined in the sense that everyone, specialists included , will be able to undertake a greater variety of jobs. That is to say there will be a greater tendency towards generalist work – work that anybody can do
So, if you argue that ‘theories’ will not be subject to democratic controls, you must specify to whose control they will be subject. This is a political (and thus philosophical) question.
Why does the formulation of theories have to be “controlled” in the first place??? Whats with this control freakery? Why cannot people just contribute spontaneously and freely to scientific discourse as and when their thought processes dictate and voluntarily engage with their peers as and when they see fit? Why should this be seen as a problem? Subjecting these thought processes to any control let alone democratic control will kill off scientific curiosity and scientific theorising. Its what the Catholic Church did to Galileo. Is this what you want?
Ironically, robbo, I see this as an argument for the democratisation of science.There are, even at present, no ‘specialists’ who can out-think the rest of society. This will be even more the case in the future.
No, you are missing the point. The rest of society does not know about neurosurgery than the the community of neurosurgeons themselves. I wouldn’t know where to begin if I were given a scalpel and confronted with someone’s exposed brain. Nor would you. Nor would 99.99% of the population. We have no choice but to put our fate in the hands of specialists like neurosurgeons if we need a brain tumour removed.
My point is that the neurosurgeons, though being specialists in their own field , are complete lay people like the rest of us when it comes to some other field or scientific discipline. They would be just as incapable of deciding whether the theory of anti-matter in astrophysics was true or not as the rest of us. No one individual can know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge and yet you are expecting everyone in society to pronounce in the virtues of every scientific theory that arises in society and put it to a vote.
This is simply no possible by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is it needed. Democracy has a role in the practical application of scientific theory in the form of technological innovation but emphatically not in the formulation of scientific theories themselves
robbo203 wrote: “So are you now backtracking on your earlier position when you seemed to agree there would indeed be specialists in a socialist society in the sense of individuals who have undergone intensive training over a long period of time to equip them with the particular skills required to accomplish certain very complex tasks?”
I wish that those that disagree with my political and philosophical positions wouldn’t keep mischaracterising them. It only leads to us going round in circles, in which I have to keep saying what I’ve already said, to correct an allegation which I’ve already corrected.
I’m not ‘backtracking’, robbo. I’ve never argued that there won’t be ‘specialists in a socialist society’.
Once again, I’m not sure what you have to gain by not reading and understanding what I write, and then arguing against that. We both waste our time by this refusal to read what I write, not make up false allegations of false positions ascribed to me.
Once again, the political and philosophical argument is ‘WHO should politically control those ‘specialists’?’.
If you argue ‘the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically‘, that’s fine, it’s a political and philosophical position which I don’t share.
This is the nub of the argument robbo. WHO should have power? An elite, or society?
You seem to want to assume that ‘specialists themselves controlling their specialisms’ is a ‘common sense’ argument, that can’t be sensibly argued against.
Please try to focus on what I’m writing, and if you disagree, OK, let’s talk about those political, philosophical and ideological disagreements.
I’ll have to deal with the rest of your post later, so I’m not ignoring it.
LBird
Ok so you’ve come out and said it clearly – there will be specialists in a socialist society
Good
So on to the next step. You say:
If you argue ‘the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically‘, that’s fine, it’s a political and philosophical position which I don’t share.
Lets look at this
firstly I don’t really know what you are getting at when you say this. What do you mean by “control”? Theorizing a creative spontaneous process. Trying to control it as the Church did with Galileo – to give my example – is completely antithetical to the very spirit of scientific enquiry which must be open-ended and self critical. You cant have some official dogma being imposed from above to which the scientists are expected to dutifully conform. That’s surely not what you are suggesting is it?
Secondly, since you now clearly agree that there will be a specialists in a socialist society then I assume you agree with the logically corollary of this which is that specialists are privy to information, theories or ideas which are not generally known to the general public. They wouldn’t be specialists otherwise
Now since by definition the general public is not familiar with the substance of these theories known only to the specialists how on earth do you suppose they – the general public – can make a democratic decision as to whether these theories are “true” or not. The idea is ludicrous on many grounds. Democracy depends on information. You cant vote for something unless you know what it is you are actually voting for
See, when you say the theories of the specialists should be “democratically controlled” by society as a whole this sounds very much like you are saying that society as a whole will consider each of these theories in turn and adjudicate on them – determine whether they are true or not. Amongst other things that’s just not possible if you as a lay person are completely unfamiliar with what it is the specialists are talking about
Perhaps what you mean is that society as a whole should “democratically control” the priorities or direction of scientific research – not the actual substance of the theories the scientists come out with. For instance more emphasis should be placed on tackling climate change than space travel
If so, then that is a much more reasonable argument to make but the way you construct your argument makes it very difficult to know what it is you are actually saying. Perhaps you need to clarify this. Do you mean simply that the general public in socialism democratically controls the broad direction in which scientific research is headed rather than the substantive content of scientific theorising??
robbo203 wrote:
“[LBird wrote:] If you argue ‘the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically‘, that’s fine, it’s a political and philosophical position which I don’t share.Lets look at this
firstly I don’t really know what you are getting at when you say this.”
robbo, you’re arguing that “the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically“. I’m not arguing this, it’s you.
I’m at a loss when you then state you ‘don’t really know’ what this means.
The debate is because I don’t agree that “the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically“.
Now, we can go on to discuss and debate the issues regarding this difference, but you can’t keep saying that you don’t understand what our differences are. Aren’t you interested (not ‘why don’t you agree with’) in understanding this opposition to your view.
I’m interested in your view, even though I oppose it. I characterise your view as an ‘anti-democratic’ view of science. I’m not misleading anyone, I’m not lying about your view, I’m not building a strawman to knock down. I’m interested in getting to the heart of why we disagree, or, less personally, why self-proclaimed ‘democratic socialists’, like the SPGB, should support ‘anti-democratic’ science.
robbo, you’re arguing that “the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically“. I’m not arguing this, it’s you.
No I am not. On the contrary I made it quite clear that the process of formulating theories should be completely uncontrolled by anyone. That is, it should be spontaneous and free. As I said very clearly I don’t see any point whatsoever in voting on some theory to decide on whether it is true or not (I leave aside the question of how you organise such a vote by “society as a whole democratically”). That is what I have understood you to mean by “control” in the context of scientific theory – that a democratic vote should be taken to determine its truth status which would transform or elevate the theory into a officially sanctioned dogma which “society” (and those specialist scientists in it) would be expected to accept as The Truth.
I thought I had made it pretty clear I am opposed to “controlling” the production of scientific theories in this way. This is totally against the whole spirit of scientific enquiry. What you seem to be advocating is what the Catholic Church did to Galileo in ordering the suppression of his heliocentric view of the universe as heretical
Nor am I suggesting – as you seem to imply – that the task of formulating scientific theories should confined to the specialists in some imperative sense. On the contrary it should be open to anyone to put forward a theory. Its just that in practice most theory formulation is likely to be come from the specialists themselves for the very simple that they tend to know a lot more about the subject they are dealing with than the general public, having had the training
I’m interested in your view, even though I oppose it. I characterise your view as an ‘anti-democratic’ view of science
Just noticed this comment of yours LBird. This is misleading. It is true that I strongly believe that democracy has no place in the formulation of scientific theory as such. As I suggested above it would actually undermine the process of scientific enquiry were scientist obliged to conform to some officially sanctioned scientific explanation for the phenomena being investigated
Remember Lysenkoism? This is what becomes of wanting to “control” the production of scientific theories , democratically or otherwise:
Lysenkoism (Russian: Лысе́нковщина, tr. Lysenkovshchina) was a political campaign led by Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century, rejecting natural selection in favour of Lamarckism and exaggerated claims for the benefits of vernalization and grafting. In time, the term has come to be identified as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable.
More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed or imprisoned, and numerous scientists were executed in the campaign to suppress scientific opponents. The president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, who had encouraged Lysenko, was sent to prison and died there, while Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed. Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines were harmed or banned.
Other countries of the Eastern Bloc including Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the German Democratic Republic accepted Lysenkoism as the official “new biology”, to varying degrees, as did the People’s Republic of China for some years.
The government of the USSR supported the campaign, and Joseph Stalin personally edited a speech by Lysenko in a way that reflected his support for what would come to be known as Lysenkoism, despite his skepticism toward Lysenko’s assertion that all science is class-oriented in nature.[1] Lysenko served as the director of the Soviet Union’s Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
That said, I also clearly stated that there is a role for democracy in science – not in the process formulation of scientific theories but rather in deciding on the priorities of scientific research
These two things are quite different, LBird and I hope you can appreciate the difference
That what I thought you said and meant, Robbo, not this distortion attribued to you which I read at first as a direct quote from you:
“the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically“.
Another fabrication from our feathered friend.
And of course the crackpot thinks people should also vote on the meaning of everyday things like “yellow” and “table” not just of “matter” and “energy”. What a nutter.
robbo203 wrote: “That said, I also clearly stated that there is a role for democracy in science – not in the process formulation of scientific theories but rather in deciding on the priorities of scientific research
These two things are quite different, LBird and I hope you can appreciate the difference” [my bold]
You are expressing an ideological opinion here, robbo, which I don’t share.
Your separation of ‘theories’ and priorities’ is an ideological one.
Marx sought a unity in science of ‘theory and practice’, which I agree with, and ‘theories’ influence ‘priorities’ and ‘priorities’ influence ‘theories’.
If there is to be a democratic method in science, it has to embrace all aspects of science.
You may disagree with this, but then you have to specify who (and why) an elite should control whatever part of science you wish to preserve from democracy.
Also, your notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is an ideological one, which is at odds with ‘power’ within science. The notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is used by a hidden elite, to pretend that ‘no-one’ controls social production. It’s a ruling class ideology.
If we, humanity, don’t ‘control’, an elite will ‘control’.
“Yellow is found between green and orange on the spectrum of visible light. It is the color the human eye sees when it looks at light with a dominant wavelength between 570 and 590 nanometers.”
I propose that this scienists’ definition be put to a world referendum. Is there a seconder?
“Yellow is found between green and orange on the spectrum of visible light. It is the color the human eye sees when it looks at light with a dominant wavelength between 570 and 590 nanometers.”
I propose that this scienists’ definition be put to a world referendum. Is there a seconder?
ALB, you are displaying your elitist tendencies! You naughty materialist. Surely before we can define yellow we need to define colour, wavelengths, spectrum, nanometers and perhaps more importantly the concept of number. Unless we democratically decide the socially produced concept of number, we are guilty of Leninist-Englesian distortion of Marx!!!! and anyway, who said you could use letters to signify speech without having a vote on it.
“power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony……….. You can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you……………. I mean, if I went ’round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!”
You may disagree with this, but then you have to specify who (and why) an elite should control whatever part of science you wish to preserve from democracy.
Now you are seriously misrepresenting me, L Bird. I have never said an elite would “control” any part of science whatsoever. I simply said there would be specialists in the various branches of sciences. If you say this constitutes an “elite” that’s your interpolation. What is clear is that in a society where the means of living are freely available to all and where labour is performed on a purely voluntary basis, the material basis of political power whereby any one section of society can impose its own will on another will have disappeared
Since you have now explicitly conceded there will be specialists in a socialist society then, if you call these specialists an elite, that puts you in exactly the same position as you imagine I am if you think it is a characteristic of an elite to exercise control to the exclusion of the rest of society. So you’ve boxed yourself into a corner, LBird!
Also, your notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is an ideological one, which is at odds with ‘power’ within science. The notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is used by a hidden elite, to pretend that ‘no-one’ controls social production. It’s a ruling class ideology.
You are not reading what I wrote. By “uncontrolled” I was referring to the process by which scientific theories come to the attention of the public. I hold that this should be a spontaneous process in which anyone should be able to participate – even if in practice it is likely to be the specialists who will most probably be foremost in putting forward these scientific theories because of their greater knowledge of the subject in question
What I have done is simply to reject your absurdly impractical and unnecessary idea that scientific theories (tens of thousands of them!) should be put to a vote to determine whether they are true or not. That’s just ridiculous and its the same kind of thinking that led to Lysenkoism and the suppression of dissident scientists by the authoritarian soviet state (see my previous post)
How you can possibly imagine that the spontaneous and free process by which scientific theories come to the attention of the public implies the existence of some kind of “hidden elite” I have not the foggiest idea. The very fact that it is spontaneous means it is not controlled but is rather self regulating. Democracy I have argued has a role to play in science in respect of the application of scientific theories e,g, technological innovation but emphatically NOT in the origination of these theories
If you want to impose the stipulation that scientific theories should all be subjected to a vote to determine their truth status, this will not only destroy the creative process of scientific enquiry by imposing a Lysenkoist style mass conformity on the thinking of scientists who would be fearful of questioning the “democratically” and dogmatically established TRUTH – it will almost certainly result in the rise of an authoritarian ruling class using the facade of democracy to stamp its own will on society
LBird, what do you think of Herman Gorter’s ‘Historical Materialism’
https://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/historical-materialism.htm
I’m not sure he has been mentioned as yet. But if you still to read another for your library
Too long for me to summarise but the message is this
“The power of the truth must live in the mind of the proletariat…The mind must be revolutionized. It must extirpate prejudice and cowardice. The most important thing is mental propaganda. Knowledge, mental power, is the essential thing, the most necessary of all.”robbo203 wrote: “Now you are seriously misrepresenting me, L Bird. I have never said an elite would “control” any part of science whatsoever.”
robbo203 (a few posts earlier) wrote: “Just noticed this comment of yours LBird. This is misleading. It is true that I strongly believe that democracy has no place in the formulation of scientific theory as such.”
Well, robbo, if anyone is ‘misrepresenting’ or ‘misleading’ anyone, it’s not me, but you doing it to yourself.
If you you can explain how ‘scientific theory’ is not ‘any part of science whatsoever’, I’d be very obliged to you.
My political and philosophical position, just like Marx’s, is very simple in comparison to your ideological gymnastics.
All social production in a democratic communist society (a new mode of production) must be under the democratic control of the associated producers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.