Hunter gatherer violence

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

You say hold a vote, LB, but how is a rational individual to vote? Surely only by making a good faith effort to decide between the alternatives based on their truth value, ie, on how they measure up to reality?

Sounds good, stuart.Remind me again, how can humans 'measure up reality'?As a Democratic Communist, I think that if humans are to 'measure up reality', they have to do it democratically.The alternative posited by the bourgeoisie, that 'reality tells us what it is', and we simply have to 'observe reality', has turned out to be not true.That's where we are today – the bourgeoisie argue that 'elite experts' should decide 'truth', because they have a neutral method. But we proletarians know that is not true, because the 'elite experts' do not have such a method, and the 'objective truth' they have produced has turned out to be nothing of the sort.If one believes in socialism (the democratic control of the means of production, including knowledge production), then one must believe in democratic control of all science.Of course, if one does not believe in socialism, then one is free to tell us just who, and how, a minority can tell the rest of us a truth that we can't discern for ourselves.Once more, stuart, it's a political choice. Does 'truth value' talk to you, stuart, because it doesn't to me, and I know it doesn't to 'scientists'?I'd define your 'good faith effort' as 'a democratic vote'.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

…the alternatives based on their truth value, ie, on how they measure up to reality…

This notion of measuring an 'alternative' (ie. a product of science) with 'reality' (the thing itself) is known as 'the correspondence theory of truth'.The problem with it is: if we know how to get an account of 'reality' which doesn't involve humans and science, which we'd have to do to measure 'it' against the scientifically-produced 'alternative', the question arises:Why use 'science' to produce a series of 'alternatives'?Why not just go straight to 'reality'?The problem is 'what is the reality?' that you want to use to 'measure up to' when deciding between 'alternatives'?

[stuartw2112]

I know what you're saying, and agree with it to a point, but the point is the rub. You've not answered my question. You say that instead of a disinterested pursuit of the truth we should instead vote between competing ideologies. But how is one to vote? On what basis?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I know what you're saying, and agree with it to a point, but the point is the rub. You've not answered my question. You say that instead of a disinterested pursuit of the truth we should instead vote between competing ideologies. But how is one to vote? On what basis?

I thought I had answered your question: one votes on the basis of 'competing ideologies'. That democratic method produces a 'truth'. If we have reason for a later vote, and change our vote, then 'truth' changes, too.And what's all this guff about 'a disinterested pursuit of the truth' being a methodological option?You're the one who rightly said earlier that theories and evidence are ideological!Now, in contrast, you're claiming there's a basis in 'disinterested theories' seeking 'truthful evidence'?The problem's not with me failing to answer your question, stuart, but with you not understanding your own questions, and what they imply, in ideological beliefs, prior to the question's formulation. You're being inconsistent, from post to post.If you 'believe' in the 19th century religious dogma that 'reality' speaks to you, why not tell us 'how' it does so?The philosophers of science, who have debated this question throughout the 20th century, would be keen to hear your answer!Perhaps you know why Einstein was wrong?

[stuartw2112]

OK, so there's a vote between competing ideologies. Let's say one side is saying the earth is round, the other that it's flat. How am I to cast my vote? On a whim? On the idea I find more personally congenial or politically convenient? On what basis?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

OK, so there's a vote between competing ideologies. Let's say one side is saying the earth is round, the other that it's flat. How am I to cast my vote? On a whim? On the idea I find more personally congenial or politically convenient? On what basis?

On the basis of your enquiries, learning, criticism and discussions with your comrades. If all your comrades say to you that 'the earth is round', based upon their enquiries, learning, criticism and discussions, and you disagree (perhaps for reasons 'personally congenial or politically convenient'), then you'll probably be outvoted.If, after later social enquiries, learning, criticism and discussions, your comrades come round to your way of thinking, and now agree that 'the earth is flat', then you'll now win the vote.And we'll all know that science is a social activity, and 'truth' is produced by humans.The difference is, the social actor will be the producers (not an expert elite), and we'll be able to account for the twists and turns of 'truth', which often changes, due to it being a social and historical production.If you're not interested, though, for any reason, why would you vote?If you are interested, then you'll be provided with the education, time and materials required, just like everybody else, to indulge your interests.What we won't be having, though, is a bunch of bluffers, a small minority, insisting that they are 'disinterested' and simply telling us 'how it is'. The priests will be prevented from insisting they have an access to the god-matter that we don't have, and that they can continue to hide their discussions in latin-mathematics.We can all have access and participate in whatever discussions we want to. That will be the purpose of our society, won't it? To develop all people on the planet as far as is possible. Truly, for the first time, we'll have a society dedicated to producing social-individuals, not the truncated specimens we are all, now, as 'individuals' [sic].

[stuartw2112]

OK, so I'm listening to what my comrades say about whether the earth is flat or not, learning from them, criticising them, discussing with them – all normal parts of the scientific process. But how are we to decide who's ideas are best? What are we talking about? What are we referring to? Not the real world? Are we not arguing about which of the ideologies is the best approximation to the real world – which of the expressions of relative truth (our ideologies) best point to the absolute truth (the universe)?I mean, is the earth not actually round, independent of what we may or may not think about it?

[stuartw2112]

Or, to return to the thread topic, does not the term "hunter-gatherer" actually refer to something in the real world? Does not the question of whether they live more or less violent lives than us have some meaning, ie, refer to something "out there" rather than just "in here" in our minds? If not, I scarcely see the point of discussing anything with anyone.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

What are we talking about? What are we referring to? Not the real world? Are we not arguing about which of the ideologies is the best approximation to the real world – which of the expressions of relative truth (our ideologies) best point to the absolute truth (the universe)?

[my bold]'Best' is a human decision – 'reality' does not talk to us.What one society sees as 'best', another doesn't. That's why 'truth' has a social and historical context, and changes.And 'absolute truth' is, in effect, a religious concept. It simply means 'god'.

[stuartw2112]

I know it means god!But you still won't tell me how we are to decide whether the earth is flat or round. I mean, does the earth's actual shape in reality have anything to do with the decision?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Or, to return to the thread topic, does not the term "hunter-gatherer" actually refer to something in the real world? Does not the question of whether they live more or less violent lives than us have some meaning, ie, refer to something "out there" rather than just "in here" in our minds? If not, I scarcely see the point of discussing anything with anyone.

[my bold] 'Meaning' is socially constructed. What 'out there' means to one society, it doesn't to another.I think that you're forgetting the rest of what I've argued, though, about 'theory and practice'.Science is not a isolated 'mind' activity.Marx's Theses on Feuerbach refer.The application of theory to what theory tells us counts as 'evidence' produces social knowledge.But different theories applied to the same 'hunter-gatherers' will produce different 'truth' about those societies.As I've said, liberal anthropologists will produce a liberal account of hunter-gatherers; communist anthropologists will produce a communist account of hunter-gatherers.Humans can't take the human out of science.If you want a scientific account, find out about your ideology of science, and the anthropologists' ideology of science.The idea that 'a disinterested search for The Truth' is going on, is scientifically and politically naive, given what we know about science, since Einstein.Just look at your link, again.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

I know it means god!But you still won't tell me how we are to decide whether the earth is flat or round. I mean, does the earth's actual shape in reality have anything to do with the decision?

If you know a method that gives us 100% truth about the shape of the earth, please tell us!If not, we're back to discussing what we humans think the shape is, given our 'best' 'evidence'.Both 'flat' and 'round' are human attempts to explain the 'shape' of the earth.The "earth's actual shape in reality" is a very complex thing…

[stuartw2112]

It's a very complex thing – so it is a thing?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

It's a very complex thing – so it is a thing?

It's just like 'hunter-gatherer' society.

[stuartw2112]

And if it is a thing, might we not agree, by reference to the thing, whether or not, for all its complexity, "round" or "flat" best captures it?

[Author]

Posts