Ideology and class
- This topic has 62 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
"This tells us everything about your (and your sympathisers') attitude to learning.I would never accuse any of you of being 'dishonest'; I'd accuse you of ignorance, but I have no fear of you being 'dishonest'. You're all entirely honest, according to the lights of your ideology."LOL, you do appear to have a remarkably limited understanding of human beings, LB!Maybe this is why you chronically misinterpret and misrepresent the points people put to you?Where on earth did you get the idea I was an academic, by the way? That's a laugh! That's what happens when you spin theories out of inadequate evidence. Or am I now to be accused of holding a correspondence theory of truth for claiming my actual occupation and life history might just have some bearing on what you can legitimately say about me? Maybe though, my perception of my life history is too influenced by my ideological beliefs for me to be able to say anything about myself that would challenge anything you might want to say about me. Sorry, LB your crude and mechanistic interpretation of what would otherwise be a perfectly useful theory hardly merits anything other than derision. You call it philosophy. It sounds more like 'philosogising' to me. (Marx warned me about vulgarians like you!)These are interesting questions you are rasing. It is just a shame that you are unable to respond to the views and challenges of others except in a dogmatic and abstract way. I've had some very fruitful discussions about these issues with other people. Not so with you, I'm afraid. You see yourself as a"self-confident worker"? Clearly more workerish-than-thou, though, eh? Get over yourself LB. You are no more or less a worker than anyone else who has been posting on this forum.I'm about to lose connectivity for a while, and will not be able to continue with this for much longer. I'll just make one observation, for now, though – it's a quote in fact, from someone whose opinion I know you hold in the highest regard."Your problem is that you refuse to listen, learn and critically assess what you're being told."
Hud955 wrote:Where on earth did you get the idea I was an academic, by the way?You displayed the same concern for 'facts' and 'details', which you clearly have read about, and can remember and recite, without any understanding whatsoever about the relationships between them, and others that you haven't looked for. This inability to rise above what's in front of one's face is a common trait in academia. Some of them still believe in induction from evidence.
Hud955 wrote:That's a laugh!Yes, it's become very obvious that even 'academic' status was setting the bar too high, for you.
Hud955 wrote:These are interesting questions you are rasing.This is the real shame – you show potential, but then shy away at where your questioning might take you.
Hud955 wrote:It is just a shame that you are unable to respond to the views and challenges of others except in a dogmatic and abstract way.Yes, always the response from the ignorant, to things they don't understand. You, of course, are undogmatic and deal with the real world, just like all conservatives. Not like those 'head in the clouds' revolutionaries, eh?
Hud 955 wrote:I've had some very fruitful discussions about these issues with other people.With this, you're showing a remarkable ability to deceive yourself. Other than being vaguely aware that 'something is going on', you are completely at a loss.
Hud955 wrote:You are no more or less a worker than anyone else who has been posting on this forum.That's odd, because when I ask whether other posters identify as a 'worker' or as an 'individual', they always plump for the latter. Mind you, you wouldn't understand the ideological difference, between identifying oneself as holding a structural position in a society, and one's biological existence. For you and them, it's just a descriptive term, not an analytical category. Ohhh… I'm being dogmatic and abstract, again! Big words and difficult concepts, Hud, a bit scary, eh?
Hud955 wrote:I'm about to lose connectivity for a while, and will not be able to continue with this for much longer. I'll just make one observation, for now, though – it's a quote in fact, from someone whose opinion I know you hold in the highest regard.I'm touched, Hud! Quoting me, as an authority.All you have to do now is to digest my advice, and then follow it. But I think you lost 'connectivity' with critical thinking a long time ago, if you ever were connected to it.On a biological level, have a nice time.
LBird wrote:Hud955 wrote:Where on earth did you get the idea I was an academic, by the way?You displayed the same concern for 'facts' and 'details', which you clearly have read about, and can remember and recite, without any understanding whatsoever about the relationships between them, and others that you haven't looked for. This inability to rise above what's in front of one's face is a common trait in academia. Some of them still believe in induction from evidence.
Hud955 wrote:That's a laugh!Yes, it's become very obvious that even 'academic' status was setting the bar too high, for you.
Hud955 wrote:These are interesting questions you are rasing.This is the real shame – you show potential, but then shy away at where your questioning might take you.
Hud955 wrote:It is just a shame that you are unable to respond to the views and challenges of others except in a dogmatic and abstract way.Yes, always the response from the ignorant, to things they don't understand. You, of course, are undogmatic and deal with the real world, just like all conservatives. Not like those 'head in the clouds' revolutionaries, eh?
Hud 955 wrote:I've had some very fruitful discussions about these issues with other people.With this, you're showing a remarkable ability to deceive yourself. Other than being vaguely aware that 'something is going on', you are completely at a loss.
Hud955 wrote:You are no more or less a worker than anyone else who has been posting on this forum.That's odd, because when I ask whether other posters identify as a 'worker' or as an 'individual', they always plump for the latter. Mind you, you wouldn't understand the ideological difference, between identifying oneself as holding a structural position in a society, and one's biological existence. For you and them, it's just a descriptive term, not an analytical category. Ohhh… I'm being dogmatic and abstract, again! Big words and difficult concepts, Hud, a bit scary, eh?
Hud955 wrote:I'm about to lose connectivity for a while, and will not be able to continue with this for much longer. I'll just make one observation, for now, though – it's a quote in fact, from someone whose opinion I know you hold in the highest regard.I'm touched, Hud! Quoting me, as an authority.All you have to do now is to digest my advice, and then follow it. But I think you lost 'connectivity' with critical thinking a long time ago, if you ever were connected to it.On a biological level, have a nice time.
LOL. Well, thanks for allowing us to evesdrop on your inner efforts to put this person you call 'hud' in his place, LB. Ignorant, conservative, self-deceptive? That's a good list of private bogey men. So long as the spider remains in the centre of its web, then all will be well, eh?My challenge to you, as ever, is simply this, spin a thread, come down to earth and answer the questions that have been put to you. Or, if that is so difficult for a self-confident worker such as yourself, perhaps you would like to explain the reason for it?
LBird you have an obsession. However, your obsession is not with communism its with the search for truth in the field of science and the proposition that DPD is capable of providing it. From a theoretical perspective its not necessary and from a practical perspective – logistically – its obviously impractical. And even if it were practical you would be no nearer solving the problem because only a very small minority would actually vote on the thousands of different scientific theories. So you are back to the problem of elitism ruling the roost on truth.Everybody is in agreement that DPD is how production and distribution will be organised in socialism. The question is about recognising that democracy can be a double edged instrument and can hold back social progress. Especially when the search for truth hampers and restricts the advancement of science in the way you are suggesting. For in practice all scientific theories will be on hold until its established by the vote whether or not they are in fact truth.The search for truth will go on whether we vote on it or not and a vote on truth is not the end of the matter.
There is no obvious reason why people wouldn't choose to organise themselves in a variety of ways, using different decision-making processes at different levels (local, regional, global etc), in different circumstances and for different purposes. There is no need to imagine they would be constrained by any of the limits that capitalism places on our own imaginations. For fast, perhaps urgent decision-making then a straight vote might be sought of whatever section of the population will be affected by the decision, and the rules set for the assessing the outcome might be different depending on the circumstances. The vote might be direct or a delegated one. For slower, more considered decision making, much broader forms of social choice might be adopted which consider the needs of minorities as well as majorities. And at more local levels communities may seek simple consensus, using a variety of available techniques and skills. Democratic decision making applied to possible actions is one thing; applying it to on 'truth' is quite another, since no-one would be under any compulsion to accept the outcome of such a collective decision, whatever form it took – you cannot compel someone to believe that something is true, even in capitalism. You can have a damn good go at brainwashing them if you are in a position of power, or you can just allow a general process of social reification to do the job for you. The production of truth would be a complex matter in a socialist society. In a small so-called simple society like a hunter gatherer band, what is true is usually an matter for the individual band member, though each is deeply influenced by the dynamics of the group. Ideas about what is true, therefore evolve rapidly and generally in accordance with the ideological needs of the band. All this seems to reflect the fact that hunter gatherers are at one and the same time both highly communistic and highly individualistic (in the sense that they have no status relations and no-one can tell anyone else what to do. These relationships are strongly defended, so that their individualism is maintained by strong communal pressure. The only thing in their forms of social organisation resembling class or a division of labour are their gender relationships. Hg's tend to form gendered coalitions in which men live quite separate lives from women and the two often have separate ritual practices and beliefs. There is no such thing as the family as we conceive it. As soon as there is a greater division of labour as would be likely in a highly technological society, then the production of truth becomes a much more complex matter.
Hud955 wrote:There is no obvious reason why people wouldn't choose to organise themselves in a variety of ways, using different decision-making processes at different levels (local, regional, global etc), in different circumstances and for different purposes. There is no need to imagine they would be constrained by any of the limits that capitalism places on our own imaginations. For fast, perhaps urgent decision-making then a straight vote might be sought of whatever section of the population will be affected by the decision, and the rules set for the assessing the outcome might be different depending on the circumstances. The vote might be direct or a delegated one. For slower, more considered decision making, much broader forms of social choice might be adopted which consider the needs of minorities as well as majorities. And at more local levels communities may seek simple consensus, using a variety of available techniques and skills.Yes, this is a very good point Richard. LBird's strange obsession with democracy for the sake of it and democracy, moreover, implemented by the entire working population everywhere and at all times is absurd. We have been focussing on area of "truth production" – that is to say, the development of scientific theories. I see absolutely no point in subjecting scientific theory to a vote to determine its " truth "and despite constantly being prodded to come up with a reason, LBird has supplied none. The only inference one can draw is that once a scientific theory has been determined by means of vote to be "true" by the global working class (7 billion people), then according to him, no criticism of the theory will be permitted. That is ridiculous and antithetical to everything that the scientific endeavour is supposed to be about – above all, self critical. It also , moreover, assumes that 7 billion would have a close familiarity with each of the thousands of scientific theories that are developed each year in order to knowledgeably vote on all of them. That is also ridiculous and it is not "elitist" to say so – no individual can possibly assimilate the totality of scientific knowledge out there, no matter how gifted a scientist this individual may be. The sheer growth in scientific knowledge and the further development of a complex social division of labour is making this more and more true . We cannot all – in a social sense – become competent neurosurgeons which takes years and years of study and if we did each individually strive to become this (which, I guess, is theoretically possible in an abstract sense) – who is going to be the competent structural engineer, the competent agricultural scientist , the competent marine biologist etc etc. LBird typically has no answer to these questions. You have drawn attention to another another area, however – what we might call the area of "material production" where unlike in the case of truth production, democratic decision making will indeed have a role to play precisely because it involves practical decision that affect us in our daily lives. However, even this needs to be qualified in various ways.Firstly , you have to differentiate between decision making at various levels – local, regional and global – as you have done. LBird's utterly crude knee jerk and mantra-driven approach to the subject shows that he has not thought about the subject at all. If the global working population – all 7 billion of us – is to be the sole agent of all decision making in a communist world then this by definition rules out any kind of decisioonmaking at the sub global level. Why ? Because this would be "elitist" in LBird's fantasy world. If only local people vote to build a local hospital in their locality this means the vast majority of the world's population are ipso facto excluded from that decision. But there are millions and millions of such decisions that need to be taken every single day. Is the global working class going to have consider each and every one of these decisions? Is it possible? Of course it isn't. So by reduction ad absurdum LBird's whole argument must be completely rejected as utter drivel. Secondly, I would suggest that the great majority of decisions that will be made in a communist world at every level simply do not require democractic decision making anyway. They can be and will need to be taken on a spontaneous albeit it within a framework democratically decided upon. Does Joe Bloggs really need to authorised by a democratic mandate to take a stack of pallets with his forklift from the loading bay to the back of the factory? Is a special meeting going to be convened to discuss this burning question? Of course not. The notion that life in communism will be an endless rounds of committee meetings and mass assemblies – a caricature which LBird is obsessively feeding with his preposterous folly – actually makes a laughing stock of communists and makes it harder for us as communists to put forward the case for a sane society.Logically speaking, when it comes down to it, the logic of what LBird is arguing for is classic central planning – the idea of a single society wide plan covering the totality of production inputs and outputs which plan would be democratically decided upon, in LBird's viuew, by the global population. The idea is a complete non starter at so many different levels and if it were even attempted, it would simply end up with power being totally concentrated in a tiny technocratic eliteThough he will not thank me for saying so, LBirds real ideology behind the bluster that "I am a Democratic communist" is a kind of totalitarian Leninism
I’ll try to tie together an answer to the two latter posts, by Brian and Hud955.
Brian wrote:LBird you have an obsession. However, your obsession is not with communism its with the search for truth in the field of science and the proposition that DPD is capable of providing it.I know you don’t understand this, yet, Brian, but the two are philosophically interlinked. Marx’s belief in the unity of science and his belief that humanity and nature will be united (I’ve provide the quotes for this many times, and I know that no-one bothers to engage on this level, so I won’t waste my time and yours) means that human science, attempting to understand natural humanity and humanised nature, and this implies that Democratic Communism and the human scientific method are also heavily interlinked.So, like anyone who considers themselves a democrat in economic production and also has learnt from physics that science does not provide ‘truths’ apart from the society that produced them, I am conscious enough to seek ways of reconciling humans and nature. If you want to define ‘consciousness’ as ‘obsession’, then that’s your choice.
Brian wrote:From a theoretical perspective its not necessary and from a practical perspective – logistically – its obviously impractical.I’ve covered the first ideological belief in my previous paragraph, and the latter ideological belief is entirely compatible with any supporter of capitalism and the market, who thinks socialism “from a practical perspective – logistically – it’s obviously impractical”. Of course it is, for bourgeois thought, because the very idea of those thick workers getting their mucky, ignorant hands upon the factories, offices, transport networks, distribution systems, nuclear industry, physics research laboratories, mathematics faculties and all university departments, is clearly unthinkable. Just think of the ‘practical logistics’!
Brian wrote:And even if it were practical you would be no nearer solving the problem because only a very small minority would actually vote on the thousands of different scientific theories. So you are back to the problem of elitism ruling the roost on truth.This displays a total lack of imagination about just how widespread scientific consciousness will be (and will have to be) amongst a class conscious revolutionary proletariat, which has developed enough (organisationally and intellectually)to challenge the rule of the bourgeoisie.I’ve said this before (and been ignored, as usual). Scientific theories at present are produced by an elite and in a form which is meant to hide them from mass participation. Just like medieval priests employing Latin to hide the meaning of ‘grace’ from the ignorant, uneducated peasantry, so bourgeois scientists continue the pretence. The class conscious proletariat will enforce a scientific method which is both democratic and comprehensible to the masses. So, rather than priests speaking Latin, or physicists speaking mathematics, we’ll have workers who can translate and explain ‘scientific theories’ in meaningful words in a language that is spoken daily by workers and which is thus open to the consideration of the mass of people on this planet. This would be the context of a science which is controlled by humanity, by democratic production methods. Our science will not be opaque and controlled by an expert elite. To allow this is to deny democratic humanity, to deny a naturalised humanity and a humanised nature.
Brian wrote:The question is about recognising that democracy can be a double edged instrument and can hold back social progress.Here we have the nub of the real philosophical issue. Brian doesn’t really believe in workers’ power, or democracy. If it was the case, who is to tell workers that ‘democracy’ is ‘holding back social progress’? If that were true, then it must be either an elite who recognises it, or the proletariat itself. If the workers recognise that a sub-committee of delegates must be appointed to deal with some arcane issue, and that group would later report back with recommendations, then it is still a democratic decision to recognise the problem, embark on the process, and deal with the problem ‘holding back social progress’.But, this is not what you mean, Brian. You mean that the very fact of democracy is the problem. This is the bourgeois mindset that leads to dictatorship, to expert knowledge, elite control in science, and thus in politics and production. You have an irrational ‘fear of the mob’, Brian, and you’ve picked it up from your society. Unless you question why you think like this, and how you came to think like this, then your fears will remain. Of course, it’s always open to you to proclaim that your personal experience of this society has lead you to this conclusion, that ‘democracy is a double edged instrument’, and that you’re just a ‘practical man’ who avoids mere ‘philosophical’ and ‘theoretical’ speculation, and just deals with ‘the real world’. This ‘pragmatic’ approach is possible, but it must be obvious to you that it’s no basis for revolutionary thinking, or provides a point of origin for class consciousness.
Brian wrote:Especially when the search for truth hampers and restricts the advancement of science in the way you are suggesting. For in practice all scientific theories will be on hold until its established by the vote whether or not they are in fact truth.Again, this just shows ignorance of the current state of scientific research. The ‘search for truth’ is being hampered, now, in this society. Aren’t you even aware of how much money and effort is spent, not on issues of benefit to the mass of humanity, but on weapons and other ways of killing, on drugs which can be sold on the market (rather than drugs that are needed in poor societies)? There is no ‘blue sky research’ in this society, because money is required, and scientists don’t control the money. The universities almost totally focus physics research on certain avenues. Read Lee Smolin’s The Trouble with Physics; he’s an American research physicist, not a Communist, and the book was recommended here by an SPGB comrade who doesn’t post, but was seeking to help me advance. Of course, I bought the book and read it, unlike anybody else who is engaged on all these threads about science and democracy.And your simplistic view that ‘in practice all scientific theories will be on hold’ until their ‘truth is established’ – that’s precisely what happens now. Have you never read anything about the problems with the results from CERN and the search for Higgs Boson? I take it you haven’t. Only someone who holds a ‘copy theory of knowledge’ (that ‘knowledge’ is a ‘mirror’ of reality) and a ‘correspondence theory of truth’ (that ‘knowledge’ corresponds to ‘reality’) can even begin to think that there is not a time lag (and sometimes one of years, as for Einstein’s theory about Mercury) between the production of ‘scientific knowledge’ and its establishment as ‘true’.But, you’re concerned with the ‘delays caused by democracy’. Be truthful to yourself, Brain; it’s not ‘delays’ (a mere excuse by anti-democrats) but democracy itself that you won’t have in science.
Brian wrote:The search for truth will go on whether we vote on it or not and a vote on truth is not the end of the matter.Mere lip-service, like your lip-service to democracy, Brian.The search for truth by humans requires the participation of the whole of humanity. Only those who have an ideological belief that ‘matter talks to some humans’ and that that small minority of elite experts have a neutral method that allows them, and them alone, to produce ‘truth’.It doesn’t, they haven’t, and they don’t.The ideological belief that it does, they have and they can, is ‘materialism’.I’m a Marxist, my ideological beliefs about humans, nature, science, and the production of knowledge and truth are perfectly open and exposed to all, for critical comment by anyone.Brian, Hud, stuart, YMS, robbo, DJP, et al – your ideological beliefs about humans, nature, science, knowledge and truth are hidden, at least to yourselves.You hold ruling class views on those issues, hence, unsurprisingly, your nervousness about democracy in every sphere and the potential of all humans to develop.
robbo203 wrote:The only inference one can draw is that once a scientific theory has been determined by means of vote to be "true" by the global working class (7 billion people), then according to him, no criticism of the theory will be permitted.[my bold]I'm replying to this one allegation because it's a bare-faced lie, and robbo knows it.I've constantly argued that 'truth' is a social product, just like a 'policy', and must be voted upon.We scientists know that 'truth changes': what's 'true' one year, is often not true, the next. I've given lots of examples in the past of this.So, in fact, my position is the exact opposite of robbo's lie.Any 'theory' will always be criticisable, because so too will be any 'truth' based upon any theory.'Truth' will be like a paliamentary elected party, today: in power today, in opposition tomorrow, new parties formed, old parties collapsing.The real truth about robbo's elitist perspective is that it holds that 'truth', once 'known', can't be changed. That ideological belief is the basis of the power of elite experts.I ask other readers to consider: I argue for openness, plain language, democracy and continual criticism of 'social and historical' truths.robbo is opposed to democracy, hides his ideology, wants the 'language of maths' to be continued, doesn't want to make science and its explanations open to all, and won't have 'truth' examined and determined by humanity.robbo wants elite experts, who pretend to have a politically-neutral method (one not related to society or history) to tell us 'The Truth', in a language of heiroglyphs.And he's a liar. I said all this before, and he's read it probably dozens of times, so he knows it, and yet he tries to frighten others away from democratic ideas in science, by telling lies about my position.
LBird wrote:I’ll try to tie together an answer to the two latter posts, by Brian and Hud955. The class conscious proletariat will enforce a scientific method which is both democratic and comprehensible to the masses. So, rather than priests speaking Latin, or physicists speaking mathematics, we’ll have workers who can translate and explain ‘scientific theories’ in meaningful words in a language that is spoken daily by workers and which is thus open to the consideration of the mass of people on this planet. This would be the context of a science which is controlled by humanity, by democratic production methods. Our science will not be opaque and controlled by an expert elite. To allow this is to deny democratic humanity, to deny a naturalised humanity and a humanised nature.It looks like you introduced a big dent in your obession here with the mention of the scientific method being enforced by DPD. I doubt if any socialist would disagree with that procedure and process being put into practice. For unlike today, it would be a means of identifying science which is useful. Also by putting the theory through the scientific method and examined from all the angles necessary regarding its usefulness, it makes any vote on the actual theory irrelevant. So long has the (new?) scientific method is followed I would have no quarrel with the theory being examined for practical and useful purposes. The method itself should be the judge not the vote.
I promised not to feed the troll any more, but I couldn't believe what I just read above – that it is seriously proposed to "enforce" only the science that the masses can get their heads round, and that physicists who talk in maths – and presumably biologists who talk about genes – will be rounded up and sent to the Gulag. Unbelievable that people are still arguing for this kind of thing. I think the USSR holds more lessons and useful warnings for socialists than we sometimes glibly assume.
Brian wrote:Also by putting the theory through the scientific method and examined from all the angles necessary regarding its usefulness, it makes any vote on the actual theory irrelevant.Unfortunately, Brian, the scientific method is democratic. Thus, it makes a vote imperative.The lesson of the 20th century for socialists is that there is not an undemocratic method. That is a bourgeois myth. The myth of objectivity, of disinterested observers, of truth merely reflecting reality.Your view that there is a 'scientific method' outside of society, employed by experts, which 'impartially processes' a 'theory', is an ideological view.So, your ideological statement above should read:
Brian translated wrote:Also by putting the theory through the bourgeois scientific method and examined from all the angles necessary regarding its usefulness, it makes any vote on the actual theory irrelevant.There is no 'scientific method', unprefixed. That's why we need to be clear, and argue for a proletarian scientific method. That is, one which is a social process, controlled by humanity, not by an elite, who pretend to be 'impartial' about human concerns.
Brian wrote:So long has the (new?) scientific method is followed I would have no quarrel with the theory being examined for practical and useful purposes.The definition of 'practical and useful' can only be a democratic definition. Thus, once again, democracy is built into the 'new' scientific method. What's 'useful' to one class, isn't to another.
Brian wrote:The method itself should be the judge not the vote.Once again, I can only say, a 'method' doesn't exist outside of human concerns. You are still thinking that the bourgeois scientists have a neutral method, a myth which their own scientists have shattered.This is the point we are at now, in the 21st century. The 19th century beliefs, upon which the bourgeois myth of a 'method itself being the judge', should be long gone, especially for socialists.
LBird I see no point in continuing this discussion whilst your capacity for critical thinking is only concerned with distorting everything I've suggested. You appear to be the judge, the jury and the jailer on everything and everyone in order to feed your obsession for endless twaddle that a vote is necessary on all scientific theory.Not satisfied with having a vote by the whole of the global community in a socialist society to establish the scientific method preferred by such a society your insistence that a further vote is necessary on each and every scientific theory illustrates to me at least, that your obsession is dogmatic.
Brian wrote:LBird I see no point in continuing this discussion whilst your capacity for critical thinking is only concerned with distorting everything I've suggested. You appear to be the judge, the jury and the jailer on everything and everyone in order to feed your obsession for endless twaddle that a vote is necessary on all scientific theory.Not satisfied with having a vote by the whole of the global community in a socialist society to establish the scientific method preferred by such a society your insistence that a further vote is necessary on each and every scientific theory illustrates to me at least, that your obsession is dogmatic.You need to read what I'm writing, Brian, and stop following robbo's nonsense.Try reading the book I've just recommended. The only 'obsessive dogma' is your bourgeois one.
Any comrades who wish to get a better feel for the context of my positions, might find the following book useful. I've only just started reading it, but I know it covers many of the philosophical areas that I've tried to address.Dreams in Exile: Rediscovering Science and Ethics in Nineteenth-Century Social TheoryGeorge E. McCarthyhttp://www.amazon.com/Dreams-Exile-Rediscovering-Science-Nineteenth-Century/dp/1438425880£16.49, here:http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/1438425880?SubscriptionId=AKIAIWBZRQIIPF7IKQPA&tag=bookbutleruk-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=12734&creativeASIN=1438425880&condition=new
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:The only inference one can draw is that once a scientific theory has been determined by means of vote to be "true" by the global working class (7 billion people), then according to him, no criticism of the theory will be permitted.[my bold]I'm replying to this one allegation because it's a bare-faced lie, and robbo knows it.I've constantly argued that 'truth' is a social product, just like a 'policy', and must be voted upon.We scientists know that 'truth changes': what's 'true' one year, is often not true, the next. I've given lots of examples in the past of this.So, in fact, my position is the exact opposite of robbo's lie.
Well, what is the point of voting on the "truth" of a scientific theory in that case if it is not to shore it against critical assault? I cannot think of any possible reason, can you? I've asked you umpteen times to supply a reason but as usual you have just run away from the question. If you have some other reason as to why a scientific theories must be voted upon well then spit it out – tell us what i!. And, while you are about it, also tell us how you propose to organise literally multiple thousands of plebiscite among a global population of 7 billion every year relating to all those new scientific theories that come on stream. Or what makes you think that anyone on earth, let alone the majority, are capable of understanding the totality of scientific theories in order to competently vote upon them which you insist must be done. Why don't you answer these questions, LBird? Why do you constantly evade them? All you ever seem to do is patronisingly affect a air of weary resignation that you have "tried to help others on this forum see the light" but have failed. Your whole approach reeks of elitism – how dare this ignorant rabble question my superior judgement by asking such questions as the above and I will demonstrate my superiority by refusing to answer them! What a hypocrite. I did not say., by the way, that you ever said the reason why scientific theories "must be voted upon" is to ensure that criticism of theories shall not be permitted thereafter. I said that that this is an inference to be drawn from your insistence that such a vote must be taken. There is a difference between drawing an inference and making a bald statement to that effect, you know…. And if as you say the truth changes, then that makes your proposal that scientific theories "must be voted upon" by the global population even more ridiculous!. So now in addition to all those new theories coming on stream, all 7 billion of us may well be revisiting those old theories time and time again to vote once again upon them. Will any of us ever have time in between swotting up on the latest theory in microbiology doing the rounds and trudging off to the polling booths, to actually get down to produce our means of subsistence? I doubt it
LBird wrote:The real truth about robbo's elitist perspective is that it holds that 'truth', once 'known', can't be changed. That ideological belief is the basis of the power of elite experts.Except, of course, that this bears no relation whatsoever to anything I have ever said or suggested. I have actually explicitly stated that the "truth" is only ever provisional and advanced this as a further reason as to the pointlessness of voting upon it!So having accused others of bare-faced lies, it appears you are the elite expert on this forum in the concoction of bare faced lies
LBird wrote:robbo is opposed to democracy, hides his ideology, wants the 'language of maths' to be continued, doesn't want to make science and its explanations open to all, and won't have 'truth' examined and determined by humanity.More lies from LBrid. I've said quite explicitly that I support democratic decision making where it is needed but not where it is not needed. I have said quite openly where I said it is needed – in relation to practical decisions that affect our lives. I have also argued that this needed to be tailored to circumstances. Some decisions are local in nature; others global. The former will tend to exclude in de facto terms everyone else in global society if only because of the sheer overwhelming number of such decisions that have to be made every single day. The citizens in the borough of Islington cannot possibly be aware of the issues facing the citizens of some suburb of the city of Kisangani, statistically speaking. Here's another question for LBird – does he think the global population must be involved in deciding whether a new library should be built in Islington. Yes or no. LBird? I mention this becuase this is precisely the same reasoning that informs my approach to science which stupidly LBird characterises as "elitist". Its got nothing to do with elitism , a word which LBird seems not to understand. Its about the social division of labour. You cannot possibly become a competent neurosurgeon as well as a competent structural engineer, competent marine biologist or competent in all of the thousands upon thousands of other occupations. A degree of specialisation is unavoidable. LBird's view of the world is utterly childish and behind the mantra of his supposed commitment to democracy, he has no grasp whatsoever of the actual complexities we are dealing with
LBird wrote:robbo wants elite experts, who pretend to have a politically-neutral method (one not related to society or history) to tell us 'The Truth', in a language of heiroglyphs.More lies from LBird. I have never once claimed that experts employ a politically-neutral method. Oddly enough that is the one thing I do agree with LBird upon – that science can never be value free. However unless you are actually engaged in serious research on, let us say, the dynamics of cell division in microbiology, how are you going to be able to tell others what the "truth" is? Does it worry me that in de facto terms only a small minority are in a position to competently tell me what is going on in the process of cell division. Not at all. That gives them not one iota of more social power over me in a communist world where democratic decision making will apply where it is needed – in the practical decisions of daily life – and not where it is not needed , in the production of truth in science.. The latter is just a crackpot idea and I cannot help noticing that apart from just regurgitating the same old tedious mantra times and time again, LBird has not been able to advance a single credible argument to support this idea of his. He has run away from every question that has been asked of him because he knows that to even attempt to answer them will expose him as a complete buffoon .
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.