Is it possible to apply the rigours of democracy to the scientific method and it’s application?
- This topic has 12 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I post this question due to the current discussion on the
"the difference between Marxism and original communist theory/ideology" thread seems to be going around in circles.
By the rigours of democracy I mean applying: accountability, responsibility and transparency to the scientific method. I do not include morals and ethics for the obvious reasons the practicality of applying democracy does not rest on moral or ethical consideration alone but on the effective governance of the scientific community through regulations and rules.
I think democracy is applicable in terms of the allocation of resources to particular scientific research. That 'investment' in pure science should continue is essential. It's difficult to conceive of the scientific method itself changing as I've always thought of it as potentially subversive of bourgeois ideology when practiced correctly. The scientists themselves will be free of reactionary ideology which, presumably, causes confusion and frustration within our culture. The commercial pressure to manipulate experimental data results will also disappear.
What's wrong with you Brian? Let that thread go round in circles and not open another one for our feathered friend. This forum is to discuss socialist ideas not the bizarre theories of some eccentric individual. Sometimes we are our worst enemies.
ALB wrote:What's wrong with you Brian? Let that thread go round in circles and not open another one for our feathered friend. This forum is to discuss socialist ideas not the bizarre theories of some eccentric individual. Sometimes we are our worst enemies.Well, I wasn't going to interfere with Brian's separate attempt to get the SPGB to do some critical thinking, but clowns like you must be challenged.If there's any "bizarre theories of some eccentric individual" at stake here, they are the 'social production' theories of Marx.But, you wouldn't know that would you, because you're an Engelsian Materialist, without a clue about Marx's works.Do me a favour, and keep your childish insults to yourself.Since I'm here, though, bit of advice to Brian.Whose 'scientific method' are you about to discuss? Or are you starting from the socio-historically specific assumption that the method of the bourgeoisie is universal?If you are assuming the non-historic, non-social, 'scientific method', you should all be open with one another that you're all starting from that ideological assumption.
ALB wrote:What's wrong with you Brian? Let that thread go round in circles and not open another one for our feathered friend. This forum is to discuss socialist ideas not the bizarre theories of some eccentric individual. Sometimes we are our worst enemies.An OP which is implying there are limits to the application of democracy is I assume discussing socialist ideas. For instance, we can take it as a given that applying the scientific method for the creation of WMD is a nono in socialism. But how would a socialist society ensure the environmental policy is not in conflict with the scientific method or vice versus?
LBird wrote:Since I'm here, though, bit of advice to Brian.Whose 'scientific method' are you about to discuss? Or are you starting from the socio-historically specific assumption that the method of the bourgeoisie is universal?If you are assuming the non-historic, non-social, 'scientific method', you should all be open with one another that you're all starting from that ideological assumption.The change in the scientific method is taken as a given in a socialist society, and not before. Thus, the old and new scientific methods will be face to face in the pre-revolutionary period I would think? So your "bit of advice" is not required, thank you very much. But this change itself in the post-revolutionary period will be a challenge for the community in relation to the allocation of resources. For I presume with the freedom of technological advance no longer hindered by costs and bourgeoisie ideology the scientist will have a field in coming forward with all their pet theories.Such a state of affairs in my estimation requiries a system analysis on what is immediately necessary and what isn't immediately necessary. This implies a system of governance based on an universal code of regulation and rules would be of immediate concern in the pre-revolutionary period. However, how would the decision making process for this be set up, and would such a panel consist purely of scientists or a mixture of lay-persons and scientists? Obviously such challenges and questions are presuming that Direct Participatory Democracy can be applied to the scientific method and the scientific community as a whole. Nevertheless, in that regard I'm just using some critical thinking and the philosophy of science to test the waters, so to speak.
Wez wrote:I think democracy is applicable in terms of the allocation of resources to particular scientific research. That 'investment' in pure science should continue is essential. It's difficult to conceive of the scientific method itself changing as I've always thought of it as potentially subversive of bourgeois ideology when practiced correctly. The scientists themselves will be free of reactionary ideology which, presumably, causes confusion and frustration within our culture. The commercial pressure to manipulate experimental data results will also disappear.I also agree democracy would have to be applicable when allocating the resources to particular scientific research. But what would be the benchmark for such research? Once the subversive cloak is no longer necessary and the true complexity of science finally revealed and the possiibility of combining the natural sciences with the social sciences comes that bit nearer the methodology plus the system analysis is going to be radically overhauled.I have to stress that is my opinion and contains no scientific validity whatsoever. Scientists are not very fond of "opinions".https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
After some study of the subject it would appear, to me, that there never has been a consensus on what actually constitutes the 'scientific method'. The book Against Method by Paul Feyerabend provides a fascinating insight into its development as a coherent (or incoherent) philosophy.
Wez wrote:After some study of the subject it would appear, to me, that there never has been a consensus on what actually constitutes the 'scientific method'. The book Against Method by Paul Feyerabend provides a fascinating insight into its development as a coherent (or incoherent) philosophy.Couple of issues and problems with Feyerabend's account on the evolution of science it seems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method . He argues from the standpoint that the present "scientific method" is not a universal whole and that different fields of science use and apply different methodology to their specific subject. This may well be the case, but not I suspect to the extent to which he descibes it. And let's not forget that there is a consensus amongst all scientists in that they all agree even their method is subject to change when new evidence is produced which proves another methodology is more viable.Whereas, we take it as a given that a socialist society will introduce a different "scientific method" and the application of science will be under the democratic control of the associated producers. Or like robbo puts it on another thread: Democracy is about practical decisions that have a practical bearing on our lives in terms of the allocation of resources to certain desired objectives. It is not about deciding the scientific truth of this or that theory. That is a complete waste of time and resources and its utterly pointless.If this is the case how do the majority ensure the decision making process is up to the task for agreeing what is practical and what isn't practical? What will be the benchmarks, standards, regulations and rules which will define and allocate resources under the new "scientific method"?.
I think you over estimate most scientists concern with the philosophy of science (what constitutes scientific method etc.). Most are wage slaves like the rest of us who just perform alienated intellectual labour for their masters with no ideological questions asked.
Wez wrote:I think you over estimate most scientists concern with the philosophy of science (what constitutes scientific method etc.). Most are wage slaves like the rest of us who just perform alienated intellectual labour for their masters with no ideological questions asked.In all honesty this is failing to respond to the OP. Personally, I'm not that really concerned about the present scientific method or even the new scientific method which socialism will herald in. Indeed, I'm staying focused on the implications and consequences contained in the last two paragraphs of my last posting #19.
Brian wrote:ALB wrote:What's wrong with you Brian? Let that thread go round in circles and not open another one for our feathered friend. This forum is to discuss socialist ideas not the bizarre theories of some eccentric individual. Sometimes we are our worst enemies.An OP which is implying there are limits to the application of democracy is I assume discussing socialist ideas.
I tend to agree. Sometimes ideas, however bizarre, can serve as a foil for productive discussion. The question of where to draw the line when it comes to the application of democracy is an important one for socialists. Democratic practice lies at the heart of the socialist project. We socialists call for the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production in a future socialist society. But what does this actually mean in practice? How far do we go with the concept of democratic control? I have been attacking LBirds frankly preposterous idea that scientific theories should be subject to a democratic vote. Not only is this logistically speaking, totally impractical; it also serves absolutely no point and is totally inimical to the self critical aspect of scientific discovery itself. But what about other areas of life in a socialist society? How far do we extend democratic control over these? There are other values apart from democratic values to take into account. Freedom for example. LBird may well sneer at this as a bourgeois preoccupation but Marx himself talked of the free development of each as being a condition for the free development of all. Freedom is not opposed to democratic values but complements such values. Its a question of getting the balance right. For instance, the communist principle of " from each according to ability to each according to need" presupposes that we as individuals chose to decide how we contribute to society and what we take from it in the form of the goods and services we appropriate. It would be utterly absurd for a global society to democratically decide by means of a vote what food we should eat, what our music preferences should be or what clothes we should wear At bottom, democracy is about the resolution of conflicting views and interests and presupposes that we give equal moral weight to everyone in the decision making process. That is to say, democracy presupposes equality which in a socialist society springs from our equal relationship to the means of wealth production. So really democracy is about to resolve conflicting or potentially conflicting objectives that impact on the way in which resources are allocated. It is not about the validity of scientific theories or the particular lifestyle we may chose to adopt. But there is another aspect to this which has been overlooked. While we talk about democratic control of the means of production, what about the process of producing wealth itself in a socialist society? In my view the great majority of decisions impacting upon the allocation of resources simply do not need any kind of democratic mandate at all. They are grounded in the spontaneous operation or automaticity of the production process itself based on a self regulating, system of stock control. Factory A does not need to convene a democratic meeting to decide how to respond to a request for more stock from Distribution store X. It just does it. The democratic mandate has to do with the parameters within which such automatic decisions are made, not the decisions themselves Furthermore, what is overlooked by people like LBird is that a socialist society must necessarily be to a large extent a decentralised system of production or, if you prefer, a nested hierarchy of scales of production – local regional and global – with the great preponderance of decisions being made at the local level . LBird's distinct preference for all decisions to be made at the global level is a recipe for society-wide or centralised planning. It is totally impractical for all sorts of reasons and ironically in LBird's case, thoroughly Leninist in inspiration Hence Lenin's idea of socialism that The whole of society will have become a single office and a single factory (State and Revolution) Does LBird endorse this idea, I wonder?
robbo203 wrote:At bottom, democracy is about the resolution of conflicting views and interests and presupposes that we give equal moral weight to everyone in the decision making process. That is to say, democracy presupposes equality which in a socialist society springs from our equal relationship to the means of wealth production. So really democracy is about to resolve conflicting or potentially conflicting objectives that impact on the way in which resources are allocated. It is not about the validity of scientific theories or the particular lifestyle we may chose to adopt. But there is another aspect to this which has been overlooked. While we talk about democratic control of the means of production, what about the process of producing wealth itself in a socialist society? In my view the great majority of decisions impacting upon the allocation of resources simply do not need any kind of democratic mandate at all. They are grounded in the spontaneous operation or automaticity of the production process itself based on a self regulating, system of stock control. Factory A does not need to convene a democratic meeting to decide how to respond to a request for more stock from Distribution store X. It just does it. The democratic mandate has to do with the parameters within which such automatic decisions are made, not the decisions themselvesThe OP goes further than just discussing "the process of producing wealth itself in a socialist society". Indeed it directly implies the potential for increasing wealth in a socialist society via the application of a new scientific method is taken as a given. Nonetheless, the application of "democratic control" also implies that this potential for the advancement of science will by necessity involve certain 'control mechanisms' are under consideration. So there's a balance between what is needed and what isn't needed to increase the social wealth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.