Ludwik Fleck – a recommendation for reading, for those interested in science

[LBird]

I have just read this book, and I can't recommend it highly enough to Democratic Communists:

Ludwik Fleck Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact

http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Development-Scientific-Ludwik-Fleck/dp/0226253252

I wish that I had read this much sooner. I can only say that any comrade reading it will get to my position of understanding about 'science' so much quicker!

[alanjjohnstone]

I came across this quote today, LBird, that i think you might appreciate if you aren't already aware of it

Quote:

Give me an adequate army, with power to provide it with more pay and better food than falls to the lot of the average man, and I will undertake, within 30 years, to make the majority of the population believe that two and two are three, that water freezes when it gets hot and boils when it gets cold, or any other nonsense that might seem to serve the interest of the state. – Bertrand Russell

As you said …facts even of physical science can be ideological and change to suit a ruling class, eh? 

[jondwhite]

Bertrand Russell, my favourite liberal "socialist"

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

As you said …facts even of physical science can be ideological and change to suit a ruling class, eh? 

[my bold]What I, Fleck, Pannekoek and Marx actually say is that 'facts even of physical science are ideological'.The only people who argue that 'facts' are not related to a consciousness, that 'scientific knowledge' is a mere reflection of something 'out there', that 'Truth', once 'discovered', is 'True' forever, are those ideologically influenced by bourgeois 19th century science, which, most tragically, also included Engels. That is, so-called 'materialists'.The political importance of this (which is why it's so important that comrades not so interested in physics or maths must also take some interest in the discussion) is that if 'Truth' isn't a social creation, but is the product of an elite, and it's a product that cannot be voted on (so we must take the word of an elite and cannot criticise or remove that elite), then…… workers cannot democratically control the means of production.We would remain the passive recipients of 'Scientific Knowledge', who would only control the production of 'factory widgets', but not the production of our universities and our research.An elite would remain in command of social thinking.This, politically, is Leninism. That's why Lenin was a 'materialist'.Fleck's work is a good starting point for workers to begin to challenge the ideological hegemony of bourgeois science, and thus Engels' 'materialism'.The only way forward for us is to argue for 'democratic science', which clearly includes 'democratic physics' and 'democratic maths'. This can't be done if one holds to 'materialism', because 'matter', to the exclusion of 'social consciousness', is the determinant of 'Truth', and the elite claim to know what 'matter' says, and that this can't be voted upon by the majority.

[alanjjohnstone]

What you say is ideological, Lbird. There is no "truth" in what you post. My comment is just as true as yours. I demand a vote !! If what i say is not as true as what you say then i'm taking my ball home and not playing with you anymore

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Bertrand Russell, my favourite liberal "socialist"

Yeah, Russell was an elitist, who thought that his 'average man', 'the majority of the population', were collectively unable to out-think him. What a knob.It's easy to show how '2+2=11', and I'm sure that the interplay of temperature and pressure makes his 'cold/freeze' and 'hot/boil' relationships much more debateable, without even introducing the question of the framework of consciousness that determines what counts as a 'relationship'.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

What you say is ideological, Lbird. There is no "truth" in what you post. My comment is just as true as yours. I demand a vote !! If what i say is not as true as what you say then i'm taking my ball home and not playing with you anymore

I'm all for your suggestion, alan!Let's vote!It will be strange to see the majority here, supposedly 'democratic' socialists, voting for 'matter', rather than 'class conscious proletariat', as the decider of human truths.Paradoxically, both I'll lose, and so too will the party. Because it will be a result that claims that the party can know something that workers can't – otherwise, they'd let workers vote on 'truth'.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

It will be strange to see the majority here, supposedly 'democratic' socialists, voting for 'matter', rather than 'class conscious proletariat', as the decider of human truths.

So we, the majority, have voted for 'materialism' but you do not accept that vote. You think you are right. And you accuse us of being elitist?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

We would remain the passive recipients of 'Scientific Knowledge', who would only control the production of 'factory widgets', but not the production of our universities and our research.An elite would remain in command of social thinking.

I would appreciate an explanation of how this 'elite' would have advantage over 'passive recipients' in a socialist society?Why should I fear this 'elite' and what sort of control/power  would they have over me.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

It will be strange to see the majority here, supposedly 'democratic' socialists, voting for 'matter', rather than 'class conscious proletariat', as the decider of human truths.

So we, the majority, have voted for 'materialism' but you do not accept that vote. You think you are right. And you accuse us of being elitist?

But I do 'accept the vote', Vin.The SPGB has made it clear to me, a non-member, that my view of a 'democratic proletariat' has been rejected, in favour of the view of a 'democratic party'.That's why I'm a non-member. Clearly, at any time my minority view (in party terms) can be banned, if it is believed that I'm gaining some minority traction anongst the membership, and that was seen as destructive of 'democratic party-ism'. By your party view, that would be a 'democratic banning', and I can't argue with that. I would just stop trying to post, if I was unable to post.That would be the paradox: a democrat democratically banned.Of course, the solution is 'worker's democracy', rather than 'party democracy', but we aren't there yet, are we? The SPGB argues for a 'democracy' outside of 'workers', just as it argues for 'matter' outside of 'consciousness'.That will allow the post-revolutionary regime to be one of a party elite, which is Leninism.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

We would remain the passive recipients of 'Scientific Knowledge', who would only control the production of 'factory widgets', but not the production of our universities and our research.An elite would remain in command of social thinking.

I would appreciate an explanation of how this 'elite' would have advantage over 'passive recipients' in a socialist society?Why should I fear this 'elite' and what sort of control/power  would they have over me.

If physics produces 'knowledge' that can't be voted upon (ie, that 'truth' can't be elected), then the producing elite would be the 'active side', and the workers would be the 'passive recipients'.Clearly, it wouldn't be a 'socialist society', as I think it should be defined.That is, a society that has its production democratically controlled. The production of 'ideas', 'knowledge', 'Truth', would be in the hands of an elite.What sort of 'control/power' do you think that they would 'have over you'?Are you willing to even allow the possibility? We might have our disagreements, Vin, but I can't picture you 'obeying an elite'. You're an argumentative bastard, just like me.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 By your party view, that would be a 'democratic banning', and I can't argue with that. I would just stop trying to post, if I was unable to post.That would be the paradox: a democrat democratically banned.

But it is a paradox of your own creation.  At the moment, you are the minority elite it is you that suggests the majority ban the 'elite' . 

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

What sort of 'control/power' do you think that they would 'have over you'?

but that is my question of you and I would appreciate if you can explain to me how an 'elite will be able to influence and control me in a socialist society.   

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 By your party view, that would be a 'democratic banning', and I can't argue with that. I would just stop trying to post, if I was unable to post.That would be the paradox: a democrat democratically banned.

But it is a paradox of your own creation.  At the moment, you are the minority elite it is you that suggests the majority ban the 'elite' .

A 'minority' is not necessarily an 'elite', Vin.I'm surprised that I have to explain this to you: 'an elite' is 'a minority with power'.I'm a minority in the democratic sense, which we'll always have with us, as long as we argue for democracy: I'm 'a minority without power', and so not 'an elite'.An 'elite' cannot be outvoted (so 'materialists' cannot be outvoted: they have a special access to 'matter'), but a 'minority' is always outvoted, by definition.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

What sort of 'control/power' do you think that they would 'have over you'?

but that is my question of you and I would appreciate if you can explain to me how an 'elite will be able to influence and control me in a socialist society. 

If you're a 'materialist' (and you say that you are), then you must believe that 'matter' trumps 'social consciousness'. And so, those who can tell you what 'matter' is, outside of a society's social and historical development (which clearly changes), must be accepted as telling you The Truth.If you understand the social relationship between priests and laity, then you'll understand the relationship between 'an elite' and 'you'.So, if you, as an individual, have picked up a rock, and you think it is solid, and 'materialists' tell you that 'it is solid, outside of any consciousness', you'll simply believe them.Do I need to point out the dangers of both 'starting from oneself as an individual' and 'attributing power to an object', for you to recognise the starting point of bourgeois political economy in 'individuals' and 'commodities', as told by those with 'private productive property'?Why trust bourgeois physicists, but not bourgeois economists? They both produce ideas that many simply believe in.Unless we democratise all social production, we leave ourselves vulnerable to the power of an elite.Perhaps the best way for me to 'explain' is to call the elite 'Religious Materialists'. This might give you some insight into the problem. If you believe in 'matter', it's synonymous with belief in 'grace'. 'Grace' was as real as 'matter', to a certain social consciousness.

[Author]

Posts