Organisation of work and free access

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I regard 'science' as a central bastion of bourgeois authority

Why then is there so much scientific research that undermines many claims that have previously been used to justify the capitalist system? For example the findings of behavioural economics have shown the central claims of neo-classical economics to be false.And what political implications are there to be found in physics, astronomy and geology?Do you think in socialism the philosophers should also be removed from being 'in charge' of philosophy? Surely they would have as much, if not more, opportunity for creating mischief.In fact perhaps we should remove all 'control' from all of those undertaking tasks that require specialist training, lest they set up a special clique and try and take over the world?

Bertrand Russell wrote:

The concept of 'truth' as something dependent upon facts largely outside human control has been one of the ways in which philosophy hithero has inculcated the necessary element of humility. When this check upon pride is removed, a further step is taken on the road towards a certain kind of madness – the intoxication of power which invaded philosophy with Fichte, and to which modern men, whether philosophers or not, are prone. I am persuaded that this intoxication is the greatest danger of our time, and that any philosophy which, however unintentionally , contributes to it is increasing the danger of a vast social disaster

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Bertrand Russell wrote:

The concept of 'truth' as something dependent upon facts largely outside human control…

Why aren't you concerned with exploring 'dependent' and 'largely', DJP?Russell didn't say 'truth equals facts'.You still seem to think I'm arguing 'truth equals anything'.There is a third postion between 'truth equals facts' and 'truth equals anything'.It's the position of Marx, Pannekoek and, as you show, Russell.

[twc]

Nature as FoundationRussell is cutting us moderns down to size. According to him, the ancients revered external nature [and its dire necessity] as the realm where scientific truth resides. Human arrogance set in with the Renaissance, and got out of hand when Fichte [philosophical code for Hegel and Marx] turned truth into a social construct.That is Russell’s bourgeois take on truth, and on the threat to it of growing irrationality. The titled Lord is proposing we all adopt social humility toward external nature as antidote.Like you, he warns against social corrosion. Like you he lacks an abstract deterministic theory of consciousness — for us, he lacks the materialist conception of history.You Read What You Want to ReadQuite funny that you blindly misread Russell as supporting your position on truth — recoiling from his ideologically toxic reference to ‘facts’ and fooled by his hysteria over impending disaster.What a devastating self-critique you unconsciously make of yourself, as exemplary educator of the educator, exposing your embarrassing 180° twist in adjudicating ideological truth as falsehood.If you easily dupe yourself to vote for Russell when every fibre in your body compels you to vote against him, heaven save socialism from impending catastrophes when it lets you loose to misdirect your personal vote on the truth of the whole of human science!Self-correctionRussell famously takes 300 pages to “prove” 1 + 1 = 2 [would you have sneered — “in what base ≥3?”] and then Frege had the indecency to locate a paradox in Russell’s set theoretic assumptions back on page one.Note, Russell’s immediate retraction exemplifies that science is, in its deterministic practice, self-correcting.But your non-deterministic tripartite model of cognition provides no practical method of self correction — something you demonstrably need. That’s precisely why you crave correction by ideology.Your tripartite schema is correct as far as it goes — philosophically speaking. But it is incomplete, scientifically speaking. And so it must remain forever ideological. Its determinism can only be decided by a battle of competing ideologies.You scornfully look down your nose from on high upon Engels’s simple description of self-correction, which is not intended to be “philosophical”, as you misjudge it to be.Waste of TimeYou seem blithely unaware that scientific revision has implications. It has ripple effects in unexpected places. Nature is connected. And our conception of it [including us, as we are part of it] changes all the time.[That has nothing to do with 19th century materialism.]The problem you aim to solve falls in the computational complexity class of NP-complete [nondeterministic polynomial time] problems. Mankind needs to spend its time in socialism in far more productive ways.How about trying deterministic base–superstructure science instead.

[Author]

Posts