Organisation of work and free access

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Scientific knowledge is produced by humans and has the status of a ‘truth’. This ‘truth’ is not the same thing as the independently-existing object, of which some ‘knowledge’ has been actively constructed by humans. Thus, humans being fallible, a ‘truth’ (scientific knowledge) might be actually untrue. This can be revealed by other humans interrogating the same independently-existing object and actively constructing another ‘truth’ which is then judged by humans to be a more accurate (but still not final or complete) ‘truth’. Thus, ‘truth’ has a history. It is not ‘The Truth’.Since society creates ‘truths’, they are social truths. It is only a short step to realise that, in a class-divided society, ‘truth’ will have a class component, sometimes great, sometimes small. And judgements between ‘truths’ are social judgements. There is no universal ‘truth’ which a supposedly ‘value-free’ method can produce. Humans are not ‘value-free’.

If you want to use this definition of 'truth' then I would agree with the above. Though to avoid the confusion between 'truth' and 'The Truth', perhaps it would be clearer and better to talk of sceintific 'hypotheses' instead of scientific 'truths'?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Should science (in all its manifestations and phases) under Communism be under the control of 'special experts' (ie. 'scientists') or democratic control?

If 'democratic control' means that all people should have an equal say in all decisions then I don't think such a thing would be of use. Certain areas of decision making do require specialist knowledge, for example I don't think airline pilots should decide the best way to land the plane by taking a poll of the passengers.But if 'democratic control' means that all people potentially have a say in the decision making process then there is no conflict. Anyone who had the desire and capacity to fill a particular role would be able to undertake the relevant training required to be able to do it.I don't see how you could have a technological society without some kind of specialists, and as long as new people where able to enter the field (why wouldn't they) this wouldn't be a problem.So in a society of common ownership those who have an interest and ability for scientific work would be able to freely develop and apply there skills and expertise.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Though to avoid the confusion between 'truth' and 'The Truth', perhaps it would be clearer and better to talk of sceintific 'hypotheses' instead of scientific 'truths'?

No, 'scientific hypotheses' are theories which determine what is acceptable as evidence.'Scientific truths' are partial answers based upon the selected evidence.The reason to distinguish between 'truth' and 'The Truth' is to demarcate 'science' (as we've defined it on this thread, following Marx, Dietzgen, Pannekoek and Buick) from 'bourgeois ideology masquerading as science'.I'd treat any scientist's words as comparable to a police officer giving evidence in court about a strike. It might be considered truthful by the striking workers (some coppers do tell the 'truth', a 'truth' which matches our perspective of events), but our experience means that we know that the police perspective is a bit, err, 'skewed', from our perspective.I regard any comrades who agree with 'the scientific method produces the unvarnished truth' as a bit like saying 'a copper wouldn't lie in court, would they?'. Call me cynical…

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

But if 'democratic control' means that all people potentially have a say in the decision making process then there is no conflict. Anyone who had the desire and capacity to fill a particular role would be able to undertake the relevant training required to be able to do it…..So in a society of common ownership those who have an interest and ability for scientific work would be able to freely develop and apply there skills and expertise.

I can go along with this, DJP. It equates to 'democratic control of science', to all intents and purposes.I think what you've said about 'specialists', like pilots, is a red herring, which was addressed earlier in the thread with respect to 'an authority' (ALB or alanjjohnstone?).

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Well, this denial of a 'revision board' lends itself to the latter answer of 'democratic control'. But I think clarification of your position is better, rather than me just making a possibly mistaken assumption. Could you spell out your position, if you have come to a final conclusion? If you haven't, we can continue to thrash it out.

I don't know where this idea of an "authority" to control science comes from. It's a figment of your imagination. In fact the nearest person to propose something of this sort has been yourself with your suggestion that it should be overseen by "class-conscious proletarian Communists".In any event, there is no point in drawing up a blueprint now (a "policy" I think you called it in one of your posts) as it's up to those in future socialist society to decide the details. All we can do is say that science policy and scientific research will, like everything else, be subject to overall democratic control. We can also assume that research establishments will, like all other workplaces, be run on a democratic basis with an elected works council.Personally I would think that, once the priorities have been decided and the resources allocated, those doing the research can be left to get on with it. I don't see why their findings should have to go to any "board" or "authority", but simply published, not just in specialist scientific journals but in popular science magazines (which, with a better informed "public", could well have a wider circulation than today) so everybody interested can see what's going on and discuss them.I don't suppose there will be immediate agreement on one group of scientists' findings any more than there is today and so it can be assumed that other groups will test the findings to see if they come up with the same result or not. Maybe they'll find something else, which will lead to the original findings being modified. That's how 'science' works. Much as happens today (dare I say it), except within the framework of democratic control rather than dictated by profit.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't know where this idea of an "authority" to control science comes from. It's a figment of your imagination. In fact the nearest person to propose something of this sort has been yourself with your suggestion that it should be overseen by "class-conscious proletarian Communists".

[my bold]So, only I think 'science' is social and thus must, by that nature, be under social control?

ALB, same post, wrote:

All we can do is say that science policy and scientific research will, like everything else, be subject to overall democratic control. We can also assume that research establishments will, like all other workplaces, be run on a democratic basis with an elected works council.

[my bold]Perhaps you have a short memory, ALB. Plus, the tone of your post ('it's a figment of your imagination') is less than comradely.If a 'council' isn't an 'authority', and your 'we' means 'me', then perhaps you're correct that this is all my 'imagination'. Let's hope the other posters can democratically decide between our accounts, eh?

ALB wrote:

That's how 'science' works. Much as happens today.

But that is not 'how science works' – that's what this whole discussion has been about. The bourgeois myth of 'the workings of science'. The myth that, if left to themselves, 'scientists' will just do 'science'.I'm not sure why your attitude to these issues (and me?) has changed – I thought that yesterday we'd all come to some comradely agreement about 'science', especially given the 1975 post by Adam Buick. That's long before I attempted to understand these vital issues for Communists.Can we leave personal considerations out of the discussion, and merely debate the issue of 'the social control of science'? Please, comrade.

[ALB]

It's just that you keeping on bringing up your "Mengele Commission" jibe (at least twice now, the last in the post to which I was replying). As an article in this month's Socialist Standard points out:

Quote:

Someone has said that there is a certain inevitability of the mention of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis terminating many emotionally charged political debates.

And Mengele is worse than Hitler, not that this debate is that emotionally charged or at least needs to be.As we all here agree that in socialism/communism science and science policy should be subject to democratic social control of some kind, there's not  all that much more to discuss except to sign the Protocols of Agreement !.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

It's just that you keeping on bringing up your "Mengele Commission" jibe (at least twice now, the last in the post to which I was replying).

Well, it was supposed to be a joke.If you haven't taken it as so, I can only apologise profusely. I'm sorry, comrade.By way of explanation, I was trying to throw into sharp relief the fact that, if one agrees with 'social control of science' (as we both do), but doesn't agree with that 'control' being democratic, the implication is an undemocratic control by 'experts', like 'scientists'. And as Mengele was a 'scientist' (as were his university professors, for whom he did the research on genetics (twins, vivisection of pregnant mothers, etc.)), then it seems, to me, applicable to name this 'undemocratic control commission' after a Nazi scientist.This makes clear my opinion of the dangers of looking to 'scientists' to police 'science'.Once again, I'm sorry that the 'jibe' fell flat: it wasn't aimed at you personally, but a political position, that of a non-democratic authority for a 'value-free' (sic) science, an 'authority of scientists'.Science, like production, must be a mass activity. No separation of the economy or science from the whole of humanity.'Science', like private productive property, will cease to be in its current form.

[alanjjohnstone]

This may be of interest http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/19/big-science-little-minds/ 'science fears that if it were more honest (and humble) about such matters it would lose its social authority. They don’t want that and the people who employ them, the government and corporations, do not want that… …"Buddhism argues that reality is a matter of “dependent co-origination.” We say there are galaxies, but there is no galaxy, there is only a co-dependent arrangement of things that are not galaxies." Without bothering to check out, i am sure Dietzgen went on about  naming and labelling things as core of reality as reflected in that quote. 

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

This may be of interest http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/19/big-science-little-minds/ 'science fears that if it were more honest (and humble) about such matters it would lose its social authority. They don’t want that and the people who employ them, the government and corporations, do not want that…

No mention of 'democracy' in science within the article.Reiterates the problems with 'science' within capitalist society, but misses the opportunity to label it as 'bourgeois science' and make a plea for 'communist science' and the democratic control of human science by all humans.The danger with just lambasting 'science', without picking out what we consider the rational aspects of the method, is that it leaves open the road to romantics, post-modernism, relativism, individual opinion… witches, myths, ghosts…Our criticisms of 'science' must be constructive criticisms, not the destruction of 'science' in its entirety.We can afford to be 'more honest (and humble) about such matters' because our communist science would locate 'its social authority' in humanity, not specialists (or 'the people who employ them, the government and corporations').We need to build a case for 'science' that current scientists, disaffected by their experience of current 'science', can support.'Free access communism' would embrace the sort of blue-sky research that today's scientists can only dream about. Plus, scientific education available to all, freely available publications, etc., would show scientists that the only way of achieving their own dream of what science should be about would be by f.a.c.A questioning, critical humanity.

[ALB]

I'm replying here to this from another thread (the one on the ICC) so as not derail that one:

LBird wrote:

Further, related to our discussions on the 'free access' thread, what is the SPGB position on the 'democratic control of science'?I would argue that if the SPGB's answers are, respectively, 'subjective' and 'elite specialist control', then I think that 'the SPGB has made mistakes'.I could be wrong, of course…

I thought we'd cleared up that the SPGB does not advocate "elite specialist control" of science in a socialist society.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I thought we'd cleared up that the SPGB does not advocate "elite specialist control" of science in a socialist society.

LBird wrote:

…if…

I was indulging alanjjohnstone's desire to return that thread to focus on his initial question.But since you've raised the issue, again, quite frankly it took some time to reach the conclusion that the SPGB is in favour of the complete democratic control of the entire process of science, no 'ifs or buts', and many posters didn't seem to be aware of that stance before I raised the issue.Anyway, I'm glad to hear it, and it only moves me closer to the SPGB.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Anyway, I'm glad to hear it, and it only moves me closer to the SPGB.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-application 

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

LBird wrote:

Anyway, I'm glad to hear it, and it only moves me closer to the SPGB.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/membership-application

I think that I'm with Marx on this one.Groucho, that is.

[alanjjohnstone]

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." – Groucho Marx  If we can't get your membership, will still gladly take your money !!!

[Author]

Posts