Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Lbird,No, I don't think he is, but to my mind a mild variant on Russell's Teapot applies to any notion of a truth beyond the observable.So, back to prime numbers, is it true that there are an infinite number of prime numbers?
Vin Maratty wrote:There is a new hurdle facing the socialist movement:We in the world socialist movement have up until now analysed capitalism through bourgeois scientific spectacles which means we are way off the mark.Furthermore, we have failed to grasp this idea of a ‘proletarian science’ so what hope is there for the working class?The vast majority of workers will have to grapple with the ‘philosophy of science’ understand the past errors of bourgeois and other philosophies and settle on a ‘proletarian science’.A mammoth task indeedVin, how else can you see workers taking over production, if not by 'grappling' with 'science'?If workers remain merely concerned with their 'day-to-day' lives, of feeding and enjoying themselves, who will make their decisions for them? The 'elite' that Marx warns us against?Of course it's 'a mammoth task'!I, for one, am prepared to try to both develop myself and my comrades.But, if you wish to remain looking 'through bourgeois scientific specacles' (perhaps in the mistaken belief that there are no 'bourgeois spectacles'), why bother to criticise 'bourgeois' economics, either? Or 'individualism'?In fact, why not just stick to the old way of doing things? I'm baffled by the obvious belief on this site in the sanctity of bourgeois thought.Oh, sorry, the 'Real World' (copyright, Conservative Philosophical Productions) which is obvious to any individual who cares to open their bedroom curtains in the morning. There's no need to confront our social brainwashing – after all, we're all individuals!What do comrades here think that 'ruling class ideas' consist of?'Ruling class ideas' are the ideas that most people hold: 'science produces the Truth', 'we're all individuals', 'TINA to the Market'. If you've rejected the last one, Vin, why not the others?This is not a 'new hurdle', Vin, but the same one we still haven't leapt since Marx's death.
ALB wrote:His problem, as far as I can see, is that he regards any interpretation of the observable world as entirely subjective, hence opening the door to "extreme relativism".But I keep stressing 'THEORY AND PRACTICE' and 'SOCIAL SUBJECT' and 'REALISM'.How to god can that be interpretated as ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE?I'm beginning to think my screen is showing different words to those of other comrades here.Can everybody see 'THEORY AND PRACTICE'?Can everybody see 'SOCIAL SUBJECT'?Can everybody see 'REALISM'?I suppose we're back on the merry-go-round, where my words are ignored and replaced by those of a different ideology.Oh, sorry, I'm the only ideologist here, aren't I. What a joke.
ALB wrote:Most of us here can see that this might make sense with regard to history, society, economics but not to the so-called natural sciences, e.g. there is no "proletarian" or "communist" or "bourgeois" or "capitalist" astronomy or chemistry, just astronomy or chemistry.So, fuck Marx and his 'unity of science', then?Why not all just openly say it?'Marx was wrong' about a unified scientific method, and then I can go away, and do something better with my time.I agree with Marx. If the SPGB doesn't, say so, and I'll bid you all a comradely 'goodbye'.
ALB wrote:I wasn't trying to categorise you as a "Machist". Just pointing out that in the passage quoted in the book he seemed to be saying something similar to what you are.What? Mach argued for the democratic control of physics? Mach argued for workers voting for 'Truth'?Can you point out the relevant passages, ALB? Perhaps I am a Machist.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Lbird,It's a serious question: are there, or are there not, an ifninite number of prime numbers?Seeing as mathematics is a human invention and there is disagreement within the mathematic and philosophical community as to the exact definition of mathematics, it's probably a little pointless to offer it up during a discussion about the objectivity or subjectivity of science.I think this discussion has gone down plenty of blind alleys already.But hey, what's another dozen or so?
SP, well, it's actually arguable whether maths is entirely a human construct, or if it relates to something real (hence the unreasonable efficacy of mathematicsL: after all, Dirac predicted anti-matter through mathematics alone, and experiment had to follow). Further, since the discussion is about truth, and materialism, whether humans created maths is irrelevent, the fact is it is true that there are an infinite number of primes. Whether you are proletarian, aristocracy, or bourgeois, there are an infinite number of primes. So, it does cut to the heart of the matter.
LBird wrote:But, if you wish to remain looking 'through bourgeois scientific specacles' (perhaps in the mistaken belief that there are no 'bourgeois spectacles'), why bother to criticise 'bourgeois' economics, either? Or 'individualism'?In fact, why not just stick to the old way of doing things? I'm baffled by the obvious belief on this site in the sanctity of bourgeois thought.So if the WSM has it all wrong – with us using our bourgioes specs – then pehaps you can explain where the SPGB's anaysis of capitalism is incorrect?edit: as a result of us using bourgeois science.
Loosely speaking mathematics could be described as a useful, abstract tool for demonstrating logical thought. But then it opens up a whole new chapter of this discussion and we end up nowhere, as usual.You admit it is arguable, meaning there is no consensus.Stating that a human description of patterns is a "fact" is saying very little about the nature of "truth".Fact, 1+1=2, 2+2=4 and on and on.
YMS wrote:Whether you are proletarian, aristocracy, or bourgeois, there are an infinite number of primes. So, it does cut to the heart of the matter.Well, that's solved that then. The 'mathematicians' don't agree with Marx.'Maths' is not a social construct, with a historical development, and 'primes' told us what they are (no need for humans and their thought there, eh?).Oh, so now we have a 'material', non-human basis for maths… and physics… and err… chemistry…. [to cut a long story short]… politics, sociology, economics…The 19th century scientists were right, after all!Bollocks to Marx, Einstein, Rovelli… we've 'cut to the heart of the matter'.Individual, Matter, Market…Eternal Truth: TINA!Who needs the bourgeoisie to 'big themselves up', when the 'socialists' are doing it for them?
LBird wrote:'Marx was wrong' about a unified scientific method, and then I can go away, and do something better with my time.I agree with Marx. If the SPGB doesn't, say so, and I'll bid you all a comradely 'goodbye'.As you can see from this thread (and all the many other threads on the subject), the SPGB doesn't have a Party position on the nature of science, and does not see the need to, but members hold a variety of materialistic positions. All we are committed to is a general materialist and non-religious position. As one such position yours would not be a bar to membership. So you could argue your point of view from within just as much as from outside the party.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:But, if you wish to remain looking 'through bourgeois scientific specacles' (perhaps in the mistaken belief that there are no 'bourgeois spectacles'), why bother to criticise 'bourgeois' economics, either? Or 'individualism'?In fact, why not just stick to the old way of doing things? I'm baffled by the obvious belief on this site in the sanctity of bourgeois thought.So if the WSM has it all wrong – with us using our bourgioes specs – then pehaps you can explain where the SPGB's anaysis of capitalism is incorrect?edit: as a result of us using bourgeois science.
A discussion of 'capitalism' (and its explanation by us, translating Marx's difficult works) is a long, long, long way down the road, Vin.This is about philosophy of science, for Communists. When we've got that sorted out, it might give us some insights in how to explain Marx's works, which are still opaque to most (including me!), which I think should be the task of class conscious workers, like us, in attempting to explain the world to other workers, a world both physical and social.
SocialistPunk wrote:Fact, 1+1=2, 2+2=4 and on and on.No, not a 'fact', SP!2+2=11.'2+2=4' is only a 'fact' within the human framework of base 10.'2+2=11' is a 'fact' within the alternative human framework of base 3.But, according to YMS, base 10 has nothing to do with humans. I have my suspicions, though, that 'maths' was invented, rather than is the Revealed Truth.
ALB wrote:All we are committed to is a general materialist and non-religious position. As one such position yours would not be a bar to membership.[my bold]Ahh, but the first half of that 'commitment' would be a bar.I've already explained, long and hard, that, like Marx, I'm an 'idealist-materialist'.Historial Materialism (or, the Materialist Conception of History) is a rejection of 'general' materialism, which always turns out to be good, old-fashioned, mechanical, physical 'Materialism'.Ask Engels!Or YMS, who has already got to 'the heart of the matter'.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.