Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:Would these 'voluntary societies' have any form of power? If so, they must be under democratic control. If you're talking about 'knitting circles', an elite 'bobble-hat production society', probably not! After all, we're taking about politics and science, here, aren't we?
Yes, we are. I was thinking of something along the lines of the International Astronomical Union which voted a few years ago on the definition of a planet. Or other scientific societies which people could join. Obviously they'd have to be run democratically and maybe established and governed by a general democratic decision on such bodies. I thought that that was what you had in mind when you wrote about people being able to choose what scientific issues they wanted to vote on.
LBird wrote:The philosophy of science will be an integral part of politics, economics, socialist revolution, socialism and participatory democracy.Could be, I suppose, but I can't see people being turned away from participating in the establishment of socialism because they had an "incorrect" philosophy of science or none at all (any more than religious people could be).
DJP wrote:I don't think Sheldrake is particularly relevant to what we have been discussing.I read the 'example' on Kindle and some of it is word for word the criticism of materialism on this thread. Freeing the Spirit of EnquiryThe science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality. The fundamental questions are answered, leaving only the details to be filled in. In this book (published in the US as Science Set Free), Dr Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, shows that science is being constricted by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The 'scientific worldview' has become a belief system. All reality is material or physical. The world is a machine, made up of dead matter. Nature is purposeless. Consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain. Free will is an illusion. God exists only as an idea in human minds, imprisoned within our skulls.Sheldrake examines these dogmas scientifically, and shows persuasively that science would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun.In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins used science to bash God, but here Rupert Sheldrake shows that Dawkins' understanding of what science can do is old-fashioned and itself a delusion. 'Rupert Sheldrake does science, humanity and the world at large a considerable favour.'
Vin Maratty wrote:DJP wrote:I don't think Sheldrake is particularly relevant to what we have been discussing.I read the 'example' on Kindle and some of it is word for word the criticism of materialism on this thread. Freeing the Spirit of EnquiryThe science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality. The fundamental questions are answered, leaving only the details to be filled in. In this book (published in the US as Science Set Free), Dr Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, shows that science is being constricted by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The 'scientific worldview' has become a belief system. All reality is material or physical. The world is a machine, made up of dead matter. Nature is purposeless. Consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain. Free will is an illusion. God exists only as an idea in human minds, imprisoned within our skulls.Sheldrake examines these dogmas scientifically, and shows persuasively that science would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun.In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins used science to bash God, but here Rupert Sheldrake shows that Dawkins' understanding of what science can do is old-fashioned and itself a delusion. 'Rupert Sheldrake does science, humanity and the world at large a considerable favour.'
[my altered bold]Yes, from this extract, Vin is correct, and this seems to be entirely relevent to what we're trying to discuss.Is Sheldrake a defender of religion, Vin?If so, this backs up a quote that ALB gave on an earlier thread about science, which showed that the religious can read the latest philosophy of science, too, and have drawn the conclusion that 'science now supports god'.If we are to defend 'science' from the religious, we have to establish its basis on different grounds from those of, the now discredited, 19th century science.As I've constantly stressed, if we don't find a way of defending Marx's conception of knowledge production (as briefly outlined in the Theses on Feuerbach, for eg.), 'science' will find itself at the service of the religious.Sticking our heads in the Engelsian sands won't do it, comrades.
Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist who propounds something called Morphic resonance (also he may be one of those misusing quantum physics for mystic purposes). He is also an anti-materialist. Read the wikipedia article, it's quite instructive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake
Young Master Smeet wrote:Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist who propounds something called Morphic resonance (also he may be one of those misusing quantum physics for mystic purposes). He is also an anti-materialist. Read the wikipedia article, it's quite instructive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_SheldrakeThanks for that confirmation of my suspicions, YMS.As I've argued, this leaves us with the problem of constructing a solid philosophical basis for 'science', after it had itself destroyed its earlier, erroneous, basis, with the works of Einstein.In effect, 'materialism' is dead. That means Engels provides no solace, because he erroneously followed 19th century postivist science, which is precisely what has been destroyed.Luckily, Marx was not a 19th century materialist OF THE SORT WHICH DESTROYED ITSELF. He has already laid some of the ground for a new, unified, scientific method, based upon human enquiry and practical social activity.This, of course, is Communism, the ideology of the revolutionary, democratic, proletariat.We know (and the religious know) that ideology is the basis of science. That knowledge was the outcome of science, and we have to go forward, burdened with that scientific knowledge.The religious will provide an elitist basis (that of god and 'his' helpers here on earth).We must provide a democratic basis, which firmly bases the production of knowledge within human democratic control. We can do this, simply because we are Communists, and have no 'material' foundation for elite control (ie. property not under social control).The religious cannot do this, because neither priests nor god can be compelled to follow the instructions of the organised whole of humanity.We do not have this problem. If we are democrats, that is. If the means of production, distribution and consumption are under democratic control (and this must involve 'science', as it falls under that heading of the 'means'), we can vote god out of our affairs.The attempt to resurrect 'Science As Truth' won't work, and as that involves an 'elitist method' anyway, it will provide unwitting support for the god-botherers.
LBird wrote:As I've argued, this leaves us with the problem of constructing a solid philosophical basis for 'science', after it had itself destroyed its earlier, erroneous, basis, with the works of Einstein.You've never explained what you mean by this.Seems to me you've been conflating The General Theory of Relativity as an argument for cogntive relativism, it isn't.So what exactly do you mean here?
Young Master Smeet wrote:How has Einstein exploded materialist science? Other than disproving Newton?I'm not gobsmacked that often, YMS, but this has achieved it!Y'mean, 'other than undermining the entire basis of science, as it was believed for 300 hundred years'?If that's not enough of an 'explosion' for you, I think you might miss the revolution, too.Rovelli refers, comrade.
But he didn't undermine the method, or the philosophy, he simply disproved the existing model. I see you're back to arguing by authority.
DJP wrote:So what exactly do you mean here?Are you genuinely asking for an explanation, are do you already know I'm wrong?If it's the latter, nothing whatsoever I present as evidence to support my explanation will satisfy you.I'm afraid one has to have already come to the realisation that 'science' is in trouble from the godbotherers, to want an answer.It's a bit like if someone already 'knows' that the 'market is the only way', then reading Marx's Capital will not change their minds.If you have no doubts, and are convinced that 'science' is safe, then there's nothing I can do to shake that particular belief.This is a thread, as I've said from the start, for Communists who wish to revolutionise the world.If you think 'science' is outside of the scope of a 'revolution', that's a belief I don't share. To me, it's like arguing that the 'economy' is outside the scope of a revolution, as some 'market socialists' and reformists argue. For them, it's merely a matter of 'political' action, rather than the overturning of the structures of society, economic, political, social and ideological.IMO, 'science' has already 'overturned' itself. We have to construct anew. If you don't share that aim, then you're wasting your time, comrade, with this thread.Hope this helps.
Young Master Smeet wrote:But he didn't undermine the method, or the philosophy, he simply disproved the existing model. I see you're back to arguing by authority.YMS, I can merely repeat what I've said to DJP.If you're happy, why not leave me and this thread to the 'loonies', and go and do something else, more productive for yourself?
I posted Sheldrake because he talks the same language LBird has been using all along but then backtracks from it. He too is a psuedo-scientist.In fact LBird quotes from the book word for word without using commas. Must be just a massive coincidence.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:But he didn't undermine the method, or the philosophy, he simply disproved the existing model. I see you're back to arguing by authority.YMS, I can merely repeat what I've said to DJP.If you're happy, why not leave me and this thread to the 'loonies', and go and do something else, more productive for yourself?
Did you know you can send a PM if you wish to speak directly and only to one forum member?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.