Science for Communists?

[SocialistPunk]

Thanks for the lesson DJP.Of course setting the parameters in advance will give us the truth we want every time. That was precisely my point in highlighting the statement in the first place.Maybe I should have used philosophical jargon. In fact that is part of the problem, and is more relevant to this thread. Science, philosophy, mathematics, religion and politics all have unnecessary convoluted elitist  baggage built in. It perpetuates the idea of a special elite, separate from the masses. Hopefully a socialist revolution will cut through the bullshit and ensure these deliberately clouded worlds become clearer and therefore more accessible. I think LBird previously referred to scientists and other experts being expected to explain their ideas clearly.Back to the bullshit.I expect you are aware there are differing ideas regarding the definition of logic? So even in mathematics and logic we still can't escape bias.  

[Young Master Smeet]

Admittedly, it took Russell & Whitehead over 300 pages to prove thet 1+1=2http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401(Note, though, that they hadn't yet defined what + meant).

[Young Master Smeet]

SP,Mathematicians disagree strongly about what cannot be proved, but once something is proven, it stays proven: the proof of an infinite number of primes remains true.  DJP correctly spotted my naughtiness in introducing truth in a deductive sense when what we're talking about natural sciences we're talking about inductive proof, which is prone to Hume's Black Swan.Anyway, back to socialism.  Whilst I think Rovelli's almost Holmesian notion of expanding on what is theoretically established is interesting, he notes otehrs are trying different routes.  This is fine, because there is no one scientific method.  If we get to our materialist roots, we come back to science being reliable organised knowledge.Reliable brings up a number of features.  It means that knowledge is confirmed by the senses and ideas of other people.  Science doesn't lie in the data, but in the discourse between scientists, as they try and extend their sense perceptions (and their understanding of these perceptions).People who talk to each other a lot, and who share a detailed common understanding will naturally develop an efficiency in communication, a jargon, because to not do so would be cumbersome.  Why use three words when a single made up word (neologism) will do the job just as nicely.  Of course, translating between these registers is a skill additional to the basic skill set of a scientific practitioner.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Science doesn't lie in the data, but in the discourse between scientists…

This is not what Marx claims.Marx claims that science lies in the interaction between 'data' and 'discourse'.Or, 'theory and practice'. The interaction of 'subject and object'. Critical Realism.The rest of your post is just nonsense, YMS, but I'm going to leave it to someone else to detail its errors, because you seem to have cloth ears to my attempts to discuss with you.If I were to be entirely uncomradely, I'd say that you're a 'prime' bullshitter. You love jargon, and your 'register' is to hide knowledge from workers, so that you remain in a sneering pseudo-Leninist elite cadre.And you despise democracy.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Admittedly, it took Russell & Whitehead over 300 pages to prove thet 1+1=2http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401(Note, though, that they hadn't yet defined what + meant).

Please don't follow the link, SocialistPunk.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

DJP correctly spotted my naughtiness in introducing truth in a deductive sense when what we're talking about natural sciences we're talking about inductive proof, which is prone to Hume's Black Swan.

I can't resist commenting upon this pure tripe, for the benefit of other comrades who might be impressed by YMS's 'big talk' and thus mislead about Marx's views.Science is NEITHER 'deductive' NOR 'inductive'.It's 'theory and practice', in that order.'Deductive proof' is mere 'theory', which is isolated from social practice.'Inductive proof' is 'practice and theory', the erroneous 19th century method of positivist science. Science applies human social theory to a pre-existing 'real' world of 'material and ideas', and if the social practice seems to confirm the theory, then it is temporarily adopted as 'true scientific knowledge'.This 'truth' is neither deductive, inductive nor 'True' in the 'Eternal' sense.Criticism of existing 'truths', both physical and social, is the aim of science, not 'storing up' a library of 'Truth' which once discovered, remains on the shelf, until the shelf is full of all 'truth' and we become an all-knowing, all-seeing god. That was what 19th century philosophy thought science was, but we now know better. Or should do.'Critical Thinking' abhors 'Eternal Truth', whether physical, social – or even mathematical.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

If I were to be entirely uncomradely, I'd say that you're a 'prime' bullshitter. You love jargon, and your 'register' is to hide knowledge from workers, so that you remain in a sneering pseudo-Leninist elite cadre.And you despise democracy.

So no ad hominem arguments then?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

If I were to be entirely uncomradely, I'd say that you're a 'prime' bullshitter. You love jargon, and your 'register' is to hide knowledge from workers, so that you remain in a sneering pseudo-Leninist elite cadre.And you despise democracy.

So no ad hominem arguments then?

That's a laughable comment from a leader of the 'ad hominem brigade'!I've decided contempt and derision is the only 'scientific' method allowed on this site, so I'm plunging in, comrades!Until you, YMS and Vin actually try 'discussion', then here we go!If youse don't like it, don't post.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Science is NEITHER 'deductive' NOR 'inductive'.

The trouble is there is no singular "science" or "scientific method".Probably most science is actually abduction, look it up..

LBird wrote:

Criticism of existing 'truths', both physical and social, is the aim of science, not 'storing up' a library of 'Truth' which once discovered, remains on the shelf, until the shelf is full of all 'truth' and we become an all-knowing, all-seeing god. That was what 19th century philosophy thought science was, but we now know better. Or should do.

Well I agree with the first bit but what is "19th century philosophy"? There was as much a diversity of ideas then as they are now, for example Hume's radical sceptism dates back to the 18th century and lot of what you are saying has been drawn from that…

[Anonymous]

Why don't we face it,  LBird is the only true 'communist' and the SPGB has wasted its time wollowing in ignorance.Either there is something wrong with our ability to think and grasp his complex arguments or there is a problem with what he is saying. Or to use his own technical jaron, he is talking 'bullshit'I know what I think. Perhaps a democratic vote by all 'proletarian scientists' can decide  the Truth of the situation  

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

Marx claims that science lies in the interaction between 'data' and 'discourse'.

Unclipped sentence wrote:

Science doesn't lie in the data, but in the discourse between scientists, as they try and extend their sense perceptions (and their understanding of these perceptions).

the two above sentences are identical.  Once again, we see Marx agrees with me.  We bring scince back to sensuous human behaviour, real people in action, because their knowledge exists for me, and my knwoledge exists for them as well.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

The trouble is there is no singular "science" or "scientific method".

That's a handy philosophy, DJP.So now, the Catholics can employ your 'pluralistic' individualistic bourgeois method to claim that they, too, are doing 'science' when they teach about angels and devils.Is it any wonder the bloody religious are currently ahead of Communists in this battle over 'science'?

DJP wrote:

Probably most science is actually abduction, look it up.

As usual, the sneering tone at the forefront, the method of 'big words to scare the uneducated unwashed', and the disdain to actually explain what you mean.I've got the measure of you and YMS, DJP.

DJP wrote:

Well I agree with the first bit but what is "19th century philosophy"?

And the feigned 'mateyness' and 'innocent' question.Do me a favour. Try READING what I've written dozens of times, over dozens of threads, and open your mind to critical thought.And try reading Marx, and forget, for now, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Bertrand Russell, and the rest of the diversionary 'red herrings', which you and YMS keep introducing, which is the method of those who will not discuss the matter in hand.L o o k  a t  t h e  t h r e a d  t i t l e .There, I've spelt out the instructions in small bites, for you and YMS.

[Young Master Smeet]

DJP wrote:

The trouble is there is no singular "science" or "scientific method".

Exactly, there is whatever works to produce and corroborate knowledge, reliable knowledge.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Why don't we face it,  LBird is the only true 'communist' and the SPGB has wasted its time wollowing in ignorance.Either there is something wrong with our ability to think and grasp his complex arguments or there is a problem with what he is saying. Or to use his own technical jaron, he is talking 'bullshit'I know what I think. Perhaps a democratic vote by all 'proletarian scientists' can decide  the Truth of the situation

You seem to be right, Vin, given the contributions by you, DJP and YMS.I'm the only true Communist between the four of us, you're all wallowing in ignorance, and you have an inability to think and grasp my (simple) arguments.And, no you don't 'know what you think'. You're merely repeating ruling class ideas which you've been brainwashed with.Why not have a democratic vote, and ban me? I'll accept the decision, and leave you all to your ignorant wallowing.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

DJP wrote:

The trouble is there is no singular "science" or "scientific method".

Exactly, there is whatever works to produce and corroborate knowledge, reliable knowledge.

FFS, 'who' determines, and 'how', the human judgement of 'reliable'?What's the matter with your ability to read, YMS? I've been asking this for a year now, and you won't answer.

[Author]

Posts