Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Although in context of what I said in reply to DJP I think it has more bearing than we previously realised.
SocialistPunk wrote:Vin,I know it isn't what LBird is saying, although it does have some bearing.To be clear. I don't think *everything* LBird says is wrong. It's just the strong cognitive relativsm that doesn't cut it…
DJP The implication came from your poorly worded statement, asking how capitalist ideology affects the findings of non social sciences. I gave some examples of how capitalism drives science in certain ways.You asked how we sort out the bad science from good science. I provided some examples.Now you bring boiling water into it. If you had asked how ideology affects boiling water, I wouldn't have answered your question in the way I did. I might have said, it would if they used my kettle.My appologies for any confusion.
SocialistPunk wrote:DJP The implication came from your poorly worded statement, asking how capitalist ideology affects the findings of non social sciences. I gave some examples of how capitalism drives science in certain ways.You asked how we sort out the bad science from good science. I provided some examples.Now you bring boiling water into it. If you had asked how ideology affects boiling water, I wouldn't have answered your question in the way I did. I might have said, it would if they used my kettle.My appologies for any confusion.Sorry. I think the problem is that 'ideology' and 'science' can mean different things in different contexts and we're getting crossed wires..
northern light wrote:Damn you L Bird, don't you dare give up now ! I/We ( I assume I'm not the only one ) have stuck it out for 27 pages, in the hope of learning something new.I'm close to getting banned, I'm sure, but I really am finding it difficult to get the discussion back on stream.This can only happen when comrades are at least willing to give a hearing to a case. If minds are already 'made-up', then nothing I say will have any effect.There are some posters who 'know' that 'class analysis' only applies to 'social' issues, and not 'science'. I've tried my best to explain that this isn't just an 'individual opinion' that they hold, but a core 'ruling class idea', an ideological belief.They've picked up this 'opinion' from society, not from 'passive study of rocks', but they seem to think it's a totally uncontroversial, non-political, sensible position to take, and that they thought it up all by themselves, individually, entirely by coincidence.If I ask who told them that 'physics is non-political' (a central tenet of 19th century science, which thinkers like von Ranke tried to translate to historiography), they look baffled at the very question. They regard me as a lunatic, just for suggesting that 'ideas' of 'reality' just might be 'social'.When I ask them to tell me the method they use to get this uncontroversial, neutral, 'scientific' knowledge, they, once again, seem baffled by the question. 'Method?' 'In physics?' They just 'do science', in the old, unproblematic, 19th century, way. The 20th century has passed them by.I'm drifting now, and tempted to tell them all to 'Fuck Off'. Childish, I know, northern light, but it will be strangely satisfying when I do it. I don't think I've got another 27, pointless, pages in me.It will need the entry of other comrades, beside SocialistPunk, into the discussion to revitalise my enthusiasm. I don't mind explaining to comrades who genuinely what to know 'how' ruling class ideas influence science, but I'm not going to continue to joust with those who think ruling class ideas end with 'economics'. They even think that they're 'individuals', for god's sake!
SocialistPunk wrote:Vin,I know it isn't what LBird is saying, although it does have some bearing.No, it isn't what I'm saying.I'm saying that 'knowledge production' is social. That means, to oversimplify for effect, that how a 'rock' is understood depends upon the society doing the understanding.Rocks do not tell us 'what they are'. Physics employs socially-produced theories to try to understand 'rocks'.Those who think that them touching a rock exhausts our scientific knowledge of rocks are employing an individualist, empirical, method. This was, indeed, thought to be the basis of science, but Einstein's ideas on relativity blew that myth apart.Individuals and their (supposed) 'individual sense' are not, and can't be, the basis of the scientific method. That pretense is part of bourgeois ideology, and goes hand-in-hand with neo-classical notions of 'value as individual opinion', rather than 'value as social relationship'.
DJP wrote:ideology' and 'science' can mean different things in different contexts…And therin lies the problem. The terms and context should have been defined at the start of the thread.
Vin Maratty wrote:It is not sufficient to claim that you hold a communist ideology without definining 'communist' and 'ideology' and how they relate.What do you mean by 'communist', 'ideology', 'science' and 'bourgeios science'?What do you mean by proletarian science?post #3 But LBird informed me that my post was 'unproductive'. Why would he think that a rquest for a definition of terms at the start of such a complex subject would be 'unproductive'? I have my own thoughts on that.
LBird wrote:I'm saying that 'knowledge production' is social.That is not new.
LBird wrote:northern light wrote:Damn you L Bird, don't you dare give up now ! I/We ( I assume I'm not the only one ) have stuck it out for 27 pages, in the hope of learning something new.I'm close to getting banned, I'm sure, but I really am finding it difficult to get the discussion back on stream.This can only happen when comrades are at least willing to give a hearing to a case. If minds are already 'made-up', then nothing I say will have any effect.There are some posters who 'know' that 'class analysis' only applies to 'social' issues, and not 'science'. I've tried my best to explain that this isn't just an 'individual opinion' that they hold, but a core 'ruling class idea', an ideological belief.They've picked up this 'opinion' from society, not from 'passive study of rocks', but they seem to think it's a totally uncontroversial, non-political, sensible position to take, and that they thought it up all by themselves, individually, entirely by coincidence.If I ask who told them that 'physics is non-political' (a central tenet of 19th century science, which thinkers like von Ranke tried to translate to historiography), they look baffled at the very question. They regard me as a lunatic, just for suggesting that 'ideas' of 'reality' just might be 'social'.When I ask them to tell me the method they use to get this uncontroversial, neutral, 'scientific' knowledge, they, once again, seem baffled by the question. 'Method?' 'In physics?' They just 'do science', in the old, unproblematic, 19th century, way. The 20th century has passed them by.I'm drifting now, and tempted to tell them all to 'Fuck Off'. Childish, I know, northern light, but it will be strangely satisfying when I do it. I don't think I've got another 27, pointless, pages in me.It will need the entry of other comrades, beside SocialistPunk, into the discussion to revitalise my enthusiasm. I don't mind explaining to comrades who genuinely what to know 'how' ruling class ideas influence science, but I'm not going to continue to joust with those who think ruling class ideas end with 'economics'. They even think that they're 'individuals', for god's sake!
Why are you telling me what I think. You are way off the mark. I learned that we are social animals and that knowledge is socially produced in my first year sociology.Your aunt sallies or straw men are wearing thin.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:I'm saying that 'knowledge production' is social.That is not new.
Neither is your refusal to accept it.If you accepted it, you'd tell me which 'social knowledge' you employ to understand a rock.You mouth the words, you repeat the formula, but it's an empty phrase to you.
Vin Maratty wrote:Your aunt sallies or straw men are wearing thin.But not your ignorance, eh?
LBird wrote:If you accepted it, you'd tell me which 'social knowledge' you employ to understand a rock.I have never mentioned a rock once, you ignoramus.
LBird you really need to organise your argument and stop relying on abuse and personal insults: a little here and there is OK But instead of abusing forum members why not try and answer some of their questionsI don't know how you get away with you abusive manner, I certainly wouldn't!But think on this – could you resort to abuse if I was sitting opposite you at a meeting? Probably not. I would not tell a 7 foot bruiser to 'fuck off' if he was sitting next to me. So why do you do it on this forum? So let's try and use your brain for once, eh What do you mean by 'science' and 'ideology'?
So just let me get the gist so far.1. LBird makes a proposition purportedly about science and communism.2. Other(s) make a counter-proposition.3. LBird sneers at the counter-proposition.4. The other(s) sneer back at LBird.5. LBird acts offended at the sneering and threatens to take his ball home. I think he may have a defender somewhere but I’m not sure. Anyway, he decides to carry on fighting his corner, and why not?6. Slanging and personal insults follow. Offence is taken all round.7. Someone makes another proposition purportedly about science and communism.8. Back to 3.Have I missed anything?All in all, a good, grown-up, philosophical debate, which contributes greatly to the sum total of socialist and scientific understanding.I don’t know how many iterations of the cycle there’ve been but keep it up, folks, it could run forever.
Not even close, rodshaw.1. LBird proposes a load of bollocks2. Others point this out3. LBird responds with personal insults because he can't support his nonsense4. Rodshaw misinterprets whole event
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.