Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird, post #1, wrote:I'd like to start a new thread to discuss 'science' with those who already consider themselves Communists.By that, I mean those who already share similar ideas to me about society.I think that I take a broadly Marxist perspective, and so don't consider myself an 'individual', but a 'worker'. I think 'ideas' are socially-produced and class-based, so that 'ideas about science' will also be of class origin. I think, again broadly, that there are two competing 'ideas' about the world (social and natural), that is, 'ruling class' ideas and 'exploited class' ideas, and that these are relevent to a discussion about 'science'.DJP wrote:Lewis Carol would be amused.
Actually, that's the first relevant thing you've mentioned.The Cheshire Cat and its smile, and 'physicalism'.
OED wrote:SCIENCE 1 a. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something; knowledge as a personal attribute. Now arch. and rare.1 †b. Theoretical or intellectual understanding, as distinct from moral conviction. Paired or contrasted with conscience. Obs.†2. Knowledge or understanding acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of any branch of learning. Also in pl.: (a person's) various kinds of knowledge. Obs. 3 a. A particular area of knowledge or study; a recognized branch of learning; spec. (in the Middle Ages) each of the seven subjects forming the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). Cf. art n.1 9a(a). Now arch.3 b. In extended use, denoting a game, sport, or other activity conceived as being similarly organized. Freq. somewhat humorous. Now rare except in noble science n.4 a. Paired or contrasted with art (see art n.1 3a). A discipline, field of study, or activity concerned with theory rather than method, or requiring the knowledge and systematic application of principles, rather than relying on traditional rules, acquired skill, or intuition.4 b. A branch of study that deals with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less comprehended by general laws, and incorporating trustworthy methods (now esp. those involving the scientific method and which incorporate falsifiable hypotheses) for the discovery of new truth in its own domain. 4 c. With of. Denoting the application of scientific methods in a field of study, activity, etc., previously considered open only to theories based on subjective, historical, or undemonstrable abstract criteria. 5 a. The kind of organized knowledge or intellectual activity of which the various branches of learning are examples. In early use, with reference to sense 3a: what is taught in universities or may be learned by study. In later use: scientific disciplines considered collectively, as distinguished from other departments of learning; scientific doctrine or investigation; the collective understanding of scientists. Also with modifying word.5 b. spec. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the physical universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. Also: this as a subject of study or examination. Cf. natural science n.5 c. With the. The scientific principles or processes which govern or underpin a (specified) phenomenon, technology, etc. Also: the scientific research into these principles or processes. Usu. with of or behind.So, there are more OED definitions, but the broad thrust is of reliable systematic knowledge, which we could roughly formulate as knowledge derived for and with an Other (in) mind: that does not exist just for me but for an Other. That differs from language, the shaping of my thoughts into a form I can transmit them to an Other in as much asthe uidea was created with the otehr in mind. The language games of science are highly structured with definite registers.
LBird wrote:Another thread gone to the dogs.How so? Is this a response to my post discussing the term science itself?
Let’s try once more.
Vin Maratty, post #12, wrote:I mentioned George Walford who's ;“basic premise was that people’s assumptions and identifications (the factors making up their ‘ideology’) are not explicable in terms of material conditions in general and their relationship to the means of production in particular—and are never likely to be.[my bold]Vin quotes a non-Communist, non-Marxist ideologist, when I’ve already called the thread ‘Science for Communists’, and pleaded with those who don’t share my ideas to start their own thread, perhaps ‘Science for Non-Communists’ like George Walford (whoever he is).
LBird, post #1, wrote:I'd like to start a new thread to discuss 'science' with those who already consider themselves Communists.By that, I mean those who already share similar ideas to me about society.I think that I take a broadly Marxist perspective, and so don't consider myself an 'individual', but a 'worker'. I think 'ideas' are socially-produced and class-based, so that 'ideas about science' will also be of class origin. I think, again broadly, that there are two competing 'ideas' about the world (social and natural), that is, 'ruling class' ideas and 'exploited class' ideas, and that these are relevent to a discussion about 'science'.Now, given what I’ve said at the start, and presuming that Vin actually bothers to read what I write (and I’m not entirely sure that he does), what reason could there be for Vin’s posting of the ‘Walford ideology’?It seems to me there are two choices:either, Vin is trying to wind me up, by deliberately posting off-topic diversions to derail the thread (yet again, I might add, because there seems to be a history of this derailment within threads on this site which try to discuss science from a Communist perspective);or, Vin really is being honest, and really just doesn’t understand anything whatsoever about ideology, Communism, Marx, ‘ruling class ideas being the ruling ideas’, ‘material conditions’, ‘means of production’, etc.Now, perhaps I’m being too generous about Vin, and I’m wrongly assuming that he does understand about ‘ideology, Communism, Marx, etc. etc.’. That assumption of mine leads me to think Vin is a troll, and is deliberately trying to spoil these discussions, for ideological reasons of his own (in this case, I would hazard a guess that he’s employing Engelsian ideas about science).The alternative, it seems, is that I should be less generous to Vin, and use baby-talk to him about the big world of ‘politics’ and ‘economics’, and assume that he’s a naïve innocent abroad, who really does give Walford’s ideology some credence.It must be obvious to all by now, I’m really confused as to why a discussion about the relationship between science and Communism can’t get off the ground, on a site that I’m assuming is a Communist site.Perhaps I need telling: the SPGB is not a Communist organisation. Then it will be shown quite clearly that I’m the ‘naïve innocent abroad’, and should go back to my books and playing alone with my intellectual ‘mud pies’, and leave the world of politics to adults, like Vin.
LBird,there's a third: that you're not explaining yourself very well. What, exactly, do you want to say about science?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,there's a third: that you're not explaining yourself very well. What, exactly, do you want to say about science?I know that this will come as a complete surprise, and it's unfair of me to spring it upon you so suddenly, without any prior warning whatsoever, but I'd like to discuss science and Communism.If you don't think that there are links between science and Communism, why bother to post on threads that try to discuss this relationship? It would suffice if you posted once, at the beginning, to register your disagreement with a thread title which presumes this relationship, and then you could leave the thread to develop.And, quite frankly, this whole schtick about "LBird, you're not explaining yourself" is getting tiresome.How about, "LBird's derailers have got cloth ears" as an alternative proposition?
LBird,but I have being trying to discuss communism and science. What have you got to say on the matter? What propositions are you putting forward?
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird To say that knowledge is sociologically produced is not a unique 'communisist' position.It is not sufficient to claim that you hold a communist ideology wirthout 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? You have already told me that it does not exist and that you wish to develope it.How many proletarian scientists are there? Please list them. Is there a group of 'communist scientists'? Or are you the only one? Have you heard of George Walford or read?http://gwiep.net/wp/?p=515If you can define your terms then perhaps others will discuss.You wish to discuss science and ideology. How is my post off topic?You have derailed a lot of threads with your views on 'science' but when challenged you cannot define simple terms.What is 'ideology' what is 'science'? I do not consider myself an expert, I too am learning but if we cannot or you will not define the terms we use there is little point in discussing the matter.
LBird wrote:Let’s try once more.Vin Maratty, post #12, wrote:I mentioned George Walford who's ;“basic premise was that people’s assumptions and identifications (the factors making up their ‘ideology’) are not explicable in terms of material conditions in general and their relationship to the means of production in particular—and are never likely to be.[my bold]Vin quotes a non-Communist, non-Marxist ideologist, when I’ve already called the thread ‘Science for Communists’, and pleaded with those who don’t share my ideas to start their own thread, perhaps ‘Science for Non-Communists’ like George Walford (whoever he is).
LBird, post #1, wrote:I'd like to start a new thread to discuss 'science' with those who already consider themselves Communists.By that, I mean those who already share similar ideas to me about society.I think that I take a broadly Marxist perspective, and so don't consider myself an 'individual', but a 'worker'. I think 'ideas' are socially-produced and class-based, so that 'ideas about science' will also be of class origin. I think, again broadly, that there are two competing 'ideas' about the world (social and natural), that is, 'ruling class' ideas and 'exploited class' ideas, and that these are relevent to a discussion about 'science'.Now, given what I’ve said at the start, and presuming that Vin actually bothers to read what I write (and I’m not entirely sure that he does), what reason could there be for Vin’s posting of the ‘Walford ideology’?It seems to me there are two choices:either, Vin is trying to wind me up, by deliberately posting off-topic diversions to derail the thread (yet again, I might add, because there seems to be a history of this derailment within threads on this site which try to discuss science from a Communist perspective);or, Vin really is being honest, and really just doesn’t understand anything whatsoever about ideology, Communism, Marx, ‘ruling class ideas being the ruling ideas’, ‘material conditions’, ‘means of production’, etc.Now, perhaps I’m being too generous about Vin, and I’m wrongly assuming that he does understand about ‘ideology, Communism, Marx, etc. etc.’. That assumption of mine leads me to think Vin is a troll, and is deliberately trying to spoil these discussions, for ideological reasons of his own (in this case, I would hazard a guess that he’s employing Engelsian ideas about science).The alternative, it seems, is that I should be less generous to Vin, and use baby-talk to him about the big world of ‘politics’ and ‘economics’, and assume that he’s a naïve innocent abroad, who really does give Walford’s ideology some credence.It must be obvious to all by now, I’m really confused as to why a discussion about the relationship between science and Communism can’t get off the ground, on a site that I’m assuming is a Communist site.Perhaps I need telling: the SPGB is not a Communist organisation. Then it will be shown quite clearly that I’m the ‘naïve innocent abroad’, and should go back to my books and playing alone with my intellectual ‘mud pies’, and leave the world of politics to adults, like Vin.
You have become very personal and abusive towards me and I see no reason for that apart from the usual smoke screen you hide behind. I suggest you withdraw your remarks, and undertake that in future you speak to me and others in a reasonable manner.
Vin wrote:You have become very personal and abusive towards me and I see no reason for that apart from the usual smoke screen you hide behind. I suggest you withdraw your remarks, and undertake that in future you speak to me and others in a reasonable manner.I've got a better suggestion, Vin.Why don't I just fuck off altogther? I'm sick of trying to reason with you.
Vin Maratty wrote:You wish to discuss science and ideology. How is my post off topic?You have derailed a lot of threads with your views on 'science' but when challenged you cannot define simple terms.What is 'ideology' what is 'science'? I do not consider myself an expert, I too am learning but if we cannot or you will not define the terms we use there is little point in discussing the matter.This is just getting pathetic. "What is ideology?" You're supposed to be a socialist.You'll wait until I've spent six months discussing it, and then say, 'but, LBird, I can't read, and can't understand your posts'.Then I'll explain the alphabet, spelling, grammer and syntax, and you'll say, 'but, LBird, I'm blind, and can't see your posts'.If you want to know what a computer and the internet is, Vin, this isn't the thread to ask.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.