Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Not entirely fair there Vin.This is a socialist site. LBird comes on and states his ideology is that of a communist/socialist.The first question he gets is define what you mean by ideology. What the hell was that? Fair enough if his socialist credentials were in question, just ask. But starting on that, come on.
SocialistPunk wrote:Not entirely fair there Vin.This is a socialist site. LBird comes on and states his ideology is that of a communist/socialist.The first question he gets is define what you mean by ideology. What the hell was that? Fair enough if his socialist credentials were in question, just ask. But starting on that, come on.It is not unreasonable to define terms you intend to use.He still has not defined what he means by science and ideology.He changes the meaning to fit his argument.An example:A member of the SWP says to you. "I am a socialist, may I join the party?" You would not ask him to define socialism?
here is part of another discussion on the same subject on the party's Facebook page… jon said I left this thread due to a clear conflict in opinion's But, I leave you with this, 'my' definition of ideology also happens to be the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of ideology I cannot begin to debate with someone who denies authentic definitions because any argument could be floored; I'd just make my own definition to suit my argument answer Jon. Sorry mate, you have got me on a professional hobby horse here. When I did my philosophy degree forty years ago, the first thing I was taught was never to take any notice of dictionary definitions: they are mostly useless for the purpose of any serious enquiry. Dictionary definitions are neither particularly precise nor comprehensive; they aim only to indicate very broadly a range of meanings for the general user. It's important to understand that different dictionaries use different principles when deciding on which words to include and how to define them. The compilers of a prescriptive dictionary like Oxford or Chambers, for instance, use different criteria from the compilers of a descriptive dictionary like Collins, and their definitions differ as a result. Oxford, in particular, is a narrow and historically focused dictionary which tends to be about 30 years out of date in most things. (Among the major publishing houses, it is also known to be very quirky.) All this means that there is nothing especially 'authentic' about the definitions to be found there. That's because the meanings of words do not come from dictionaries any more than meat comes from packets of sausages found in Sainsbury's. They come from the ways words are used by a community of speakers and writers. This is a living process. Word meanings cannot be fixed in a single formulaic phrase, as though they were insects preserved in amber. A word's meaning varies with every changing grammatical and semantic context. Take a word out of one sentence and place it in another and you will change its meaning, sometimes subtly, sometimes quite dramatically. Utter the same sentence in two different material contexts and the meaning of the words in it will change once again. I agree with you about the importance of establishing what you mean when you use a word, especially when that word is a complex and abstract one like 'ideology,' but that is something that needs to be done in the process of argument and in the context of the subject matter under discussion. Insisting on a rigid adherence to a forumulaic definition found in your preferred dictionary is an unwarranted form of authoritarian thinking (and unworkable in the real world). I would suggest, then, that the question of whether, in general, ideology (however we choose to use that word for the purposes of communication) precedes or follows the social institutions to which it relates is a material and historical matter subject to discussion and debate. It is not a question that is or can be settled by appealing to the supposed authority of the compilers of dictionaries, who are not in the slightest bit interested in such issues.
LBird wrote: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.How does the fact that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and that the speed of light in a vacum is independant of the motion of all observers (that is what the theory of general relativity is) prove your point here or even have anything to do with it at all?
All I see on this thread is, from certain quarters, deliberate obfuscation and vacuity. An empty vessel, they say, makes the most noise. I don't really see this thread as leading anywhere. I have read the posts, yet am no more aware of the arguments or intent of certain posts. It is like drowning in quicksand, the only way appears to be "down".Therefore, I will retire and leave the discourse to those who have the stamina to indulge in this pointlessness. I've got better things to do, I'm trying to help bring about a "sane" world. I think I'll stick to that!!!
Sure Vin, I've got nothing against asking a person about their socialist credentials. What they mean by socialism. Nothing wrong in that. But if that was the aim then get on with it. Don't beat around the bush with a load of waffle about defining ideology and the rest of the requests for endless definitions, for fucks sake. I don't recall being grilled about definitions when I joined this site.Do we not realise that we are here to promote socialism, not chase people around the room with intellectual bullshit. How do you define this and that, what about that, what about this, don't you know there are different meanings to this and in what context do you use that, blah blah.Socialism is about people, not beating each other over the head with philosophical tomes. I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss philosophy or science, course we can and should, but that isn't what is going on here. This looks more like a revenge beating.
Yes Steve, you are right. I felt the whole basis of science shaking beneath my feet at the words of the master………..the fall of Einstein, Hawkins et al It seems I have been drawn in by a troll and a time waster. I am a sucker for that. Back to the grindstone of trying to convince fellow workers of how my bourgeois interpretation of capitalism can lead to its overthrow….Capitalism creating its own grave diggers etc
SocialistPunk wrote:Socialism is about people, not beating each other over the head with philosophical tomes.I agree but LBird doesn't get that. Look at his posts. They are insulting, sarcastic and nasty. And you know me, SP, I will give back in kind. I have to because well … the unmentionable
Interesting anecdote Vin. Sure words change their meaning over time and different situations can throw up different meanings no doubt. The world is full of changing definitions. Different definitions for different places, times and people.Perhaps we should keep quiet now our definition of socialism is not the one doing the rounds today. We have been left behind and we didn't even know it. Socialism as we define it is irrelevant, right?
In light of this very lengthy discussion and the very tortuous route it is taking to establish whether or not science and the scientific method is dominated or contaminated by the ideology of capitalism this article maybe of interest: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/12/destroying-science/ The article clearly illustrates that not all of the scientific community are strictly speaking followers of capitalist ideology and despite the death threats and allegations of criminality they rigidly stand by the visible evidence and the mathematical data collected over the last 100 years on climate change. This being the case is it any wonder why socialist insist on applying the social analysis to the question of science under capitalism in much the same way as we apply it to economics, the market, globalisation, et al? Of course there is good and bad science but we neither shy away from the fact that even the 'good science' has had unintended consequences and brought about 'bad' side effects. And even though in a socialist society the issue of an ideologically biased scientist will no longer exist under the scrutiny of Direct Participatory Democracy, we'll still be confronted with the problem of unintended consequences and 'bad' side effects being produced by natural law and human dynamics impacting on the environment.Nevertheless, to even attempt to make the case that all science is ideologically biased towards the profit motive would in my estimation not only be throwing the baby out with the bath water, for its also seemingly proposing we reject all science because it is "class based" (LBird #1.)? When the simple fact is that the revolutionary process will demand we will have no alternative other than to use the tools we have to hand which by default includes the scientific method as we know it and understand it, and despite its class bias. Which in itself implies we will be discerning in what scientific tools we actually use to bring about the end of capitalism.This of course will be the result of the battle for ideas and the relevance of science to the revolutionary process itself in respect of preparing and planning for the distribution of human needs.
I asked how LBird was defining ideology, because it was a key part pemises of the proposition they were putting forward, and I'm aware from previous conversations elseplace, that if you don't tighten up on the meaning of 'ideology' a lot of time and effort can be wasted.A quick story about ideology: I was chatting with a rep. from a French book firm, Aux Amatuers des Livres I pointed out to her that 'The Book Amateurs' would be a bit of an off putting name in English, and she looked surprised: "Don't you have things like Wine Amateurs in England?" she asked, and, indeed we don't. Amateur is almost exclusively a perjorative term in English, the antonym of professional. Indeed, the Latin root is someone doing something for the love of it. Now, the word has evolved, I'd suspect mostly through sport, and th whole "Gentlemen v. players" thing where amatuerism was associated with class, and aristocracy, with the working class professionals being looked down on. It's last positive refuge is in the amateur detective, but only because of Sherlock Holmes.Now, this perjorative sense fits into a complex of pressupositions, predispositions and ideas, but I wouldn't call those ideology. I would call the class dynamic that created those sets of ideas ideology, the process of makign the ideas of the ruling class the dominant ideas, but not the ideas themselves.Just back to linguistic register. Latin was once a hugely progressive force, it enabled scholarship across national linguistic barriers, the role now played by English. It wasn't the rarified language of academia that kept working class kids out, it was the economic basi of the system whereby they wouldn't even get an education in the first place. For science to remain international, it has to use language differently than everyday meanings.
Oh, and Weltanschauung:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_viewI prefer the German original because 'World view" doesn't quite capture the whole of the concept.
Final wee point, then AFK for the rest of the day. I'd argue that socialism is not an ideology. I'd suggest that socialism is the truth, based on a clear and accurate apprehension fo the world, and that ideology is the process of mystifications and obfuscation of the world as it lies.
SocialistPunk wrote:The world is full of changing definitions. Different definitions for different places, times and people.Perhaps we should keep quiet now our definition of socialism is not the one doing the rounds today. We have been left behind and we didn't even know it. Socialism as we define it is irrelevant, right?Not if we are persistant and state what we mean by it. Make clear our definition. So there can be know confusion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.