Science for Communists?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Go and speak to some scientists, you'll find none of them believe in naive realism or think they are uncovering the absolute unmediated "Truth".

Well, YMS and ALB do. They've both said so, finally..

I don't recall saying that. When and where was it?

ALB, post #310, wrote:

This is not a mere matter of opinion ("ideology") but is the case irrespective of whether people agree with it or not or what they might think. It is an objective fact.

[my bold]If your going to deny it, ALB, or start to play with words, saying something like,"ahhh… but 'objective fact' isn't 'absolute unmediated "Truth" "then I'm done with you, too.No wonder ajj can't follow these discussions. He's right to be unimpressed by them.

[SocialistPunk]

And so unfolds an SPGB tutorial on the difference between "fact" and t"ruth", with a discourse on "objective" thrown in for good measure.Should take up a few pages as no doubt each word has numerous meanings. 

[ALB]

That just makes me a naive socialist not a naive realist !Anyway, you said you agreed that socialism was the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved. I was just making the point that this was the case irrespective of whether or not people agreed with it, i.e that it was not a matter of opinion but was actually so. I agree with it. You agree with it.  Millions don't. Can we not say that we are right and they are wrong without being labelled (or labelling ourselves) as elitist?

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 Yes, yes, yes, Vin, that mud on your hands really is there. So, that's sorted out the philosophy of science, eh? If Vin's got mud on his hands, or Vin can touch a rock, what's the need for all this nonsense about 'science'. 

 I don't remember saying that. Nay I never said it. "A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. [1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue." Wiki

[ALB]

SocialistPunk wrote:

And so unfolds an SPGB tutorial on the difference between "fact" and t"ruth", with a discourse on "objective" thrown in for good measure.

This is not an argument about the SPGB position (which doesn't exist at least not in the detail some are assuming) but among socialists some of whom are not SPGB membersThere is only one tutor here and it's not the SPGB

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That just makes me a naive socialist not a naive realist !Anyway, you said you agreed that socialism was the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved. I was just making the point that this was the case irrespective of whether or not people agreed with it, i.e that it was not a matter of opinion but was actually so. I agree with it. You agree with it.  Millions don't. Can we not say that we are right and they are wrong without being labelled (or labelling ourselves) as elitist?

But, ALB, I've just proved that you did say "objective", when you seemed to be baffled when I claimed that you'd said it.But, no acknowledgement that I'm right, just another diversion away from the thread title.The reason this thread continues to go round in circles is precisely because the tactics you're now employing are the same as those that the rest of them have employed throughout!Do you believe in 'objective facts' or not? It's a simple question.I'll happily answer it.No, there is no such thing as 'objective facts'. 'Facts' are always 'theory-laden',  and are part of a framework of selection. In that sense, 'facts' are always 'subjective'.There! I can give a clear answer.I already know that the mob will return to "ahhh, but 'subjective' is 'idealism', 'post-modernism', 'individual opinion' " and avoid answering my question about 'objectivity'. Even though they've already been told that by 'subjective', I mean 'socially subjective', that the 'subject' is always a social creation, imbued with social ideas and ideology. This is the same old diversionary tactic, to avoid answering a question. Can't answer 'objective'? Move to 'subjective'. Can't answer 'subjective'? Move to 'knowledge'. Can't answer 'knowledge'? Move to 'truth'. Can't answer 'truth'? Move to 'logic', 'maths', 'mind', 'rocks', 'mud' … now 'naive socialism', just so no-one has to talk about 'Science and Communism'.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Yes, yes, yes, Vin, that mud on your hands really is there. So, that's sorted out the philosophy of science, eh? If Vin's got mud on his hands, or Vin can touch a rock, what's the need for all this nonsense about 'science'. 

 I don't remember saying that. Nay I never said it. "A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument. [1] To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery, entertaining "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or understanding both sides of the issue." Wiki

Mud and straw man, Vin. You have some substance, you're not just an intellectual scarecrow.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

No, there is no such thing as 'objective facts'. 'Facts' are always 'theory-laden',  and are part of a framework of selection. In that sense, 'facts' are always 'subjective'.

This actually isn't that controversial. We do not experience the world, we experience the recreation of it as conjered up by our brains.Not directly related but enjoyed watching this earlier:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdBdsqSF-bgNiave realism is not only false about our observations of the external world but false about our observations of our internal experience.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Mud and straw man, Vin. You have some substance, you're not just an intellectual scarecrow.

  Stop lying about what people are saying. Check my posts and you will find no mention of mud, rocks or any other rubbish you have introduced to the forum.If I were a unique intellect like yourself, I would calmly state my case and answer questions that arise. I would see it as a pointless excersise attacking others' beliefs if I had such knowledge ( as yet not understood on any socialist forum) as yourself.But you prefer the tactic of attributing false beliefs to people then attacking them for those beliefs.

[ALB]

OK, it's a "socially subjective fact"  that socialism is the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved.  But this goes for everybody even for those who deny this.  There must be some way of distinguishing between those who accept this and those who deny it. What words would you use to do this? Both can't be "subjectively right". Or can they?.

[LBird]

Vin, I've tried several times to put a stop to our bickering, and try to engage with you about the philosophy of science. I'm keen to help any comrades get to grips with this supposedly difficult subject.In fact, because I'm a Communist, I think we should try to simplify many of the explanations given by academics in books, because I think that they are deliberately written to keep the knowledge away from ordinary workers. In line with this effort, I've asked you some questions, to try to get you started on some of the issues involved.But…you always immediately jump to the end, and ask why something 'obvious' to you can't be simply taken as 'The Truth', and then begin to rubbish my explanations.So, I give it back. Now, I just ignore the content of your posts, and take the piss.I don't want to do this, I really want to discuss the philosophy of science, and develop my own understanding further. But the antics of you, DJP, YMS, Brian, and now ALB, have made this impossible.I think I can say that the only posters who've made any real attempt to engage are SocialistPunk and alanjjohnstone, and the latter even admits that they are out of their depth, rather than bluster on, like the rest of you.Now, if you can stop yourself from having another dig, let's put the insults behind us.Can you answer the question about 'objective truth'? Do you think that there are 'facts' outside of any social framework?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

OK, it's a "socially subjective fact"  that socialism is the only framework within which the problems currently facing humanity in general and the working class in particular can be solved.  But this goes for everybody even for those who deny this.  There must be some way of distinguishing between those who accept this and those who deny it. What words would you use to do this? Both can't be "subjectively right". Or can they?.

Simply put, 'socially subjective' means one's class position.So, for the bourgeoisie (or anyone under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is impossible.And, for the proletariat (or anyone under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is possible.Thus, both 'possible' and 'impossible' are 'socially subjectively right'.There is no 'objective' answer.This method also applies to physics. The fruits of relativity, I'm afraid.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

for the proletariat (or anyone under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is possible.

That's clearly false, at this moment in time at least…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Simply put, 'socially subjective' means one's class position.

Go, figure?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

for the proletariat (or anyone under their influence) it's a 'fact' that socialism is possible.

That's clearly false, at this moment in time at least…

I didn't specify 'when', did I, smart arse.It was a simple answer to a simple question.Why don't you go and hang out with your academic friends, and discuss truth and logic to your heart's content, and leave this thread to those who want to learn, to ask more questions, to deepen their knowledge, and participate as comrades.Your method is to confuse, to maintain your status. It's elitism, pure and simple. No attempt to discuss the thorny issue of 'objectivity', in a helpful way, but yet another diversion, into 'truth and falsity'. You wish to complicate, the better to prevent the spread of knowledge amongst workers.

[Author]

Posts