Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Vin Maratty wrote:Lbird Why is ALB 'individualist' and boureois when he is 'personally' convinced but you aren't when you personally 'prefer'I emphasise this is a serious question of clarification.
No problem, Vin, I take it as 'serious question'.To be 'convinced' is not to be 'open', and ALB's belief in the separation of 'science' from 'sociology' is an ideological belief, which he's learnt from our society. But he doesn't declare where he 'learnt' this, and so leaves us with the impression that it's his individual opinion.When I 'prefer' something, I'm recommending it to the proletariat for a vote, and I openly tell the proletariat where I've got my ideas from (Marx, Pannekoek, Schaff, Lakatos, etc.).So, my scientific method is 'democratic' and 'exposed', whereas ALB's is 'personal' and 'hidden'. The latter is a bourgeois method.
VM wrote:Also, would a proletarian scientific method be an uncontestable paradigm, once established. and will all alternative methods be rejected as 'boureois'Again this is a serious request for clarification.I ask out of genuin confusion at the way you present your position.You haven't acknowledged yet, Vin, that you're employing Kuhn's ideology of 'paradigms'.I've already explained to you that I don't use this ideology; I openly say that I use Lakatos' 'research programmes'. And I've already said that 'research programmes' compete with each other.So, from my ideological point of view, your ideological question about 'uncontestable' is meaningless, because my ideology, similar to Marx's, sees 'contestability' as at the heart of science.From this point of view, there can never be an 'uncontestable paradigm'. It is a meaningless question, because 'paradigms' don't exist, and 'contestability' is eternal.Lakatosian 'research programmes' are multiple and competitive. This means that any given 'r. p.' can always be criticised, and the proletarian method demands 'criticism', not 'Truth'.This is similar to 'democracy', which demands disagreement, debate and voting, to achieve a temporary position. But any vote can always be overturned. 'Decisions' are never final, but can always be revisited, when a new policy is proposed, especially in changed circumstances.Our political and scientific methods be be unified.[PS. please state which scientific ideology you are following, Vin. If it's Kuhn's, we can discuss it, if you want.]
OK, more entertaining.Socialism, as we understand it is the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of producing and distributing wealth by, and in the interests of, the whole community.People would work according to their own self-defined abilities, and take according to their self defined needs. It would be, necessarilly, a free association of producers.So, in order to fulfil these requirements, there must be freedom of expression and conscience and freedom of association. Minorities must have the opportunity to try and become majorities: a vote is not the end but the continuation of an argument.Say, if a group wanted to re-form the Flat Easrth society, then the socialist commonwealth would have to allow them the resources and opportunities to put their case. It would be expected that internally the New Flat Earth Society would be democratic and open (possibly as a condition for being recognised and having access to offices, and sundry bits of equipment to allow them to keepo running, porobably communesurate with their size). The majority would be under no obligation to put the views of the NFES to a vote, but they would have the opportunity to state their case.Likewise the 10,000 Hours of Planetology Research Society:(Membership restricted to those who could demonstrate 10,000 hours of research and study in the field of planetology). Again, it would be run democratically by it's members (and may actually be smaller than the NFES).Now, there would be rare large scale Equipment Providers, much like the CERN Accelerator, The Planetary Satelite Network, and Radio Telescopes (and also smaller chemistry labs) etc. Now, just as people will have to prove they can dive, in socialism, before they can work as a Deep Sea Diver on the Oil Rigs, so too will the (lets call them universities) place rational restrictions on the use of scarce and delicate equipment. We could speculate that 'bids' to perform research would be submitted, with recommendations by societies and known experts. Maybe something like the Gale Shapley Stable Matching Algorithm might be used to score the applications to play with the toys. Maybe Juries of non-experts would assess the bids, in the light of evidence.Plans for new such researches would have to be published, debated and developed, and incorporated into whatever production plans we make for production, in order to build such massive and complex research projects. Much as we assume the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) would provide some sort of worldwide co-ordinate for agriculture and agricultural expertise, so a worldwide physics, chemistry and general science council would be needed to co-ordinate and advise. Maybe suceeding from the ICSU (International Council for Science and Understanding ) that currently exists.In any case, in a public discussion, people would pay more heed to the 10,000 Hours of Planetology Research Society than the NFES (possibly).In this story, there is no need for a vote to settle whether the world is round or flat. The NFES would be free to continue its researches, and to be resourced from the common stores. They could even sail to antatctica looking to the Ice Wall around the Earth, if they want.
LBird wrote:You haven't acknowledged yet, Vin, that you're employing Kuhn's ideology of 'paradigms'.I've already explained to you that I don't use this ideology; I openly say that I use Lakatos' 'research programmes'. And I've already said that 'research programmes' compete with each other.I outlined my position and my ideological assumptions in posts #374 and #378 aboveI do not use Lakatos I use a socialist/communist ideology so therefore I do not accept 'research programmes' as valid. Nor do I use Kuhn's paradigm. In my search for a unified science I have adopted a form of 'paradigm', inspired by Kuhn, which I apply to distinguish bourgoeis social science from marxist social science. Once I have isolated the marxist paradigm, I can work within in it to outline and understand a unified marxist scientific method.I do believe I have stated clearly that the MCH is my ideological starting point in understanding scienceOnly a starting point I know.
LBird wrote:To be 'convinced' is not to be 'open', and ALB's belief in the separation of 'science' from 'sociology' is an ideological belief, which he's learnt from our society. But he doesn't declare where he 'learnt' this, and so leaves us with the impression that it's his individual opinion.When I 'prefer' something, I'm recommending it to the proletariat for a vote, and I openly tell the proletariat where I've got my ideas from (Marx, Pannekoek, Schaff, Lakatos, etc.).So, my scientific method is 'democratic' and 'exposed', whereas ALB's is 'personal' and 'hidden'. The latter is a bourgeois method.That's bollox. I was merely using the word "personally" to show that this was my view and not necessarily the views of the others continuing the discussion here (YMS, DJP, Vin). And could just as easily have used the word "prefer" as "convince". I can edit my comment in that way if you want. Believe it or not, I was actually starting from a position of agreement with you !The question I was raising was not incompatible with your view that there is no such thing as an ideology-free science. I was just questioning whether the ideology had always to be a class ideology. You yourself say (I think) that in socialism/communism this will not be the case. I was just asking whether, for some things, this could not be the case under capitalism too. (Incidentally, I prefer to think that the physical science biology is also class-ideology based).You haven't answered this.
Just loking at an ISCU publication, on the principle of Universality (one of their key principles) I found this quote:
Quote:Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right s states that, ‘everyone has the right to…share in scientific advancement and its benefits.’ Access to scientific data, information and research materials is essential for scientist s and for those wishing to benefit from the products of science. This is acknowledged in recent UNESCO and OECD guidelines on access to information and data.In practice, there are many obstacles to providing universal and equitable access to these fundamental building block s of science. These may be technical, such as poor internet access for on-line resources; financial, such a s charges for scientific journals; or security-related, such as access to certain categories of equipment or materials. In some instances the obstacles are the result of the behaviour of the scientific community it self and it s reluctance to share data and materials. Comprehensive solutions are needed to address all these issues, and developing such solutions is a long term process involving many stakeholders and interests. At the level of individual scientist s, when discrimination is preventing access, it is a clear breach of the Principle of Universality and appropriate interventions, on a case-by-case basis, can be effective.As they also note, some of those obstacles are commercial. This illustrates the case that socialism can benefit science, by removing the barriers of national and commercial competition, and creating a space where we can realise the true benefits of scientific co-operation. http://www.icsu.org/publications/cfrs/freedom-responsibility-booklet/ICSU-CFRS-booklet.pdf
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:You haven't acknowledged yet, Vin, that you're employing Kuhn's ideology of 'paradigms'.I've already explained to you that I don't use this ideology; I openly say that I use Lakatos' 'research programmes'. And I've already said that 'research programmes' compete with each other.I outlined my position and my ideological assumptions in posts #374 and #378 aboveI do not use Lakatos I use a socialist/communist ideology so therefore I do not accept 'research programmes' as valid. Nor do I use Kuhn's paradigm. In my search for a unified science I have adopted a form of 'paradigm', inspired by Kuhn, which I apply to distinguish bourgoeis social science from marxist social science. Once I have isolated the marxist paradigm, I can work within in it to outline and understand a unified marxist scientific method.I do believe I have stated clearly that the MCH is my ideological starting point in understanding scienceOnly a starting point I know.
Two problems, Vin.On the issue of 'frameworks', if you employ Kuhn's ideas, there is a usual period of 'normal' science, and 'revolutionary' science is the infrequent occurrence. Thus is it a theory of stability and consensus. Surely the similarity to conservative thinking is obvious?On the contrary, the usual status of science employing Lakatos' ideas is 'competing' and thus 'disagreement'. Thus it is a theory of change and argument. Surely the similarity to Marx's thinking is obvious?This, I think, makes Lakatos the superior theory, for Communists, for understanding how the history of science has happened.Secondly, the MCoH does not provide a basis for understanding both 'rocks' and 'value', which I said earlier must be the case for a unified method, in Marx's sense. Your claim only works if you, like ALB, subscribe to the bourgeois theory of the separation of 'science' and 'arts' (physical and social sciences). I do not follow this theory, and think we should try to find a methodological basis to science which is unified.I think that Critical Realism can provide this unified method. I see the MCoH as an instance of CR. In other words, the Marx's MCoH is based upon CR, and that Marx was a Critical Realist, and this is what he means by 'historical materialism'.I'll outline the basics of CR, if there is some acceptance of the need to find something which unifies physical and social science.
ALB wrote:The question I was raising was not incompatible with your view that there is no such thing as an ideology-free science. I was just questioning whether the ideology had always to be a class ideology. You yourself say (I think) that in socialism/communism this will not be the case.I glad that you seem to be agreeing with me, that ‘there is no such thing as an ideology-free science’. I think that this is an important step for all Communists to recognise, on the road to undermining bourgeois authority within science. We can’t criticise something which produces The Truth. The bourgeoisie don’t have a value-free, neutral method which allows them to simply ‘discover’ the world. Humans are an essential part of creating our knowledge of the world, of ‘humanising nature’, as Marx put it. I think we should start from the assumption that all science, in this society, has class ideology, and examine it on that basis. Clearly, within a non-class society, this can't be the case.
ALB wrote:I was just asking whether, for some things, this could not be the case under capitalism too. (Incidentally, I prefer to think that the physical science biology is also class-ideology based).You haven't answered thisI thought I had. Whether any ‘science’ is ‘class-based’ is to be examined, rather than assumed.
LBird, post #385 wrote:I prefer a scientific method that openly examines 'theory' first, and then puts it into practice, and then votes on the results to see whether they are considered 'socially true' or not.Using this unified method, it is up to the proletariat to decide, after scientific investigation, whether any 'science' produced by the bourgeoisie is 'true' for us, too. Perhaps it will be, in some areas of science, perhaps it won't be, in other areas of science.I’m interested in the issue of method, rather than trying to imagine what objections the proletariat might come up against bourgeois ideas within any particular scientific discipline, from physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, politics, to history, and every other discipline in between. Why treat physics any differently from sociology? Unless one has already assumed that physics and sociology are sciences of a different methodological order?Is physics a 'special' science? The bourgeoisie have been saying it is, for centuries, and that its method alone produces Truth. We know since Einstein that this isn't the case, as Rovelli admits, that 'Newton was wrong'.
I thought I’d begin today by trying to outline the basics of Critical Realism, for any comrades who are unfamiliar with CR. As usual, there is no substitute for actually reading deeper into these necessarily skimpy outlines, but I always think that it is a central role for Communists to try to explain, to other workers, complex ideas in far simpler terms than academics do. Much of what bourgeois academics write is intended, not to explain, but to hide, as part of their elitist ideology. I do think that Communists have a didactic role within the class, but this is a two-way relationship. If the class shout “Piss off, and come back when you’ve thought of a way to explain it better, in a way that we can understand!”, I would recommended this as the scientific method in action for the proletariat, when dealing with professors (or, indeed, with Communists). Science, in every discipline, must be explained and be accessible. This attitude must be at the forefront of any movement which claims to be the forerunner of the organised revolutionary proletariat, whose final aim is the democratisation of the means of production. Democracy, by its very nature, demands widespread understanding of all issues, whether these issues are classed as political, economic or scientific.The four key concepts in CR are: components, structures, levels, and emergent properties.A component is a building block of a structure.A structure is a set of components organised in a specific way, that is, a set of components in particular relationships to each other.A level is a certain set of structures which are themselves related to each other. The key points here are: a) that structures can themselves as act as components for higher level structures; and b) that components can be examined as structures formed from lower level components.Emergent properties are properties, attributes, powers, etc. that only emerge at a certain structural level. This means that the ‘emergent’ does not exist at the component level of that structure. One can’t break up the structure in search of the origin of the property, because it isn’t there. It exists as part of relationships. This applies at all levels, too. Higher and higher levels of structures have properties emerging at each level, which can’t be reduced to a lower level structure or component, and certainly can’t be reduced to some notional ‘lowest’ level component, because, according to our concepts, any so-called ‘lowest’ level component is always a structure, too.Some example would obviously help here, for those comrades entirely unfamiliar with CR, and for whom the above outline is a bit ‘dry’.Perhaps an example of a structure is a car. Notice, that I have chosen this as at a structural level for my explanation. This structure is made up of components, like engine, wheels, seats, etc. But these components are themselves structures, too, and I could have chosen to use any of them as a structure, rather than as a component, within my explanation. An emergent property of a car is speed. But this only exists at the car structural level, and examining the seats, wheels or engine for speed won’t reveal it. If these components are laid out, unstructured and unrelated, on a garage floor, they do not contain ‘speed’. Similarly, if cars are brought together in a specific structural relationship called traffic (that is, the structure ‘car’ is now acting as a ‘component’ for a higher structure), other properties emerge which don’t exist at the car level, like a ‘jam’. A hundred cars spread out over a city do not constitute a ‘traffic jam’ (with its lack of speed); it’s only a jam if the cars are brought together in the same street at the same time, in a certain relationship. A ‘jam’ does not exist at the car level, nor at the seat level.Four points: I think that CR can help explain scientific issues in both physical and social science; CR is the imposition of human theory upon the world (not 'induction' nor 'practice and theory') and thus follows the slogan 'theory and practice'; CR is essentially ‘relational’; CR is bound up with ideology, and it is anathaema to ‘individualist’ or ‘reductionist’ thought. In all these ways, I think CR is compatible with Marx’s views on science and nature.Science necessarily focuses upon a certain level: this is a human choice, not something that a structure forces upon the human. Perhaps the next stage is to show how this theory can be applied to help us to understand both rocks and value (ie. both physical and social phenomena), as I’ve already insisted that a ‘unified method’ must be able to do.
LBird wrote:I glad that you seem to be agreeing with me, that ‘there is no such thing as an ideology-free science’I should perhaps clarify that I agree with your point that the mind plays an active role in understanding nature and that the categories into which it classifies nature are in the mind not in nature, but I don't agree with calling this "ideology". But that's an argument about terminology not substance. It follows from this that, as you and many others are saying, that science is not uncovering the True nature of nature but classifying it in a particular way and which could, in some cases, be class-biased.
LBird wrote:Whether any ‘science’ is ‘class-based’ is to be examined, rather than assumedI agree. That was my point. It's a basic methological principle.
LBird, post #385 wrote:I prefer a scientific method that openly examines 'theory' first, and then puts it into practice, and then votes on the results to see whether they are considered 'socially true' or not.Using this unified method, it is up to the proletariat to decide, after scientific investigation, whether any 'science' produced by the bourgeoisie is 'true' for us, too. Perhaps it will be, in some areas of science, perhaps it won't be, in other areas of science.Not at all sure about this, though. Can't see how it would work. Who gets a vote? All "proletarians" (in which case there might be some bizarre results as religion and the paranormal are so widespread today under capitalism)? Or just class conscious proletarians, i.e socialists/communists (in which case wouldn't that be "elitist" or "substitutionist)?
LBird wrote:I’m interested in the issue of method, rather than trying to imagine what objections the proletariat might come up against bourgeois ideas within any particular scientific discipline, from physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, politics, to history, and every other discipline in between. Why treat physics any differently from sociology? Unless one has already assumed that physics and sociology are sciences of a different methodological order?This seems a bit of cop-out to me and in contradiction to what you wrote above about the need to examine each science on a case by case basis. Also, of course you have imagined (as in the thread on Piketty) what objections can be raised against, for instance, bourgeois economics. Is that because (like me) you are more confident about talking about economics than physics?
Quote:Is physics a 'special' science? The bourgeoisie have been saying it is, for centuries, and that its method alone produces Truth. We know since Einstein that this isn't the case, as Rovelli admits, that 'Newton was wrong'.Not meaning to be funny, but who are the bourgeoisie who have been saying this "for centuries"? Until a hundred years or so ago I would have thought that most of the bourgeoisie would have thought that "the Truth" was to be found in the bible — the Protestant ethic and all that. In any event, as you point out, whoever has been saying this is wrong, as is now widely recognised in bourgeois as well as socialist/communist circles.
ALB wrote:Not meaning to be funny, but who are the bourgeoisie who have been saying this "for centuries"? Until a hundred years or so ago I would have thought that most of the bourgeoisie would have thought that "the Truth" was to be found in the bible — the Protestant ethic and all that. In any event, as you point out, whoever has been saying this is wrong, as is now widely recognised in bourgeois as well as socialist/communist circles.Oh, it is 'funny', ALB!You won't believe this, but when I said that whether 'the sun goes round the earth' or 'the earth goes round the sun' is a 'truth' that depends upon which society is saying it, some, employing bourgeois ideology, denied it!Actually, 'truth' sits within 'knowledge of an object' and not within 'the object' itself.Of course, whereas the religious found 'Truth' in the bible, the bourgeoisie find 'Truth' in nature.For the former, truth is revealed in the bible, and can't be criticised; for the latter, truth is revealed in nature, and can't be criticised.Both hold to ahistoric, asocial 'Truth'.However, Marx argued that 'truth' is a social and historical product by humans, not something revealed to us (whether by the book or by neutral method), and, like Pannekoek, thought that even the 'laws of nature' are a social and historical product by humanity, not a reflection of 'reality as it is'.I'm glad we're sharing jokes now, ALB. It's so much more comradely.
LBird wrote:You won't believe this, but when I said that whether 'the sun goes round the earth' or 'the earth goes round the sun' is a 'truth' that depends upon which society is saying it, some, employing bourgeois ideology, denied it!To continue the banter, how, then, can it be said that Newton was wrong, as somebody wrote last night?
ALB wrote:To continue the banter, how, then, can it be said that Newton was wrong, as somebody wrote last night?This is the problem with cognitive relativsm. In one breath "truth" is defined as what most people in a society think is true. Then in the next breath "truth" comes to mean "in accord wih reality". It's a game of inconsitency and moving goalposts…By LBirds standards it must currently be true that god exists, since atheists and the non-religous currently only make around 18% of the population.It also must be much more true that socialism is impossible.How can you currently claim that either of these proposistions are false without also dropping the premise that truth is relative to a society?
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:You won't believe this, but when I said that whether 'the sun goes round the earth' or 'the earth goes round the sun' is a 'truth' that depends upon which society is saying it, some, employing bourgeois ideology, denied it!To continue the banter, how, then, can it be said that Newton was wrong, as somebody wrote last night?
ALB, post #399 wrote:I should perhaps clarify that I agree with your point that the mind plays an active role in understanding nature and that the categories into which it classifies nature are in the mind not in nature.[my bold]Unless you argue that Newton's 'mind' (which I think you agree is the source of the social and historical belief that 'the earth goes round the sun') is infallible, then it must be possible that he was wrong.All I'm doing, ALB, is pointing out the inconsistency when people accept the 'theory-ladenness of facts', but then insist that there are 'theory unladen facts' which do not depend upon social and historical 'mind'.I'm also assuming that you accept that Newton's mind was also a social and historical creation by his society.If we Communists are going to hold to the bourgeois belief in 'individual genius' and 'True Knowledge' as the basis of the scientific method, 'eternally uncriticisable', fair enough, but it should be openly declared by any who hold to this ideology, that they are following the bourgeoisie regarding 'science'.And the person who said Newton was wrong was the working physicist, Rovelli.I'm merely the humble messenger (who always reveals his sources), for Rovelli, Pannekoek and Marx – don't shoot me, ALB![PS, comrade, how about moving on to discussing Critical Realism, and its usefulness (or otherwise) for the proletariat when discussing scientific method?]
Further from, the ICSU:
Quote:Science is the attainment of knowledge through research — the systematic exploration and explanation of the unknown. The scientific process is based on the formulation and testing of hypotheses by the generation of verifiable evidence from observations and experiment s.Now, there is nothing thee that I think LBird can dispute (or indeed has disputed) as the definition of science. The question seems to be what is "systematic" and where do the hypotheses come from?On the question of the relation of consciousness to data. ISTR a, funnily enough, empirical proof that we live ina world constructed by our minds. Apparently (I think I read this in Pannekoek's Anthropogenesis) the strength of light from a distant star striking our retinas is less than the energy is takes to transmit the energy to our brain down our nerves (much less to process the data and create an 'image' in our minds). This means our bodies and our brains are putting nergy, and structure and ifnormation into the system, we construct our data as much, if not more, than we passively receive it. If this is true in daily life, it is true in science.Now, we, as human beings, are pretty much biologically identical, but the brain, like a muscle, can be trained and developed in particular strengths, and will gain habits of thought and connecting ideas.
LBird wrote:You won't believe this, but when I said that whether 'the sun goes round the earth' or 'the earth goes round the sun' is a 'truth' that depends upon which society is saying it, some, employing bourgeois ideology, denied it!So if it is true that "truth" depends upon which society is saying it" this means that it is false that "truth" depends upon which society is saying it". Since in society people don't think that truth depends on which society is saying it.It's a bit like the Barbers paradox "The barber is a man in town who shaves all those, and only those, men in town who do not shave themselves."
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.