Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
YMS, Vin, it seems that I don't share your assumptions, and, as I've said, I've already explained why I don't.Perhaps it's time for you to ignore my further thoughts about 'unity of method' and CR?I don't think it will be fruitful for any of us.
Oh, away man, in good faith, I asked you what one of the points on your bullet list means. For all I know I might agree with it under another name) or disagree, but in a way that might be more fruitful for research/discussion. What are Lakatos' "multiple research programmes"?
YMS wrote:What are Lakatos' "multiple research programmes"?I've already pointed out the relevance of this, twice, I think.Vin follows Kuhn's 'paradigms' and 'normal-revolution-normal' sequence. This means a single 'paradigm' is usually dominant, and dissent and disagreement are played down. Thus, I argued that this ideology is the more conservative and accepting of the status quo.I look to Lakatos' 'research programmes' which are multiple (as you say) and competing, all of the time. There isn't a period of 'normal, dominant, singular paradigm'. This means a pluralistic approach of competing theories. Thus, I argued that this ideology is the more radical and critical.If you wanted me to outline what Lakatos meant by a 'reseach programme', why didn't you ask that question when I was discussing 'hard cores', etc.? And in fact, I'm pretty certain that I've talked about 'protective belts', positive and negative heuristic, etc. on another thread, to which you were party.To me, for the purposes of this thread, the discusion of CR is far more important. I've only been diverted into R.P.s in response to Vin's reference to Kuhn's paradigms, which he seems to accept as 'true' (as opposed to ideological).'Side-tracking' appears to be a general method, within the SPGB.
Ah, turns out I do agree with it, which might be why I didn't pick up on it when you were discussing it elseplace, I just didn't associate the term.btw. Lbird seems to have added yet another meaning of ideology in the above post, now it seems to mean a theory.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Some may find the Wikipedia article useful:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism_%28philosophy_of_the_social_sciences%29Yes, interesting. I see there's also an "International Association for Critical Realism":http://criticalrealismblog.blogspot.co.uk/Looks a bit esoteric to me. But, LBird, is this what you also mean by "critical realism" or are you an offshoot of it? I can see some similarities.
LBird wrote:Vin follows Kuhn's 'paradigms' and 'normal-revolution-normal' sequence. This means a single 'paradigm' is usually dominant, and dissent and disagreement are played down. Thus, I argued that this ideology is the more conservative and accepting of the status quo.I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one as I believe a single paradigm will be revolutionary and is the only 'ideology' that will serve working class interests. The coninued existence of 'bourgeois' ideology alongside other ideologies is to me conservative and ensures the status quo.
D'y'know, the hired prize-fighters of the bourgeoisie in academia couldn't put up as good a rearguard action, against any radical, critical thought about 'science', as this site has done!Sidetracking, 'misunderstanding', personal abuse, acting 'stupid', pretended agreement to lull me into unawareness and then renewed attack, forgetfulness, tag-team constant barrage in taking turns, 'could you just explain again, LBird' obsequiousness……it's a lesson to us all in delaying tactics. Fabius Cunctator would've been proud of you, legionnaries of Rome, against the blandishments of the Hannibalistic barbarian LBird!"He aims to burn Rome, lads!"
LBird wrote:D'y'know, the hired prize-fighters of the bourgeoisie in academia couldn't put up as good a rearguard action, against any radical, critical thought about 'science', as this site has done!I suspect that your ideology leads you to see everything as an attack, vide your mistaking "Th Feng Shueists are coming!" for "The Vandals are coming" despite he empirical evidence.
LBird wrote:I look to Lakatos' 'research programmes' which are multiple (as you say) and competing, all of the time. There isn't a period of 'normal, dominant, singular paradigm'. This means a pluralistic approach of competing theories. Thus, I argued that this ideology is the more radical and critical.my bold.No thanks! That is the state of social sciences today and social illnesses are on the increase. The revolutionary approach is that the 'paradigm' of MCH and C must be adopted by the vast majority of workers. This is not exclude dissent as it will be a democratic decision of the community.
LBird wrote:D'y'know, the hired prize-fighters of the bourgeoisie in academia couldn't put up as good a rearguard action, against any radical, critical thought about 'science', as this site has done!Sidetracking, 'misunderstanding', personal abuse, acting 'stupid', pretended agreement to lull me into unawareness and then renewed attack, forgetfulness, tag-team constant barrage in taking turns, 'could you just explain again, LBird' obsequiousness……it's a lesson to us all in delaying tactics. Fabius Cunctator would've been proud of you, legionnaries of Rome, against the blandishments of the Hannibalistic barbarian LBird!"He aims to burn Rome, lads!"I think your defence mechanism has kicked in again.Why such an attack on my sincerity?I have simply put forward my views. The only 'science' that isn't functioning or working is social science and you want to transfer that confusion to the natural sciences.
DJP wrote:CR is 6 minutesVery good. He states his case in simple easy to understand language.
http://www.icsu.org/science-for-policy/Arguably, a body like the ICSU is an exmple of building the new society within the shell of the old. It is an international body, concerned first and foremost with science and the general well-bing (albeit, some of it's stuff sounds a bit social democrat, as they now list the responsibilities of scientists alongside their rights, but then, a degree of technocracy goes hand in hand with social democrat thinking). Things like this are 'planning' in embryo. We won't need to plan the movement of every last screw and nut, but at a world level, a forum for honest examination of the world will be needed.(Not to cross thread, but we need to remember that politics isn't about what gets decided, but about who decides).Now, interestingly, a book on Ideology and Science Crossed my desk t'other day. There was an interesting chapter about attempts to impose state ideologies on scientists (Under Stalinism, Naziism and McCarthyism). The main contention was, that ultimately this failed, as the state had greater need of the outputs of science than it did of its need to control them. An unhappy comprimise was reached.Just as "in ideology" capitalism appears to be the same as industry and industrial co-operative production, in reality the two are separate and can be separated in the transformation into socialism. Scientists are proletarians these days, workign for a wage or salary (and indcreasingly subject to management control).
The ICSU looks to be one of those bodies that could well be enhanced and expanded for use in a socialist society, even though at present, inevitably maybe, it smacks of 'how can science best serve the interests of profit?', or, at best , 'how can science work within the contraints of capitalism?'Having said which, it's the kind of organisation from which you'd hope some kind of socialist understanding would eventually spring. Is it worth organising a debate with them?
By the way, DJP, I've been doing some reading around your favourite buzzword of 'supervenience', and it seems to be a codeword within bourgeois science for 'individualism', to help hide the reductionism which is at its heart. Related to this is your other ideological belief in 'physicalism'.These bolded are not concepts which should be employed within Communist science, but come from bourgeois science and its ideological defence of individualism and its detestation of society, if any other comrades are still intrigued by these debates.I already know DJP isn't.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.