Science for Communists?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

And there lies the problem of confusion with you and Bhaskar…

But my tag is not Bhaskar, but LBird, so why not engage with what the self-proclaimed Communist and admirer of the SPGB's commitment to democracy, who has been attempting to discuss this for a year, LBird, has to say, and forget Bhaskar, for now?Why the obsession with people I quote, in support of some things I say, rather than engaging with me, and what I say?I'm trying to help (god knows, I've tried) comrades to avoid most of the complexity, and get a hook into what I think would benefit workers in their relationship with science.Believe me, buying Bhaskar's A Realist Theory of Science is not the easiest route. Some discussion first would be immeasurably helpful, for those new to philosophy of science.Plus, most of what Bhaskar writes is similar to Marx: not in its politics, but in its opaqueness, so I don't understand most of what either of them say. That's why I want to discuss, and not merely regurgitate "the words of the Masters".[edit] Plus, DJP has form with the diversionary method. He's used it before (the issues of 'physicalism' and 'mind' spring to mind), so it's not limited to 'Bhaskar'.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

To believe the bourgeois myth of a ‘neutral method in physics which gives humans The Eternal Truth’ (and since Einstein we’ve know that it’s a myth, hence the disturbances within 20th century philosophy of science, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, the most prominent critical thinkers), is to sow the seeds of Leninism within proletarian thought. If there is a ‘neutral method’ in physics, which can be learned by an educated elite, to the omission of the mass, and that this ‘neutral method’ can lay the basis of a ‘neutral method’ in all science (and if it can’t, and social issues are not open to ‘scientific’ approaches, where does that leave us Communists and our analysis of society?), then a small part of our class can claim to be able to employ this ‘neutral method’ which gives The Truth in politics, too.

And herein lies the problem in Lbirds refusal to discuss "Ideology" and it's meanings.  If their model of ideology is a totalising one, in which the ideas of the ruling class are (in effect, or at least in the model) the only ideas, and we are all trapped in a prison of ideas (per Althusser) then, yes, science becomes the one way out of ideology, and we become committed to a cadre who can see through the veil.  if ideas are contexted, and our model is that the Voloshinov/Bakhtin in which all ideas are contested and polyphonic, t6hen there is a way out.  We cease to conflate culture/ creeed, ideas and experience into the Eternal Truth of ideology, and instead have a situation in which we can begin to talk about truth as the coincidence of life as experienced with how it is concieved: an end to ideology.  Put another way, the end of ideology is not through superior perception, but through lived experience.  The point is to change the world.In socialism, I don't believe that anyone will be allowed to join a deep sea diving team off an oil-rig without training.  Likewise, they won't get to run an experiemnt with a radio telescope.  We can expect a total lifetime of useful waking hours of about 210 thousand.  (in actual fact I'd estimate it at roughly half that, age will tell)  210 thousand hours in which to become experts in maths, physics, chemistry, languages, history, art, music, etc.  we'll split those hours differently, and some will choose not to bother with physics, some will love physics, and some will be better musicians than they are physicists.

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

And there lies the problem of confusion with you and Bhaskar…

But my tag is not Bhaskar, but LBird, so why not engage with what the self-proclaimed Communist and admirer of the SPGB's commitment to democracy, who has been attempting to discuss this for a year, LBird, has to say, and forget Bhaskar, for now?Why the obsession with people I quote, in support of some things I say, rather than engaging with me, and what I say?I'm trying to help (god knows, I've tried) comrades to avoid most of the complexity, and get a hook into what I think would benefit workers in their relationship with science.Believe me, buying Bhaskar's A Realist Theory of Science is not the easiest route. Some discussion first would be immeasurably helpful, for those new to philosophy of science.Plus, most of what Bhaskar writes is similar to Marx: not in its politics, but in its opaqueness, so I don't understand most of what either of them say. That's why I want to discuss, and not merely regurgitate "the words of the Masters".[edit] Plus, DJP has form with the diversionary method. He's used it before (the issues of 'physicalism' and 'mind' spring to mind), so it's not limited to 'Bhaskar'.

Your tag may well be LBird but nevertheless by trying to claim ownership on 'Critical Realism' you are inevitably going to come under attack from Bhaskar supporters and also the scientific community for deliberately confusing the debate.Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems you intend doing what Marx done with Hegle – and Descartes – with both Bhaskar and the scientific method by putting them right side up e.g. I am therefore I think.  Which in my estimation does not make Marx an idealist-materialist as you are claiming but a materialist.So why not just ditch CR and call it Critical Materialism?By the way as you may have guessed I'm new to the philosophy of science but keen to learn where science is going wrong in your estimation.  So if you can convince me you are at least halfway there."Every beginning is difficult" Marx: Capital.

[Anonymous]

LBird you have yet again attributed ideas to me that I don't hold. This means that before I can deal with your arguments I have to first deal with your false accusations.This is frustrating and time consuming, so I am afraid I will have to leave you to decide what I think, because you either do not read what I say or you are deliberately misrepresenting me.      

[LBird]

  

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird you have yet again attributed ideas to me that I don't hold. This means that before I can deal with your arguments I have to first deal with your false accusations.This is frustrating and time consuming, so I am afraid I will have to leave you to decide what I think, because you either do not read what I say or you are deliberately misrepresenting me.

But I’ve attributed to you ‘Kuhn’s paradigms’ and a ‘singular approach’, and refusing to regard ‘social science’ as a model for ‘physical science’.

VM, post #444, wrote:

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.

So, you’ve mentioned ‘Kuhnian paradigm’, in the singular, and pooh-poohed ‘social sciences today’.

VM, post #446 wrote:

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.

Again, you claim ‘social science’ isn’t working (and because you don’t say ‘natural science isn’t working’, it is implied that ‘physics’ is working), and as you rightly say, I wish to ‘transfer’ a social science method to physical science (in an attempt to find a ‘unified method’) and you call this a basis for ‘confusion’, then you must believe that ‘natural science’ is either separate or, if you wish to follow Marx’s ‘unifying’, then ‘natural science’ must form the basis of ‘social science’.

VM, post #435, wrote:

LBird wrote:

How does the MCH&C explain 'rocks' to us?

I don't need it to. I need it to increase our knowledge of history and how we can help change society: How we can solve war, hunger, crime etc. But then I have already made that clear.

Here, again, you clearly don’t with to ‘unify’ the study of ‘rocks’ and ‘history/society’. You wish to ignore ‘rocks’ and deal with ‘war, hunger, crime etc.’, and you claim that the MCH&C forms this basis. Thus, this ‘method’ is not on a par with the ‘physical sciences’.

VM, post #435, wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'd argue that Marx's method of 'economics, history, etc.' has been proved the more successful.

It has not been successful, because of the nature of the social science method. It will be successful when social science becomes 'scientific' by accepting the communist/socialist/marxist paradigm/research program/theory or what ever we wish to call it. But then I have already said that….How can you possibly say that social science has been more successful than natural science!Where are our greatest acheivements? Curing social diseases such as war, poverty, hunger, crime, mental illness? Or physical diseases?

Once again, the emphasis on the difference between ‘social’ and ‘physical’ scientific method. The emphasis on ‘a single paradigm’. The  claim that ‘natural science’ has been ‘more successful’, when everybody knows that the fact that ‘something can be done’ is not the same as explaining why it has worked. In fact, we know that ‘natural science’ is very poor at explaining things to humans, and we are forced to rely on ‘complex maths’ or meaningless texts using obscure concepts, which don’t actually explain anything to most people.Since we are Communists, and claim that the proletariat can develop and take control of the means of production, we must have a ‘science’ that explains itself to the vast majority of people, if we are to have democratic control. If democratic control of knowledge is not a central concern of one’s ‘science’, then I suggest that one isn’t attempting to build a ‘science’ for humanity, but merely to retain an old elite science for experts. This has political implications.And, indeed, ‘social science’ has been ‘more successful than natural science’. Marx’s explanations of the reality of capitalism form a model for explanation within the natural sciences, as Marx himself hoped it would. The only reason this isn’t clearly recognised throughout society, is because we live in a bourgeois society, which rejects Marx’s scientific explanation of society, his claim that it can form the basis of ‘humanising nature’ and his belief that ‘knowledge’ of society and nature is the business of our whole society, not a few ‘elite experts’ and academics.Now, Vin, due to your very comradely support during my ‘ban’, I’ve taken a lot of time to illustrate all this again for you. I’m not going to do this every time for you, or for anyone else at all.If no-one can follow the implications of their own arguments, then we might as well finish now.I ask again, does anyone want to discuss my outline of CR, as given in post #398?

[LBird]

I won't bother to reply, yet again, to YMS, because I've done all this before, and if YMS can't find the answers, I don't give a shit.

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

So why not just ditch CR and call it Critical Materialism?By the way as you may have guessed I'm new to the philosophy of science but keen to learn where science is going wrong in your estimation. So if you can convince me you are at least halfway there.

Two answers.1) Marx wasn't a 'materialist', in the accepted meaning of that term (everything is 'material' or 'physical'); I've explained this, and think that the term 'idealist-materialist' captures Marx's position far better, if one reads his Theses on Feuerbach.2) The realm of the 'real' includes material and ideas. Rocks and value have the same ontological status.So, the 'Critical' is fine (it plays the same role, perhaps, as 'historical' in 'Hist. Mat.'), but retaining the 'Materialism' is a massive mistake, given the Leninist appropriation of Engels' 'Dia. Mat.', which is complete tosh, and its history within the Communist movement: 'materialism' means 'Leninism'.Thus, for now, at least, I'd support 'Critical Realism', as opposed to 'Dialectical' or 'Historical' 'Materialism', as the name for our Communist activity within 'science'. Of course, the name could be changed, and indeed the content might be changed, but at the rate this thread is advancing, we'll all be dead before we get to any substantive discussion about the 'philosophy of science' and address your 'keenness to learn'.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 Vin has admitted that he thinks that ‘physics and sociology’ are of a different methodological order (no matter Marx’s thinking about ‘unity of science’), and that ‘physics’ provides a model for ‘sociology’ to follow. He also thinks that ‘physics’ leads to ‘Truth’ and that there is a method for getting at this ‘Truth’ of nature, if not of sociology.

 Have I said this somewhere in this thread?? You have made this up.  And I am again spending time defending a position you attribute to me.  

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Vin has admitted that he thinks that ‘physics and sociology’ are of a different methodological order (no matter Marx’s thinking about ‘unity of science’), and that ‘physics’ provides a model for ‘sociology’ to follow. He also thinks that ‘physics’ leads to ‘Truth’ and that there is a method for getting at this ‘Truth’ of nature, if not of sociology.

 Have I said this somewhere in this thread?? You have made this up.  And I am again spending time defending a position you attribute to me.  

I can't keep doing this, Vin. I've spent ages this afternoon giving you chapter and verse with quotes of your words.If you think there is something specifically where I'm doing you an injustice, then spell it out, but after you've re-read your own posts on these issues.The only real answer, Vin, is to move things forward, and if you really think I'm making this all up, then simply drop out of the thread. Perhaps all will become clearer, with more detailed discussion.Forget my 'caricature' of your position. What do you think of my outline of CR?

[Anonymous]

Vin Maratty wrote:

This is the starting point of a unified science for the working class.

 

LBird wrote:

Vin doesn't believe in a unified science

  

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

This is the starting point of a unified science for the working class.

 

LBird wrote:

Vin doesn't believe in a unified science

But it's pointless merely saying 'unified', if everything else of substance you write on the issue says 'separate'.I'm forced to conclude either than you don't know what 'unified' means, or that you separate out what you say you do from what you actually do; ie. that you're a conscious hypocrite, or unconsciously following scientists, who do the same thing.My best guess is that you don't understand the implications of 'unified method'. I'm not being insulting, but honestly trying to understand why I'm spending hours trying to explain to comrades what they themselves are writing.It's not doing me any good.If you think a unified method is possible, outline the method for understanding rocks and value. Or physics and sociology. You can't keep writing about the separation of physics and sociology, if you say you want a unified method.If the MCoH&C can form this basis, how does Capital explain physics?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

By the way as you may have guessed I'm new to the philosophy of science but keen to learn where science is going wrong in your estimation. So if you can convince me you are at least halfway there.

It's not 'my estimation', Brian, but science's estimation since Einstein. As Rovelli says, Newton was wrong.So, I don't have to 'convince you'. Science should have already done that. If you're not already convinced, you're wasting your time on this thread.We can't continue to simply say "well, it works!" and leave it at that. Humans demand explanation.If you're happy with the explanation "well, it works!", then you're in the company of those who defend capitalism.The fact that capitalism kills millions in wars and starves billions, does not show that it doesn't work. It 'works' for bosses, and if 'bosses are inescapable', as most workers think, then wars and starvation are the price that must be paid by workers. They accept their lot, and 'material conditions' will not change that.We have to ask, what does 'works' mean? And for whom?This is criticism of the current state of affairs, not acceptance of 'what works'.The belief that 'physics works' is not good enough.Communism must mean explanation, and explanation for the masses.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 We can't continue to simply say "well, it works!" and leave it at that. Humans demand explanation.If you're happy with the explanation "well, it works!", then you're in the company of those who defend capitalism.The fact that capitalism kills millions in wars and starves billions, does not show that it doesn't work. It 'works' for bosses, and if 'bosses are inescapable', as most workers think, then wars and starvation are the price that must be paid by workers. They accept their lot, and 'material conditions' will not change that. 

Capitalism survives and kills  because of the scientific method of the social sciences which you support and wish to apply to all science.The competing theoretical perspectives ensure the survival of the stongest, the one with the mass media and money behind it.The working class needs to ensure the success of socialism at the expense of the capitalists ideology. There is no room in the science of society for a system that is destroying the planet and the people on it. 

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

By the way as you may have guessed I'm new to the philosophy of science but keen to learn where science is going wrong in your estimation. So if you can convince me you are at least halfway there.

It's not 'my estimation', Brian, but science's estimation since Einstein. As Rovelli says, Newton was wrong.So, I don't have to 'convince you'. 

So was Newton always 'wrong' and how do we know Rovelli is 'right'. Does Rovelli now know the 'truth'. Perhaps he will be 'wrong' in 40-100 years. Going by history and your interpretation of 'right' and 'wrong' ,  'Einstein' is certainly wrong or if he isn't then he soon will be.  

[LBird]

I have to presume that you're taking the piss, now, Vin.The alternatives are too depressing to even contemplate, never mind mention.Anyone else wish to discuss some basics of Critical Realism, that I outlined earlier?

[Author]

Posts