Science for Communists?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Realism gives equal weight to the material and the ideal.

Just as a matter of interest, and without wanting to get involved in a debate (yet) about terminology, is this what "realism" has meant historically and generally even today? As DJP has just pointed out, this view has generally been known as "monism" (as it posits that there is only one "stuff" out there). I thought "realists" were those who argue that the world out there really is as it seems ("naive realists") or that what scientists are doing is gradually uncovering the "true" nature of "reality" ("scientific realists"), a view which has been strongly argued against here. Sorry, I seem to have just joined in the debate about terminology.

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

I'm not sure that there are any "physicalists" (who say that only what is physical is "real") here but if there were I wouldn't see this as a problem. It certainly wouldn't mean that they weren't socialist/communists.

"Materialism" and "Physicalism" are pretty much synonyms. "Physicalism" is more modern since it doesn't make much sense to refer to things like dark matter, forces and energy and spacetime as "material".Neither is committed to the view that the only real things are those that can be touched, weighed viewed under a microscope etc.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

moderator1 wrote:

My sincere apologies to LBird for any inconvienence the blocking caused and I thank him for bringing this matter to the forums attention. And I appreciate there was no grudge intended on his part.

Thanks for the acknowledgement.

 Wow, things have changed   

[ALB]

I see I've been a sort of "physicalist" without knowing it !

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

I'm trying to get us towards an explanation of 'non-physical causal powers', but I think a few more steps of explanation of CR are required.

 I look forward to discovering these powers. I just hope I have enough grey matter to keep up.I was not taking the piss LBird, I would not risk our new found detente

[Anonymous]

DJP wrote:

Neither is committed to the view that the only real things are those that can be touched, weighed viewed under a microscope etc.

True. There are many things that we can't feel, touch or see but are nevertheless part of our physical universe. The only thing outside of our physical universe is God and he is the only 'non-phisical power'. 

[LBird]

DJP (reflecting YMS), wrote:

Like has been said C=B…

But it doesn't.C=A+B.Unless this is accepted (that 'knowledge'='reality' practiced on by 'ideas'), then we will continue to 'talk past' one another.I can't say it any simpler, comrades.If one wants to argue 'knowledge'='ideas' (ie. C=, then we are not proceeding together.If 'practice' = '+', then the formula C=B leaves out 'practice'.Unless we subscribe to 'knowledge' emerges from human practice (which means human ideas) upon 'reality', then there's no point going any further.This relationship is at the heart of 'theory and practice'.Theory must exist. (B)It must be practiced.(+)Practice must be upon something.(A)Theory and practice produce knowledge (C)A+B=C (or, B+A=C)This disagreement needs to be sorted out, or we'll continue to misunderstand what each other is saying.

[DJP]

You do realise we have now jumped from "what does materialism mean" to "what does knowledge mean"?What did you think of the other comments, specifically the compatibility of Realism and Materialism?

LBird wrote:

Unless this is accepted (that 'knowledge'='reality' practiced on by 'ideas'), then we will continue to 'talk past' one another.

Well knowledge is ideas, but not any old ideas, only "true" ones. And what determines the truth of an idea is human practice, as Mr Pancake said.So does that agree with this?

LBird wrote:

'knowledge' emerges from human practice (which means human ideas) upon 'reality'

Seems so.

[Young Master Smeet]

I supose it's arguable that one can know without ideas: dogs know things, and yet have no ideas: but I think that's arguable, since we're still talking about, essentially, mental states, and the property of being a mental state.  Both ideas and knowledge are parts of the mental domain. I can't see "knowledge" being f any other stuff than matter or ideas…

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Materialists insist A=C, or C=A.Idealists insist B=C, or C=BRealists insist that C=A+B, or C=B+A.For those interested, A=object, B=subject, C=knowledge,and the plus sign is 'practice'.

Is part of the point that you are trying to make that what is observed (whatever it is) is A and that statements about it are C requiring the intervention of B to observe and make statements? If so, what's the problem? Except of course the status of C, but now you seem to be saying that B is not simply the observing subject but is "theory":

LBird wrote:

Theory must exist. (

Not quite the same. It sounds a bit like B=C or that B inevitably has a C before observing A. Hence the need to clarify what C is, e.g any statement about A or one that is "true" or "useful" or "possible" or what?

[Anonymous]

Does this 'science' of ideas apply to apes? If not, why not. Answers on the 'The religious word' thread please.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvMcKbo0vYc 

[LBird]

I never thought it would be so difficult to get some agreement on 'theory and practice' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'theory' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'practice' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'matter' produces 'knowledge'.Not 'ideal' produces 'knowledge'.Just good, old fashioned, 'theory and practice produces knowledge'.I simply don't know where to go from here, comrades.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I supose it's arguable that one can know without ideas: dogs know things, and yet have no ideas: but I think that's arguable, since we're still talking about, essentially, mental states, and the property of being a mental state.  Both ideas and knowledge are parts of the mental domain. I can't see "knowledge" being f any other stuff than matter or ideas…

I thought this thread was about 'science and Communism'.How the hell does 'dogs knowing things' play any part in this discussion?I still can't fathom why there is so much resistance.Seriously, what's the point of posting stuff like this?What are you hoping to achieve?Driving me away?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I simply don't know where to go from here, comrades.

Perhaps explain how you think "theory" is different from "knowledge".If by "knowledge" you mean "true theories" what is it that makes a theory true? Looks to me like you're going to have to bite the bullet at some point with that one…Or just skip that for now and say what your take is regarding monism, dualism or pluralism…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I thought this thread was about 'science and Communism'.How the hell does 'dogs knowing things' play any part in this discussion?I still can't fathom why there is so much resistance.Seriously, what's the point of posting stuff like this?What are you hoping to achieve?Driving me away?

I would have hazarded a guess that it was an attempt to get you to clarify what you mean by ideas, theory and knowledge and teh relationship to materialism and / or critical realism..

[Author]

Posts