Science for Communists?

[ALB]

I don't think that Marx did use the term "ideology" in more than one way. I think he just used it in your first sense, Vin,  i.e. to mean "false consiousness" (and which is something more than simply a wrong understanding), as pgb explained in his post a few days ago:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/science-communists?page=58#comment-16151So I don't think there could be such a thing as a "socialist ideology", at least not today, though I suppose it might be applied to the Bolshevik revolution where those who were carrying out a stage of a capitalist revolution thought, and sincerely believed, that they were carrying out a socialist one. But, obviously, it can't apply to us. Of course not as the word has prejorative connotations for Marxists.Mind you, this is just a question of definition and terminology which needn't cause difficulties if we agree on a definition or understand what the other's definition is.

[Anonymous]

ALB I disagree on that one but my right click button is not working so I can't cut and paste to quote Marx, nor can I refresh my browser to 'quote' But as you say, in this context it is the agreement on definition that matters. I will perhaps start a new thread next week on Marx and ideology when I have repaired my mouse pad on my laptop. (ordered the part on ebay). There is probably not a direct reference but I think it is very well implied in his writings. I am sure he defines ideology in the German Ideology before going on to talk of the 'ruling ideas'. It is also implied in the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Unless Marx believed that Socialism would not have a 'superstructure'. Anyway a topic for another thread. 

[SocialistPunk]

Considering that socialism as a human concept, contains within its anti capitalist arsenal, views or positions on politics, social organisation, economics, surely socialism/communism comes under that banner? 

pgb wrote:

 For Marx, opinions, points of view, political programs etc are "ideological"…….

How can a set of principles aimed at achieving a goal, such as bringing about the the end of capitalism, not be an ideology?Unless the answer is something along the lines of, socialist/communists realise they are not privy to some delusion about where their ideas come from and so don't fall for the temptation of holding to an ideology.

pgb wrote:

……where those who hold them imagine them to be the result of intellectual reasoning, or logic, or divine revelation etc, and are unaware of their origin in social conditions and the part they play in justifying and maintaining those conditions.

Please tell me I've got it all wrong.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

To be fair, since his definition and use of the word "ideology" differs so much from that of Marx and the Marxist tradition, LBird has given us permission to use another term to express his idea. I opt for "selective" and "selection". In which case what he is saying on this point that all science (all knowledge of anything, in fact) is necessarily "selected". So a non-selective science is not possible. But whoever said it was? I don't like the word "distorted" either as it gives the impression of something bad rather than natural and normal.

You're right, ALB, I have said that, for the purposes of progressing the thread, if someone wants to use 'selection' instead of 'ideology', then go right ahead.But this is just playing with words, as the same problem results.You might not like 'distorted', but that is your problem about 'bad'. Distortion is entirely 'natural and normal'.To believe otherwise, is to revert to 'naive realism'. What is 'natural and normal'? 'The Truth' or 'social truth with a history'?I still think you're trying to preserve big T 'true knowledge from science'.If you 'select' a 'blue smartie' from a bag of smarties, and draw the conclusion that 'bags of smarties' are 'blue', you're holding a 'distorted' view. This isn't 'bad', but 'natural and normal'.If your answer is to 'empty the entire bag', then you're a naive realist. 'Bags' can't be 'emptied', because that wouldn't be 'selection', would it?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I still think you're trying to preserve big T 'true knowledge from science'.

No I'm not. Why on Earth would I want to do that.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

I still think you're trying to preserve big T 'true knowledge from science'.

No I'm not. Why on Earth would I want to do that.

I don't know, ALB, why on earth you'd want to do that. But using the human judgement 'bad', for its opposite, does just 'that'.

ALB, post #643, wrote:

I don't like the word "distorted" either as it gives the impression of something bad rather than natural and normal.

Selection means distortion, which you define as 'bad'.So, that implies there is a 'good'.If 'selection/distortion' is 'bad', it implies the 'good' is 'clarity/truth'.If that is your 'good', we're back to naive realism, positivism, materialism, physicalism… and big 'T' 'true knowledge'.You have to stop playing with words, ALB, in a forlorn attempt to protect an outdated viewpoint, and accept the implications of both 'selection' and your quote from Dietzgen about 'material and ideal having the same status'.Both of these assumptions imply 'distortion by humans', not 'mirror image of reality'. 'Distortion' is entirely 'natural and normal'.

[ALB]

I don't think it's me that's playing with words. I just used the word "bad" to mean "mistaken", actually in relation to ideology/false consciousness but it could be applied more widely.  I know you'll come back and say that this implies the opposite — that there can be a non-mistaken understanding.  But surely there's a sense in which this must be the case, without having to be committed to Knowledge as Absolute Truth?Suppose the generally agreed selection of some phenomenon is to name it "green" and somebody seeing something that meets the criteria for calling something "green" but calls it "red". Is that a mistake or not?You're perfectly free to say it's not but just somebody with a different "ideology". In fact that nobody could ever be mistaken about anything or draw a "bad" conclusion. This can't be your position can it, as you repeatedly insist that you are not a post-modernist who thinks that anything goes?So, tell us, can anyone ever be mistaken?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I don't think it's me that's playing with words. I just used the word "bad" to mean "mistaken", actually in relation to ideology/false consciousness but it could be applied more widely. I know you'll come back and say that this implies the opposite — that there can be a non-mistaken understanding. But surely there's a sense in which this must be the case, without having to be committed to Knowledge as Absolute Truth?

You're asking the right questions anyway, ALB!But, in fact, I've given the answer to this several times, especially on our thread discussing Schaff's ideas, and the various "Object/Subject/Knowledge" relationships.To recap simply:1. Knowledge=Object (objectivism, naive realism, 'materialism/physicalism', Leninism)=Absolute Truth;2. Knowledge=Subject (subjectivism, anti-realism, 'idealism/individualism', PoMo)=Truth is all in One's Mind;3. Knowledge=product of interaction between Subject (NB. a society, not an individual) and Object (Social Objectivism, Critical Realism, 'the practice of idealism-materialism', Marxism)=Truth as a social and historical Product.The denial of 'Absolute Truth' does not compel one to believe in 'Anything Goes'.There is a third alternative: Socially-objective Truth.If one adopts the third position, however, and one is also a Communist/Socialist, then I don't know how the issue of 'democracy' can be ignored.'Socially-objective Truth' can also be said to be derived from an elitist practice (that is, rejection of Absolute Truth but retention of 'priests' to interpret), but I don't accept elitism, due to my ideology.

ALB wrote:

So, tell us, can anyone ever be mistaken?

Humanity can always be 'mistaken'. The study of science since Copernicus shows us that science is often mistaken. Einstein showed that Newton was mistaken.Democracy, however, demands 'Plan B' (and C, D…), an oppositional position, in both politics and science, so a 'mistaken' position defeated can provide a 'true' position for a future vote. We must have a pluralistic view (ie. similar to Lakatos' competing 'research programmes', rather than Kuhn's single dominant 'paradigm').We must teach critical thinking, not respect for authority, especially not unelected authority, like 'elite scientists' and academics. Critical thinking helps to identify the 'mistakes' which we now know that any 'scientific method' must produce. We're human.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

There is a third alternative: Socially-objective Truth.

LBird wrote:

The study of science since Copernicus shows us that science is often mistaken. Einstein showed that Newton was mistaken.

That's a turn-up for the books. What's all the fuss been about? But just as a matter of interest what is the current "Socially-objective Truth" (not need for a capital T if you don't want) about, say, the solar system or in astronomy generally?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

There is a third alternative: Socially-objective Truth.

LBird wrote:

The study of science since Copernicus shows us that science is often mistaken. Einstein showed that Newton was mistaken.

That's a turn-up for the books. What's all the fuss been about? But just as a matter of interest what is the current "Socially-objective Truth" (not need for a capital T if you don't want) about, say, the solar system or in astronomy generally?

[my bold]'The fuss has been all about' your refusal to acknowledge that, if the 'earth-sun relationship' is about 'knowledge', and not the 'object', then the relationship for humans can change, because 'truth' is related to 'knowledge' and not simply 'object'.So, I can say both that "in the 21st century, the earth goes round the sun" and that "in the 15th century, the sun went round the earth".One can only say this if one subscribes to the ideology of 'socially-objective truth' (no need for a capital T or S, if we don't want).This allows us to give a social and historical account of 'truth': what society produced its 'truth' and what period (start and finish dates) when this 'truth' was 'true'.This is a million miles away from 'discovery science' (as Pannekoek dismissively described it) and 'Truth' not related to humans.Of course, Leninists will dispute this, because they must (for their own ideological reasons) hang onto 'special knowledge' (party consciousness) which is denied to the masses.I don't. I follow Marx, and his ideology about workers taking control of their society by democratic means.But this is not 'objective truth' (with capitals or without). Communist society will be of its time and place, and we can't, like a ruling class must do, project ourselves both into the future and into the past as the eternal rulers.Put simply, we know we don't know. And what we do know, we know we've produced it. Nature doesn't talk to us whilst we passively listen, or to an elite.The elite lie to us. A suitably proletarian attitude.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

So, I can say both that "in the 21st century, the earth goes round the sun" and that "in the 15th century, the sun went round the earth".

OK you can say what you like.But to be consistent you are going to have to say that in the 21st century it is true that a God exists, and the non-religious are wrong. Since apparently 84% of the world population are still religious.Are you happy to do that?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

So, I can say both that "in the 21st century, the earth goes round the sun" and that "in the 15th century, the sun went round the earth".

OK you can say what you like.But to be consistence you are going to have to say that in the 21st century it is true that a God exists, and the non-religious are wrong. Since apparently 84% of the world population are still reliogious.Are you happy to do that?

[my bold]Yes, of course. But then I know my ideology, tell others what it is, and consistently use it, unlike you, on all three counts.Since I know that any 'truth' is a 'social truth', I'm happy to say that in the 21st century, for the non-Communist majority, especially the 84% of religious, that a God exists.As a Communist, I can also say that the 84% created a God, and for them it/he/she really exists.I do not discriminate between 'material' and 'ideal'. Humans create structures which have causal power over them.To 'God', for example, I can add 'Value'.Neither god nor value have substance (or as Marx says, 'not an atom of matter'), but are 'real', nevertheless.Since your ideology of physicalism defines 'real' as 'material', DJP, you can't agree with me.Tell us your ideology, DJP, now I've answered your question.Are you happy to do that?

[DJP]

So, to follow the same logic it must have been both true and false in the 15th centrury that the earth went around the sun.In others words "truth" is just what people believe.Sounds very PoMo to me.But what are these magical "causal powers" and how do they exert themselves?

[LBird]

No, I didn't think that you'd answer, DJP.And I'm not surprised that you're not even reading what I've written, this morning, in answer to ALB, on post #653.So, although the answer is on this page, you can't 'read' it, and have to continue to ask the same questions, which have already been answered, numerous times.PoMo is number 2.Critical Realism is number 3.And you're using number 1.Why won't you tell us your ideology, DJP?Or are you really just a troll, not interested in discussion and learning, but just wanting to be childish, and spoiling everything for others who are interested in these vital questions for Communists?

[Young Master Smeet]

I note that Lbird declines to explain the consequence of voting in any practical manner.  We have some movement here, the vote establishes the socially objective truth: but what does that mean in practice?  And how does that differ from Asimov's degrees of wrongness?.  Yes it was 'true' to say the Sun went round the Earth: for all practical applications and with the observation available, that was good science.  But we now know that to be wrong, because we extended both the range of our practical needs and our ability to sense the universe.Anyway, the problem of selection is well known, as Schopenhaeur tells us in the Art of Being Right:

Quote:

Dialectic, on the other hand, would treat of the intercourse between two rational beings who, because they are rational, ought to think in common, but who, as soon as they cease to agree like two clocks keeping exactly the same time, create a disputation, or intellectual contest. Regarded as purely rational beings, the individuals would, I say, necessarily be in agreement, and their variation springs from the difference essential to individuality; in other words, it is drawn from experience.{…} For human nature is such that if A. and B. are engaged in thinking in common, and are communicating their opinions to one another on any subject, so long as it is not a mere fact of history, and A. perceives that B.'s thoughts on one end the same subject are not the same as his own, he does not begin by revising his own process of thinking, so as to discover any mistake which he may have made, but he assumes that the mistake has occurred in B.'s. In other words, man is naturally obstinate; and this quality in him is attended with certain results, treated of in the branch of knowledge which I should like to call Dialectic, but which, in order to avoid misunderstanding, I shall call Controversial or Eristical Dialectic. Accordingly, it is the branch of knowledge which treats of the obstinacy natural to man.

But it is Lbird who is here putting forward their case, and the onus is on Lbird to say how it would work in practice, and on Lbird to rebut my case that voting would be undemocratic in the context of science, as it would close down the ongoing dialogue, raher than open it.

[Author]

Posts