Science for Communists?

[SocialistPunk]

twc wrote:

Your whole integrity, and credibility as a socialist, depends on a direct answer—not one that hides behind 5000 year-old Aboriginal culture, which somehow your mother managed to avoid when she transmitted the objectivity of “sensuous” practice you now deny.Your entire intellectual and honourable humanity is at stake. No devious shifts this time.

Hi twcThis is an interesting one. A few times LBird was criticised for challenging party members socialist credentials.I wonder if the same party members will show the same concern now.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

twc wrote:

Your whole integrity, and credibility as a socialist, depends on a direct answer—not one that hides behind 5000 year-old Aboriginal culture, which somehow your mother managed to avoid when she transmitted the objectivity of “sensuous” practice you now deny.Your entire intellectual and honourable humanity is at stake. No devious shifts this time.

Hi twcThis is an interesting one. A few times LBird was criticised for challenging party members socialist credentials.I wonder if the same party members will show the same concern now.

[my latter bold] It'd be nice to actually have a discussion with twc, but he'd rather have me condemned as an unbeliever, and burnt at the stake as a heretic.It's always the same with the religious fanatics. There's a few of them here, SP!'Socialist credentials'? My arse!

[twc]

HumanityA socialist displays his credentials by adhering to our Object and Declaration of Principles.  He displays his humanity by his actions.The non-objectivity of “sensuous” practice is not a disposable principle of a subordinate Lakatosian research program, but is the vital cornerstone—the foundation principle—of your core “science”.  It is the pivot, or fulcrum, on which everything else, including your mentally-repressive socialism, rests.  It is not disposable.So answer my genuinely serious question about it carefully.  Your third dodge suggests the impractical impotence of your core “science”.  A fourth dodgy refusal, in its wake, can only demonstrate the utter vapidity of what your proudly dogmatic “proletarian science” always has been—crackpot pseudo-scientific claptrap.A Bootstrap Reminder “Just how do you carry out your mother’s transmitted instructions, and just how do you manage to verify that your laces are tied up, without having recourse to Marx’s objectivity of human ‘sensuous’ practice?”Come on, prove for us all that Marx’s contention of the objectivity of “sensuous” practice that your mother taught you through her own transmitted “sensuous” practice is actually wrong.

[LBird]

twc wrote:

…is the vital cornerstone—the foundation principle—of your core “science”. It is the pivot, or fulcrum, on which everything else, including your mentally-repressive socialism, rests. It is not disposable.

The "the vital cornerstone", "the foundation principle", "the pivot, or fulcrum", on which my "core science" and "socialism rests" is the democratic proletariat.Neither you nor anyone else on this thread (SPGB members, SPGB ex-members or non-SPGB posters) can claim this.You're all bamboozled by 19th century positivist science, compounded with Engels' misunderstanding of Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, and topped by most comrades' ignorance of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts.You all think rocks talk to us. So, you're all compelled to lie to the proletariat, and pretend that you're all arguing for the democratic  control of the economy by the proletariat, that is, Socialism/Communism, when you really already know that you're going to rely on elite experts: Party, Parliament and Physicists.On the contrary, I wish to smash Party, Parliament and Physicists, and build the power of the working class in all those arenas until the working class is in the saddle and with complete class consciousness proceeds to build Socialism/Communism.I can answer questions, with my answers being in the form any worker can understand, whether it's rocks, water, chips, cakes, value or Australian Aborigines tying shoelaces, whereas you all have to bluster, and refuse to answer questions.The truth is, none of you have the slightest clue about the philosophy of science, its interconnections with politics, or how to explain 'value' to workers.And your posts, twc, are the cream on the cake of obfuscation: no-one knows what you mean. I certainly don't and I've asked you numerous times to enter a discussion and explain.But you just continue to post incomprehensible, lengthy posts which achieve no purpose whatsoever.You should all ask yourselves: "Why am I opposed to democracy in every area of science?"It's simply because you think that physicists have a neutral method which gives them a truth not available to the common mass.They don't have this method, and the contempt you have for ordinary workers' abilities now and potential in the future, means that any notion of Socialism/Communism emerging under your guidance is erroneous.I can't be more forthcoming about the philosophical problems which underpin the SPGB. Your conservative philosophy negates your politics."Vote SPGB: Vote Party, Parliament and Physicists!"……and bollocks to workers.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

It's simply because you think that physicists have a neutral method which gives them a truth not available to the common mass.

This is something that no-one ont his thread has said, and I'm sure no one believes.  The method of science is open to everyone, and can be made accessible to everyone.  The technical language of science, and the detail of practice is no more than the technical notation used by musicians will the audience vote on the music?).You brush off any attempt to ask what about sorting and analysing large blocs of data, doing the routine work of science, operating the technical machinery, conducting the experiments.  If we all have to do it, there'll be a hell of a lot of repetition.How do you see this voting happening?  Or are you no better than the underpant gnomes:Stage 1: Vote on science.Stage 3: Communism!

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

This is something that no-one ont his thread has said, and I'm sure no one believes.

Oh yes, they do! And so do you.Or will you finally disclose the political ideology you employ to understand the world?No? I thought not.You're either a liar (who  does know their ideology) or ignorant (and don't recognise your ideology).

YMS wrote:

The technical language of science, and the detail of practice is no more than the technical notation used by musicians will the audience vote on the music?).

The audience does vote on music – never heard of the charts? Never been to a record stall/shop and bought a record?To liken the power of music (and it does have power, of course) to the power of nuclear scientists, and claim that we have an identical input to music and physics, is so laughable that even the 'mathematic meatbot' should have thought that one through.You're a fool, YMS. And a dupe of the bourgeoisie.Let's spell it out for you: P O W E R.If that is not in the hands of the democratic proletariat, it'll be in the hands of an elite.But you don't have a problem with that, do you?Be honest with the workers reading this thread, for once.You're not going to allow them to vote on scientific research, are you?Go on, answer a direct question, just once.

[Young Master Smeet]

I have repeatedly laid out how I would expect democratic science in socialism to work: open access to information and libraries and scholarly communications, datasets shared as widely as possible, free association in learning societies, democratic allocation of resources to funding and democratic votes based on the information provided by scientific research.  I'd throw in, importantly, a general (rule of thumb) reduction in the working week to about two days out of seven, which will free up more time for study and discussion.  So science would become an ongoing debate for all members of the community who wish to join in, and freedom to pursue topics and research lines would be protected if not encouraged.  Freed from position and possession, vested interests (liek professorial salaries would be ended, so the only object of science would be to be right.I'd imagine that juries may well sit in and discuss and come up with findings on particualr research areas, and peer review would also be employed to ensure rigour.There, that is science by the whole community, a genuine democracy of science, without having a vote on the findings.  Your turn.

[twc]

LBird wrote:

And your posts, twc, are the cream on the cake of obfuscation:  no-one knows what you mean.  I certainly don’t and I’ve asked you numerous times to enter a discussion and explain.But you just continue to post incomprehensible, lengthy posts which achieve no purpose whatsoever.

 Let me hold your hand. “For the fifth time.” “Do you know how big the number five is?  How many fingers do you have on your hand?  Five, yes that’s very good.” “Now, listen carefully.  Are you ready?  …  Good.” “Can you tell me how you know when your shoe laces are tied?” “Do you understand the question?  …  You do.” “Do you think you can you answer it?  …   You think so.” “Now, please begin…”

[LBird]

twc wrote:

LBird wrote:

And your posts, twc, are the cream on the cake of obfuscation:  no-one knows what you mean.  I certainly don’t and I’ve asked you numerous times to enter a discussion and explain.But you just continue to post incomprehensible, lengthy posts which achieve no purpose whatsoever.

 Let me hold your hand. “For the fifth time.” “Do you know how big the number five is?  How many fingers do you have on your hand?  Five, yes that’s very good.” “Now, listen carefully.  Are you ready?  …  Good.” “Can you tell me how you know when your shoe laces are tied?” “Do you understand the question?  …  You do.” “Do you think you can you answer it?  …   You think so.” “Now, please begin…”

So, you were born with the concept 'five' in your individual mind, were you, twc?No social input eh? Not the name (which I'd argue is different in other languages) or the concept (which I'd argue that some societies don't even have a concept for), but twc's objective knowledge of 'five', which spoke to him like a burning bush.And no social input to 'tying shoe laces'? No, once again, twc from birth knew already what 'shoes' and 'laces' were, and didn't need to be taught because his own senses told him how to do it!I live in a society which socially produces mathematics and shoes. In fact, society 'cobbles' them together.You are truly the manifestation of the One True God, twc, omniscient from birth, not requiring society or its production.For you, the world 'is', and we should all bow down on bended knee to you and your 'objective world'.Because, you'll tell us what it is, won't you, twc?A follower of Lenin, if I've ever heard one.Or is it his brother, Cretin?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…without having a vote on the findings. Your turn.

You're a pseudo-democrat.You won't tell us the supposed neutral method which produces 'findings', which you insist are out of the democratic control of the proletariat.'Findings' are produced by society, and must be under the democratic control of the proletariat.Why not be honest, YMS, about your political ideology?The 'neutral method' is a bourgeois lie. Why do you persist in propagating a bourgeois lie?Is it a conscious attempt to undermine workers' confidence, or are you just ignorant about power?

[Young Master Smeet]

That's right, findings are produced by society, by an ongoing debate: there is no final finding, just a succession of opinions.There, so, I note Lbird's response to a direct question is a lot of questions.  I believe I've answered the pertinent ones.So, I'll ask again.  How does Lbird see the voting happening?  Will everyone gather the data together?  Will everyone analyse the data?  Will everyone get a turn on the electron microscope?I'd counterpose genuine free association and democracy in action to Lbird's one sided closure of debate, which is simply undemocratic.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

That's right, findings are produced by society, by an ongoing debate: there is no final finding, just a succession of opinions.

This is simply not true of human science.There has to be a 'final finding' (in fact, it is always a temporary 'final' finding, but that complication can await the need for agreement about democratic control), because it is this 'final finding' (your term) which is employed by society to change reality in our social practice.We can't argue that the fact that something is useful in our practice is the end of the matter, because we already know that what works according to science in one period, doesn't work in other periods. We understand our practice differently. The 'sun/earth' 'earth/sun' debate is relevant here.

YMS wrote:

There, so, I note Lbird's response to a direct question is a lot of questions. I believe I've answered the pertinent ones.

No, unless you say that "the social findings of the social activity of science must be under the democratic control of society", then we haven't come to an agreement about the power of the proletariat. We cannot have any elite above us, who pretend to have a neutral method for producing a 'truth' which is not available to the democratic proletariat.

YMS wrote:

So, I'll ask again. How does Lbird see the voting happening? Will everyone gather the data together? Will everyone analyse the data? Will everyone get a turn on the electron microscope?I'd counterpose genuine free association and democracy in action to Lbird's one sided closure of debate, which is simply undemocratic.

This is precisely the debate I've been trying to get to for twelve months! The question of 'HOW does society democratically control its science?'.But to get to that, we must clarify our terms (what does 'society democratically controlling its science' mean?). 'Findings' or not? Once we agree that there is no science outside of our science, they we can proceed (though I think a new thread would be better for this serious question).But once again, you're defining 'democracy' as 'free association'. This is a serious ideological and political problem.'Democracy' refers to society, not individuals.I've told you earlier, that 'free association' is the definition used by the Anarchists on LibCom, and that is not a Communist definition.Sovereignty lies in society, not each individual.That's why democracy is so important, to ensure the link between 'society', a structure, and its component 'individuals'. More Critical Realism, I'm afraid.

[twc]

You understand my question.For the sixth time—how does an anti-objectivist know that he’s tied his shoes?

[Young Master Smeet]

We only ever have acurrent finding, and we have to act upon that curent finding, but we have to be aware that we could be wrong (but zugzwang is a compelling reason to use findings, however contingent).I think your misunderstanding of democracy is the barrier here.  Democracy mean rule by the people, not voting (in itself), so if we have a free people, going about their business together, and organising themselves and their own activity, that is democracy.  Free association is essential to that, people have to be able to form organisations to promote (or oppose) views and seek to change the mind of the majority (and to go about their activities).  Note, the point is the association, people coming together, it is a collective right.The freedom to sod off and set up a new Rome is the central underpinning of freedom proper and democratic control of the means of production.Society democratically controls science by enabling its members to practice science, and developing their intellectual and practical capabilities.

[SocialistPunk]

As I understand it LBird is searching for a way to allow a socialist society to control science. As science is another  activity based social resource, it isn't unreasonable for socialists to seek to gain some form of control.The other side of the debate, championed by YMS, sees democratic control as impractical. Trust seems to be the method implied.However trust is not enough in a socialist society, as without checks and balances a scientist could engage in research of a dubious nature, even in a socialist society.It then becomes a case of how do we figure out what checks and balances to use and who gets to decide them.My apologies to both sides if I've got things wrong, this is just my simplified take on things, so please correct me if I've cocked up anywhere.

[Author]

Posts