Science for Communists?

[SocialistPunk]

Hi VinYeah pretty mad stuff. I think I saw the full lecture years ago as it's from The Royal Institute Christmas Lectures series. They are really good lectures, some of the best stuff on TV around Christmas.Years ago I did a bit poking around about the subject of quantum mechanics and it is fascinating, if not a bizarre aspect of science.Needless to say my brain didn't retain much of the information I was coming across, but I think I'll have another go.Race on for the Nobel Prize then.

[Young Master Smeet]

Much of it rests on the question of deliberateness of ideology.  I remember seeing an OU programme on it, many years ago.  norman Tebbit blithely used the 'everyone has a point of bias' argument, and that it is natural and unconscious.  Tony Benn was on alleging a degree of deliberateness.  One of my old lecturers, a self confessed empiricist, took the view of ideology as view-point.  This, though, I'd suggest, raises it to the point of banal redundnancy, and robs the examination of ideology of political force.If we look at ideology as the ways and means by which the ideas of the dominant class become the dominant ideas, this changes things dramatically.  First off, it suggests that without a dominant class there will be no ideology (this is conconant with the claim that without class there is no politics, we move from the dispute over who gets to make the decisions, to actual technical decision making based on reason).  To my mind this means a communist ideology cannot exist (saving some Stalinist notion of bthe dictatorship of the proletariat as communists rule over non-communist classes).The implication for science here is that there is a rational and non-ideological way of gathering knowledge that is distorted in class society, and the elimination of class warfare will allow a genuine reason to examine the world freed from such conflict.  Further, in a society of abundance, this reason will not be limited by economic conastraints, only real ones.And there we get back to science and socialism, via a slight detour through ideology.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The implication for science here is that there is a rational and non-ideological way of gathering knowledge that is distorted in class society, and the elimination of class warfare will allow a genuine reason to examine the world freed from such conflict. Further, in a society of abundance, this reason will not be limited by economic conastraints, only real ones.And there we get back to science and socialism, via a slight detour through ideology.

LBird, post #9, wrote:

Here is Rovelli's view, again, for those reading this thread anew:

Rovelli, The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy, wrote:

This reading of scientific thinking as subversive, visionary, and evolutionary is quite different from the way science was understood by the positivist philosophers… (p. xii)Facile nineteenth-century certainties about science— in particular the glorification of science understood as definitive knowledge of the world—have collapsed. One of the forces responsible for their dismissal has been the twentieth-century revolution in physics, which led to the discovery that Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong, in a precise sense. Much of the subsequent philosophy of science can be read as an attempt to come to grips with this disillusionment. What is scientific knowledge if it can be wrong even when it is extremely effective? (p. xv)But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

'Best' is not 'Truth'.

We're not going anywhere on this thread, so I might as well drop out.Whilst workers and Communists adhere to outdated notions of 'rational, non-ideological, science', they're living in the 19th century. That puts an end to any notion of a leadership of ideas within society by class conscious Communist proletarians.The bourgeoisie's thinkers are still streets ahead of us.

[ALB]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

If we look at ideology as the ways and means by which the ideas of the dominant class become the dominant ideas, this changes things dramatically.  First off, it suggests that without a dominant class there will be no ideology (this is conconant with the claim that without class there is no politics, we move from the dispute over who gets to make the decisions, to actual technical decision making based on reason).  To my mind this means a communist ideology cannot exist (saving some Stalinist notion of bthe dictatorship of the proletariat as communists rule over non-communist classes).

I agree that is how Marx used the term "ideology" and that therefore, for him, to talk of a "communist ideology" would be an oxymoron.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

If we look at ideology as the ways and means by which the ideas of the dominant class become the dominant ideas, this changes things dramatically.  First off, it suggests that without a dominant class there will be no ideology (this is conconant with the claim that without class there is no politics, we move from the dispute over who gets to make the decisions, to actual technical decision making based on reason).  To my mind this means a communist ideology cannot exist (saving some Stalinist notion of bthe dictatorship of the proletariat as communists rule over non-communist classes).

I agree that is how Marx used the term "ideology" and that therefore, for him, to talk of a "communist ideology" would be an oxymoron.

If Marx thought that the world could be understood as it is, rather than through the prism of human ideas, then Marx was wrong.I don't think that Marx thought this, though.But, I'm prepared to accept that my minority opinion about Marx is worthless, and let the majority keep using Marx to prove that there will be no ideology within Communism.Frankly, I think that that's nonsense. And, for what it's worth, Rovelli the physicist seems to agree with me, as does Kuhn, Lakatos, et al.

[ALB]

I wasn't saying Marx was right or wrong, merely what I thought was Marx's use of the term. I don't think, either, that

Quote:

Marx thought that the world could be understood as it is, rather than through the prism of human ideas

but that he didn't use the term "ideology" in this context.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I wasn't saying Marx was right or wrong, merely what I thought was Marx's use of the term. I don't think, either, that

Quote:

Marx thought that the world could be understood as it is, rather than through the prism of human ideas

but that he didn't use the term "ideology" in this context.

Are you implying that the term 'ideology' should be used in the context of 'scientific knowledge'?I certainly think that it should, as I've often argued, and I think that perhaps a case can be made for thinking that Marx would have agreed with this, if he had lived beyond Einstein revelations, given many of the things that he wrote, about human knowledge and human senses, and his emphasis on the social and historical.It seems to me that his whole works are opposed to the notion of a "fixed, timeless, Truth", which is required if no ideology is held to be present in scientific knowledge.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

 Rovelli the physicist seems to agree with me, as does Kuhn, Lakatos, et al.

Are these communist or bourgeois scientists   

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Are you implying that the term 'ideology' should be used in the context of 'scientific knowledge'?

No. It's better to find some alternative term since, in the Marxian tradition, "ideology" is a prejorative word.

LBird wrote:

It seems to me that his whole works are opposed to the notion of a "fixed, timeless, Truth", which is required if no ideology is held to be present in scientific knowledge.

Totally agree with the first part, but not the way the second is expressed (because it uses the word "ideology"). Better to say something like "which is required if the brain/mind produces a simple photograph (or 3-D picture) of the world". Which of course it doesn't.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

It seems to me that his whole works are opposed to the notion of a "fixed, timeless, Truth", which is required if no ideology is held to be present in scientific knowledge.

This, again, depends on what you mean by ideology.  in a classless society, where there are no established rulers to threaten, then the production of knowledge cannot be used to support them (through distortion) nor be a chance to overthrow them (and thus be suppressed), any knowledge would simply, then, be produced as that which we are capable of producing.For instance, what is the ideology of astronomy?  is there any?  It no longer threatens the established regimes and their god, whether M1223 is a nebula or a galaxy is of no social import: it is knowledge without ideology: that does not mean that the knowledge is free of pressupositions, premises and ideas filtered through the limits of the human mind, but it is not ideological.That knowledge cannot 100% capture the real world (I have a working model of the universe, unfortunately, it's life size) is an idea as old as the five monkies and the elephant.As I say, if by ideology you simply mean our mental maps of the world, then that is a banal and pointless observation, if you mean the struggle for class power, then that can be ended.Anyway, a crossed out section of the German ideology to end.

Charlie & Fred wrote:

We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist. The history of nature, called natural science, does not concern us here; but we will have to examine the history of men, since almost the whole ideology amounts either to a distorted conception of this history or to a complete abstraction from it. Ideology is itself only one of the aspects of this history.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm

[Anonymous]

 In a rational discussion you cannot simply state 'everyone knows what ideology is so let's just get on with it'   Ideology has been used in many contexts, which was my point about Walsby and Althusser. There is no suggestion that Walsby is of any use.It has been argued, for example, that a political ideology has its roots in human nature. This is one of the first things you are tought on a political theory course.Tell me your view of human nature and I will tell you your ideologyHuman nature is greedy and aggressive = conservative. People need restrainining by Leviathan    'bourgieos ideology'?Human nature is cooperative, helpful and empathetic  =  Anarcho socialism. Don't need a state, property or money.  'Communist ideology'? I agree that using ideology with science is not helpful tho' I do think Kuhn is useful. 

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Are you implying that the term 'ideology' should be used in the context of 'scientific knowledge'?

No. It's better to find some alternative term since, in the Marxian tradition, "ideology" is a prejorative word.

LBird wrote:

It seems to me that his whole works are opposed to the notion of a "fixed, timeless, Truth", which is required if no ideology is held to be present in scientific knowledge.

Totally agree with the first part, but not the way the second is expressed (because it uses the word "ideology"). Better to say something like "which is required if the brain/mind produces a simple photograph (or 3-D picture) of the world". Which of course it doesn't.

I'm all in favour of the pejorative word 'ideology' being used in conjunction with 'science' and the production of human knowledge.There is no 'bias-less' knowledge of the world, and it's best, not only to be open about that, but to make it crystal clear to everybody, including those still taken in by the bourgeois myth of 'science produces the Truth', that ALL KNOWLEDGE is biased, including physics.Once that is understood, then we can move to seeking a reconciliation of 'social' and 'natural' science into a single unified scientific method, which Marx seemed to think was possible, and I do, too.Anything less than this expressed, hammered-home, view will lead to comrades thinking astronomy, for example, is 'The Truth', as Young Master Smeet seems to imply.

[Young Master Smeet]

I have never implied that atrsonomy is "The Truth", you seem to attribute views to me I don't hold.  I stated simply that today astronomy (simple measurement of stellar locations, has no social ideological aspect.  tehre are ideological debates around the big bang theory, and obviously creationism has specific local political aspects.  That everyone is biased is banal, as relevant as saying everyone has skin.So, lets debate communist skin's application to science.Apparently in court, they have given up (in England) on 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' — that confuses people.  They now ask: are you sure?  Now, I'm sure what my name is, but that isn't truth, abstract and eternal.  I'm sure India is there.  I'm sure geostationery sattelites can track my position to within ten square metres.  Reliable organised knowledge tells me this.  Knowledge produced not as arbitrary personal belief, but for others, according to agreed methods.I am not sure of the predictions of greenhouse models, but I find them convincing.  I am sure that the green house effect is true and adding carbon dioxide to an atmosphere will lead to temperature changes.I'm convinced that Elephants are long and smooth with a point at the end.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

This, again, depends on what you mean by ideology. in a classless society, where there are no established rulers to threaten, then the production of knowledge cannot be used to support them (through distortion) nor be a chance to overthrow them (and thus be suppressed), any knowledge would simply, then, be produced as that which we are capable of producing.

[my bold]ALL knowledge suffers from 'distortion' and 'suppression'.ALL knowledge is thus ideological. The bourgeosie do it, the proletariat will do it, all previous classes have done it, all previous societies have done it, all future societies will do it.This is the whole point of Rovelli's quote. Humans SELECT. Selection requires theory, for its parameters. Theory, by its nature, distorts 'reality'.There can never be any humans who have access to The Truth. That would make us 'god'.Our role is to criticise existing knowledge. That can't be done if we start from the position that the knowledge we already have, and are about to criticise, can't be criticised because it is 'True'.We can accept this human limitation, but the bourgeoisie can't, because they have to 'eternalise' their rule, just like all ruling classes. Once they let go of 'The Truth', everything is open to criticism.Physics, just like sociology, becomes an ideological battleground, and their pretence of 'authority' is shattered.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I have never implied that atrsonomy is "The Truth", you seem to attribute views to me I don't hold.  I stated simply that today astronomy (simple measurement of stellar locations, has no social ideological aspect.  tehre are ideological debates around the big bang theory, and obviously creationism has specific local political aspects.  That everyone is biased is banal, as relevant as saying everyone has skin.So, lets debate communist skin's application to science.Apparently in court, they have given up (in England) on 'Beyond a reasonable doubt' — that confuses people.  They now ask: are you sure?  Now, I'm sure what my name is, but that isn't truth, abstract and eternal.  I'm sure India is there.  I'm sure geostationery sattelites can track my position to within ten square metres.  Reliable organised knowledge tells me this.  Knowledge produced not as arbitrary personal belief, but for others, according to agreed methods.I am not sure of the predictions of greenhouse models, but I find them convincing.  I am sure that the green house effect is true and adding carbon dioxide to an atmosphere will lead to temperature changes.I'm convinced that Elephants are long and smooth with a point at the end.

This post of yours is beneath contempt, YMS. You should be ashamed, and grow up, if you're going to discuss philosophy with the grown-ups.Reminder:  2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.

[Author]

Posts