Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means to an end; and for us that end is Socialism.
Separation of 'ends' from 'means', eh?Where've I heard that discussion previously?
LBird wrote:Perhaps a bit less 'imagination', eh, Vin, and a bit more 'dealing with the real world'?If you don't have any imagination of how socialism will differ from capitalism (in a much wider sense that just 'economics'), then I'm not sure that I can provide it for you.I'm not sure the slogan "Leave it to the experts! Leave heart surgery to the heart surgeons, leave twin experiments to Dr. Mengele!" will have much purchase upon workers who've learn to ask questions of the so-called 'experts', but perhaps I'm wrong.Ah well, time for my old mum's appointment with the good doctor… Dr. Shipman. You should see his qualifications! Kosher as they come.You are simply avoiding the question and resorting to your usual repetitive put downs. Why bother going to a doctor, we should all be able to prescribe drugs. Especially when your 'communism' has been established with its class conscious workers, lolClass conscious workers in a classless society. Poor Lbird trying to talk about science for socialists when aall the time he is clueless about the basics of communist theory. Go on hide your ignorance behind your insults.
LBird wrote:robbo, I wish to acknowledge your post above, but I think that I've covered the points you seem to be trying to make in my reply to Brian.Does that include the put downs
LBird wrote:His classic bourgeois ideology In fact, the bourgeois 'wool' has been well-and truly 'pulled over your eyes' From your post, Brian, it appears that you've either not read or not understood anything that I've said.Your views in that post are entirely ideological, not simply either 'your opinion' or 'an objective scientific opinion' which you merely reflect.This is dangerous talk, in a political sense.Workers should fear any party which implies that someone other than the democratically-organised proletariat will 'decide'. It's the philosophical roots of Leninism.Workers will be left to decide the 'everyday' (ie. unimportant), whilst the real issues of power in society will be in the hands of a smaller elite, expert, group ('scientists', 'cadre', 'priests', 'central committee', Uncle Joe…).How about a little thought experiment. A test of both sides of the debate.John Oswald on the Marxist Animalism thread provided a link to a rather informative and disturbing video on YouTube about a surgeon experimenting and ultimately performing a monkey head transplant. I assume the experiment at the time had to go to a hospital ethics committee to be sanctioned.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpmTf2kOc0What mechanisms would both LBird and his opponents on this thread propose a democratic socialist society put in place to control this type of "research"?
SocialistPunk wrote:How about a little thought experiment. A test of both sides of the debate.John Oswald on the Marxist Animalism thread provided a link to a rather informative and disturbing video on YouTube about a surgeon experimenting and ultimately performing a monkey head transplant. I assume the experiment at the time had to go to a hospital ethics committee to be sanctioned.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpmTf2kOc0What mechanisms would both LBird and his opponents on this thread propose a democratic socialist society put in place to control this type of "research"?Good point to illustrate that such a projection would and could only amount to pure speculation on our part. We simply don't know what specific democratic scientific method will be utilised under these circumstances. LBird is obviously not satisfied with the broad outlines which have been sketched out and is frustrated that we will not indulge in drawing up any blueprint.
SocialistPunk wrote:How about a little thought experiment. A test of both sides of the debate.John Oswald on the Marxist Animalism thread provided a link to a rather informative and disturbing video on YouTube about a surgeon experimenting and ultimately performing a monkey head transplant. I assume the experiment at the time had to go to a hospital ethics committee to be sanctioned.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpmTf2kOc0What mechanisms would both LBird and his opponents on this thread propose a democratic socialist society put in place to control this type of "research"?It is not related to the discussion as we all agree that science and scientist will be under democratic control. LBird is not talking about ethical decisions. He is talking about – for example – a vote on the truth of a theory of say how cancer is formed.he says that there should be no 'specialists' as these would be elites. We must all understand and vote on the truth of string theory for example.He also believes that in socialism there will be a class of workers that will democratically control science
Hi BrianI'm not asking for a blueprint for the future revolution, just a thought experiment, an idea, fanciful speculation if you wish. There's no harm in people expressing their ideas and oppinions.
Vin wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:How about a little thought experiment. A test of both sides of the debate.John Oswald on the Marxist Animalism thread provided a link to a rather informative and disturbing video on YouTube about a surgeon experimenting and ultimately performing a monkey head transplant. I assume the experiment at the time had to go to a hospital ethics committee to be sanctioned.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGpmTf2kOc0What mechanisms would both LBird and his opponents on this thread propose a democratic socialist society put in place to control this type of "research"?It is not related to the discussion as we all agree that science and scientist will be under democratic control. LBird is not talking about ethical decisions. He is talking about – for example – a vote on the truth of a theory of say how cancer is formed.he says that there should be no 'specialists' as these would be elites. We must all understand and vote on the truth of string theory for example.He also believes that in socialism there will be a class of workers that will democratically control science
Hi VinMy point in using the monkey head transplant was not simply about ethics. It is also about the use of, or validity of areas of research. Who decides what is and isn't useful for human needs and how that mechanism would work.It's about what mechanisms are put in place for deciding what is or isn't beneficial for humanity? So I ask both sides to provide a scenario for the example I used. If neither side thinks that is a valid question, fair enough, keep on at each others throats.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:Yes now I can see what your problem is. You have gone and mixed up the democratic method with the decision making process. Like Robbo has tried to explain the democratic method comes into force when there's a conflict of interest, particulary over social policy, within the community. Whereas the decision making process comes into play with the production of human need and the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.Here, once again, as I point out time after time, is the classic bourgeois ideology of the separation of the 'social' from the 'natural'.In fact, one could interchange the use of 'democratic' with 'social', and 'decision-making' with 'natural', in the explanation above.According to Marx, this cannot be done. It results in a separation of a group from society, a group which is above society. The Theses on Feuerbach refers.Marx argued for a unified method in science, and, as I never tire of saying, I agree with Marx about this.
Brian wrote:On the other hand the decision making process is about deciding the most efficient way of producing and distibuting human needs through inputs and outputs – in kind. For which its unnecessary to have a democratic vote…[my bold]Here we have the parallel with 'money', as a decider about 'most efficient way' to make decisions, outside of human, social (therefore, democratic) opinions. This is the bourgeois belief that 'efficiency' is not a matter of human judgement, but merely a technical exercise, which is best made by someone/something other than society as a whole (the latter which would imply democratic methods).
Brian wrote:There will be conflicting opinions and theories on which is the most efficient way of production and distribution but only practice will be the deciding factor on that score.Once again, we have the ideological belief that 'practice' determines the 'truth', rather than social theory and practice, as Marx argued for.This is nothing other than induction, 'practice and theory', which has been entirely discounted as a scientific method for approaching 100 years. Humans know that 'knowledge' is a social product, produced by 'theory and practice'. Because we know that different theories applied to the same object (by 'practice') can produce different knowledge, we know that 'practice' cannot be the arbiter of decision-making because one society's practice (on the same nature) produces an notion of 'efficient' that is different to another society's. I've given Einstein's opinion on this issue, referring to physics and its equations.The belief in 'practice' is most closely identified with American 'Pragmatism', which is an ideology most suited to the history of the development of US society (biological individuals in practice produce the truth, as opposed to Marx's social theory and practice).
Brian wrote:Nobody is trying to pull the wool over anybody's eyes. In fact quite the reverse for by putting this discussion into its social context we can basically figure out what will and not work in practice.'Working in practice' is not sufficient – the geocentric theory of the solar system 'worked in practice' for one society. But we employ a different theory, the heliocentric theory, and so our practice is different. 'Practice' is a social activity, not an objective method for determining 'truth/efficent/objective', etc.In fact, the bourgeois 'wool' has been well-and truly 'pulled over your eyes', Brian.Unless we discuss science and the social production of knowlegde, and be open from the start that this is an ideological subject, in which we should be open about our own ideological perspective from the beginning.I've been trying to do this now, for 18 months. From your post, Brian, it appears that you've either not read or not understood anything that I've said.Your views in that post are entirely ideological, not simply either 'your opinion' or 'an objective scientific opinion' which you merely reflect.
Brian wrote:So yes there is a need for the demcratic method to be utilised in some instances, but not in all because the decision making process will suffice for everday production and distribution.[my bold]This is dangerous talk, in a political sense.Workers should fear any party which implies that someone other than the democratically-organised proletariat will 'decide'. It's the philosophical roots of Leninism.Workers will be left to decide the 'everyday' (ie. unimportant), whilst the real issues of power in society will be in the hands of a smaller elite, expert, group ('scientists', 'cadre', 'priests', 'central committee', Uncle Joe…).
In an effort to continually confuse the issues and problems it appears you have developed distortion and put downs into a fine art. I have never suggested or implied that practice becomes before theory. You on the other hand seemingly discount the need for practice in all instances, which means its impossible to substantiate the theory.Neither have I ever suggested or implied that the democratic method and the decision making process is not in the hands of the community as a whole. Indeed its impossible to isolate the community from Direct Participatory Democracy in a socialist society. Nevertheless, according to your 'theory' this amounts to being Leninist claptrap.
LBird wrote:YMS, I simply don't agree with you on political grounds. I don't recognise your notion of 'socialism' as anything like my view, of the democratic control of production.That's a definition. That's my starting point. The DEMOCRATIC CONTROL of PRODUCTION.Not 'control of production by affinity groups'.We have a philosophical disagreement, and thus you won't agree with my views regarding science and the social production of knowledge.Democratic control of production not only seems to be your starting point, it also seems to be your end point too. Democracy is not just a means to an end, it is an end too but not the only one. Leninist propaganda for workers doesn't distinguish between ends and means for democracy as I guess they don't think workers would understand the distinction.
SocialistPunk wrote:Who decides what is and isn't useful for human needs and how that mechanism would work.It's about what mechanisms are put in place for deciding what is or isn't beneficial for humanity?Even so you are dealing with Lbird's Strawmen. No socialist would disagree with what you say above. Of course, such things will be subject to democratic process.LBird denies that there will be 'specialists' : medical researchers etc because these will know more than the rest of us and would therefore be an 'elite'. So the question you need to address is 'will all members of society have to have deep specialist knowledge of complex scientific issues covering the whole spectrum?'Because this is LBird's position. If you disagree with him then you are a Stalinist like the rest of us
Brian wrote:In an effort to continually confuse the issues and problems it appears you have developed distortion and put downs into a fine art. I have never suggested or implied that practice becomes before theory.You've implied that successful 'practice' is the arbiter of the truth of a theory.I've shown that successful practice can result from different theories being applied to the same 'material'. And I've, in the past, given a quote from Einstein to show that his realisation that two different equations can give the same result, and so undermined his belief that by induction that the 'equations' emerged from either the 'material' or 'successful practice', was part of his understanding that the human can't be taken out of decisions about 'truth'.Once we realise that humans musr decide the 'truth' or otherwise of a 'material fact', then we need to realise that this decision about what constitutes a 'fact' or a 'truth' must be democratic. Your belief that 'practice is the deciding factor' is an ideological belief, and wrong.Unless one believes in a society of elite experts, making decisions for us, which is precisely what we have now. Where's the revolutionary in that?As to 'confusing the issues', I suggest that you look closer to home, and your lack of understanding, rather than my 'distortion and put downs', as the source of your confusion. Try reading some the dozens of references that I've given in the past.
Brian wrote:You on the other hand seemingly discount the need for practice in all instances, which means its impossible to substantiate the theory.This is simply nonsense: if I've stressed 'theory and practice' once, I've stressed in a hundred times.Your problem is that you don't understand that 'theory substantiated by practice' does not produce 'The Truth'. Many different theories can result in success when applied to the same practical situation. Humans have to decide between potentially numerous 'true results'. This can either be the decision of 'experts' or of 'society'. As a Democratic Communist, I think society should decide, using demcratic methods. As a supporter of bourgeois science (which you don't recognise, because you believe the bourgeois myth that 'science produces the truth by a neutral method), you think scientific experts should make the decisions. How this can be seen as 'revolutionary science', I don't know. Probably, you'll poo-poo the notion of 'revolutionary science', and think that socialism will carry on is the same old bourgeois way.
Brian wrote:Neither have I ever suggested or implied that the democratic method and the decision making process is not in the hands of the community as a whole. Indeed its impossible to isolate the community from Direct Participatory Democracy in a socialist society.You keep saying 'practice' determines 'truth'. Successful practice can be done by individuals or an elite, and thus a vote is not required.I keep saying 'voting' determines 'truth'. Successful practice requires to be validated by a vote, and thus can't be determined by either individuals or an elite. Society must determine what counts as 'truth', not simple 'successful practice'.If you agree, why not just say 'truth depends upon vote'?
Brian wrote:Nevertheless, according to your 'theory' this amounts to being Leninist claptrap.Yes, the belief (and it's an ideological belief) that 'experts in science' should determine 'truth' in science, is the root of Leninist politics.If you all have so much faith in elites and experts, whether in physics or astrophysics, how come working physicists say there are massive problems within science? I've given the quote so many times from Rovelli, that you probably know it now by heart.Why will no-one address these philosophical issues that physicists themselves have identified?
Vin wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:Who decides what is and isn't useful for human needs and how that mechanism would work.It's about what mechanisms are put in place for deciding what is or isn't beneficial for humanity?Even so you are dealing with Lbird's Strawmen. No socialist would disagree with what you say above. Of course, such things will be subject to democratic process.LBird denies that there will be 'specialists' : medical researchers etc because these will know more than the rest of us and would therefore be an 'elite'. So the question you need to address is 'will all members of society have to have deep specialist knowledge of complex scientific issues covering the whole spectrum?'Because this is LBird's position. If you disagree with him then you are a Stalinist like the rest of us
I am neither defending nor attacking anyones position (though I don't get the impression LBird wants a future without doctors, scientists or engineers). I am merely trying to find out if either side of this discussion could apply their theory or opinion, provided they have one, to the simple thought experiment I offered up.
SocialistPunk wrote:…I don't get the impression LBird wants a future without doctors, scientists or engineers…I can gladly confirm that I think a socialist society should have an endless supply of ever more 'doctors, scientists and engineers'.The productive activities of those 'doctors, scientists and engineers' (and of all the other workers who choose to specialise in whatever area, including physics or sociology, and every discipline inbetween), including any alleged 'truths' that they produce, should be subject to a democratic vote.Thus, society will collectively and democratically determine the ethics, politics and science of that society.I can't see how relying upon experts, when many the experts (like Rovelli or Einstein) are already aware that they are human, just like us, and are products of their society, just like us, is held forth as the basis of socialism.I've made this point too, before, but it doesn't seem to worry most of the SPGB:The religious thinkers are already aware of the shortcomings of the myth of 'objective science', and presently most socialists (who rely, often unspokenly, on 'materialism') are behind (in the sense of trailing behind in their wake) the thinking of the religious.This bothers me, if not the rest of you. The religious are closer to the cutting edge of human thought than we are.
LBird wrote:I can gladly confirm that I think a socialist society should have an endless supply of ever more 'doctors, scientists and engineers'.You have altered your position, you are now willing to put your faith in 'specialists' and 'elites', just like the leninists and stalinists.How will engineers vote on medical matters for example? Would the 'engineers' consider the 'doctors' to be specialist in their area of expertise. ?? You are chopping and changing your position. Will the 'engineeer' 'trust' in the doctor's knowledge? You have already said 'there will be no 'experts'
LBird wrote:I'm not sure the slogan "Leave it to the experts! Leave heart surgery to the heart surgeons, leave twin experiments to Dr. Mengele!"will have much purchase upon workers who've learn to ask questions of the so-called 'experts', but perhaps I'm wrong.Ah well, time for my old mum's appointment with the good doctor… Dr. Shipman. You should see his qualifications! Kosher as they come.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.