Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Sure. The repeated postings by several users to define their ideological perspective, democratic communist description, or constant claims we are Leninists, or certain users are individualists, etc, etc. This is in breach of Rule 6., I don't mind letting two or three such posts getting through but when it becomes a habit and the discussion is clearly logged jammed with such postings it suggests to me that this thread requires constant scrutiny and the rules applied more firmly.
I have come across two articles regarding Marx’s view of ‘nature’ (which differs from the bourgeois concept of ‘objective nature’, because Marx viewed ‘nature’ as a relationship between humans and external reality, a necessary and inescapable relationship between subject and object, consciousness and being).These articles are available in PDF, from the links below.‘The Concept of Nature in Geography and Marxism’ by Rod Burgesshttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1978.tb00101.x/abstract ‘Geography, Marx and the Concept of Nature’ by Neil Smith and Phil O’Keefehttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1980.tb00647.x/abstractI don't agree with them entirely, but they are closer to my thinking, than I am to the thinking of most 'materialist' posters, here.
God knows what this 1300 post thread has all been about so I will have to guess based on similar and much shorter threads I have got involved in elsewhere. One of the arguments revolved around the advocacy of a technocratic albeit free access society of the Zietgist people.That does have a 'communist' history datring back to the 1930's and Well's I think. Scientists and engineers would know the best way to get things done and would get on with it with minimal interference from the scientifically illiterate etc. Against this is the non macroscopic idea of; would planes be flown by a democratic committee or decisions about how to put out a fire not be left to the expertise of the trained fire fighters etc? On a macroscopic and anti technocratic scale the argument would be that; scientific and engineering 'cliques', ‘castes’ or ‘classes’ left alone would develop and pursue there own personal agenda’s to the detriment of society as a whole. It not very easy to fathom how this would manifest itself but in an open attempt to propose some examples of my own in the absence of any others? Know thy enemy! Maybe in the scientist deranged priest class search for absolute truth they would have us running around building more pyramids, stone henge’s, hadron colliders, gravity wave detectors and stuff to peer into space to work out what happened 13 billion years ago? Deluding us like they do with the present capitalist ruling class into believing in the miracles, past present and future, of blue sky research in solving all problems whilst in reality just providing more toys for infantile scientists to play with? In the meantime elevating their social ‘priest class’ social status? Blah blah. Funding for that at present or fairly recently is done on an ‘economic impact assessment’ basis, the details of which I will leave. But the issue of whether or not it is all left to a 'caste' of mutually self serving albeit muti-disciplinary ‘scientists and engineers’ is a ‘potential’ problem. Scientists in general are polymaths , and like say chemists, have a pretty good understanding of what the gravel monkey geologists are up to and are more than happy to call foul if they exaggerate the import of their work and vice versa. Even assuming that we are all intrinsically socially irresponsible and groups of sub castes within a greater all encompassing one that wishes to take over the world etc. When it comes to democratic control of what we are up to etc there is in fact a simple solution put forward by some scientists, like myself. Sceintists or in fact mathematicians/statisticians can prove from first principals that; if you want to know what decision the whole of an idealistically informed, educated and scientifically literate society would make. The stupid solution to that problem would be to educate and inform them all and ask them all to vote. Eg blue sky research into the final solution of nuclear fusion?, wind power etc or fission and is global warming bollocks? On a 7 billion population global issue you would take a random selected sample of a jury of 10,000? for a year or so and let them be “educated and informed” and then vote. Pure statisticians will tell you that the result will the same, +/- 5%, as if the whole of the population voted after being “educated and informed”. It is an opinion poll; but opinion polls have got a bad name from non pure statisticians. As they say ‘opinion polls’ are polls of people who are prepared to respond to opinion polls which is often less than 40% irrespective of demographic origin etc. And peer pressure and lying etc. You still admittedly have the problem of who is doing the ‘educating and informing’ and judges 'directing' the jury etc. It is called demarchy and has been advocated by people of an anarchist persuasion as well as having a long a-statistical historical precedent. I would expect demarchic decisions to not be final but go through on the nod, or default passed unless voted against.
Dave B wrote:Against this is the non macroscopic idea of; would planes be flown by a democratic committee or decisions about how to put out a fire not be left to the expertise of the trained fire fighters etc?This sort of 'question' when trying to discuss the philosophical issue of the democratic production of knowledge, is similar to the 'question' of 'why are you Commies going to make us all wear the same blue boiler suits, and be forced to share our underpants?', when trying to discuss socialism.The problems are contained in the question, which is made by those who've already made their minds up about the issues at stake.Ah well, let's just leave it all to the 'elite experts'. Separate society into two.The fact that Marx, in the Theses on Feuerbach, disagreed with this, is neither here nor there, eh?And bollocks to philosophy, Marx's or anyone else's, and stick to 'facts' and the 'real world'. And those nice disinterested scientists and their neutral method.
LBird wrote:Dave B wrote:Against this is the non macroscopic idea of; would planes be flown by a democratic committee or decisions about how to put out a fire not be left to the expertise of the trained fire fighters etc?This sort of 'question' when trying to discuss the philosophical issue of the democratic production of knowledge, is similar to the 'question' of 'why are you Commies going to make us all wear the same blue boiler suits, and be forced to share our underpants?', when trying to discuss socialism.The problems are contained in the question, which is made by those who've already made their minds up about the issues at stake.Ah well, let's just leave it all to the 'elite experts'. Separate society into two.The fact that Marx, in the Theses on Feuerbach, disagreed with this, is neither here nor there, eh?And bollocks to philosophy, Marx's or anyone else's, and stick to 'facts' and the 'real world'. And those nice disinterested scientists and their neutral method.
So answer the question LBird: would just anyone be allowed to fly a plane regardless of experience or qualifications? Yes or No? No beating about the bush, please. Lets have a straight answer for once. And, no , nobody is "separating society into a two". I can do things in my line of work which I bet a university trained nuclear physicist wouldn't have a clue about. And I'm a horny handed son of toil and proud of it.. What is your expertise BTW?
Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
LBird wrote:Fuck off, you knob.I can't get any clearer.Oh dear, someone has had his feathers ruffled hasn't he? So I take it that means you can't provide a straight answer to a straight question or, more likely, deign in your superior wisdom not to give one. This from the hypocrite who charges others with being "elitist". Ho humFirst warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
robbo203 wrote:So answer the question LBird: would just anyone be allowed to fly a plane regardless of experience or qualifications? Yes or No? No beating about the bush, please. Lets have a straight answer for once. And, no , nobody is "separating society into a two". I can do things in my line of work which I bet a university trained nuclear physicist wouldn't have a clue about. And I'm a horny handed son of toil and proud of it.. What is your expertise BTW?Robbo, this question was asked of LBird at the start of the thread by myself and others. His reply to you and Dave B is the only answer we are going to get.
Vin wrote:Robbo, this question was asked of LBird at the start of the thread by myself and others. His reply to you and Dave B is the only answer we are going to get.Vin, I've tried endlessly to discuss this philosophical issue with you and robbo.I've given quotes, and recommended books and articles, and provided links to PDFs.Neither of you will engage, but continue to ask questions of the type I referred earlier, ie. those questions that avoid the issues involved.I'm not interested in trying to answer your 'questions' any longer.If Dave B, or anyone else who is interested in the philosophical problems within science, and the need for democratic methods to produce knowledge, wants to discuss these issues, I'll return to discussion.Whilst you and robbo think that 'democratic control of an aeroplane' has anything whatsoever to do with the production of knowledge, you'll both continue to be in the dark about the problems within science since Einstein.If you want to discuss 'nature' and the differing views of it by Marx and bourgeois science, read the PDFs I recommended.
We have engaged. You will not answer simple questions about your 'theory'
LBird wrote:Whilst you and robbo think that 'democratic control of an aeroplane' has anything whatsoever to do with the production of knowledge, you'll both continue to be in the dark about the problems within science since Einstein.So who will we get to fly a plane? Remove a brain tumour? Why will you not answer these simple questions without abuse??
Dave B,Of course, we can apply Condorecet's Jury theorem(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet%27s_jury_theorem) The more people involved in arriving at a decision, the more likely they are to be right. The big question is what effects the probability of a voter being right, simple guess work between two options is 50/50, so any reliable information should raise the chance of a voter being right above 50%, so long as the voter processes it correctly. Obviously, diminishing returns apply as you add aditional voters (as you say about polling smple size, once you get enough it doesn't make much odds to add a few more).What that would seem to suggest is that the widest dissemination of information is necessary, along with open debate that includes the maximum number of people.
YMS wrote:What that would seem to suggest is that the widest dissemination of information is necessary, along with open debate that includes the maximum number of people.This conclusion of yours, YMS, lends support for the Communist view that, since 'truth' is a social product, that the 'truth' of any scientific knowledge should be decided by society, using democratic means.Thus, there would then be no separation between 'science' and 'society', between 'elite-experts' and an 'ignorant mass', between 'educators' and 'educated', the division that Marx warned about.
Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, III, wrote:The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htmOnce this view of Marx's is accepted (and the sciences, including physics and maths, seems to have produced the support for it), it only remains for us to specify what we mean by your "widest dissemination of information", "open debate" and "maximum number of people".
"widest dissemination of information",No subscription costs for learned journals, well stocked libraries with no membership costs, open access to datasets where practicable (subject to reasonable privacy of participanmts in experiments)"open debate"No pre-censorship, peer reviewed journals, free association and adequate resources made for groups to promulgate opinion."maximum number of people"the debate never ends.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.