Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:God, the bourgeoisie must be quaking in their boots, at the level of this conversation between workers, 130 years after Marx's death.
Only since you came on the forum. lol
Vin wrote:LBird wrote:God, the bourgeoisie must be quaking in their boots, at the level of this conversation between workers, 130 years after Marx's death.Only since you came on the forum. lol
I know. I seem to be wasting everyone's time, mine included.
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:Any scientist worth his or her salt is not going to be swayed by the fact that a majority hold a view that is contrary to his or her own.You still won't tell us how these 'scientists' get to a 'view' that that can't be got to by 'a majority'.You're positing an 'elite' in opposition to a 'mass', and suggesting that the 'elite' have a 'method' which is a better way of determining the truth of a 'view', than is a democratic method.This is simply bourgeois ideology, not an incontrovertible truth.It is a product of 'materialism', and is suited to Leninist political organisation.Put simply, robbo, you have a fear of democracy, and a faith in scientists. It is not a revolutionary view.
Come off your cloud, LBird. For just once try engaging with the arguments that are presented than continuously try to misrepresent them to save face. I have no fear of democracy at all. I advocate it and I am a democrat. But unlike you I recognise there are limits to democratic decision making and these are defined by where the whole purpose of democratic decision making is no longer served and where other considerations come into play. Do you recognise such limits? Or are you seriously suggesting that every single human act or thought must be subjected to democratic sanction ? That we must fall in line with the perceived will or outlook of the (global) majority? Your actions and thoughts on this forum belie such a suggestion. You persist in putting forward certain arguments which no one else here apparently supports. I will defend your right to do so though I think the arguments themselves are absolutely ludicrous You say I "still" won't tell you "how these 'scientists' get to a 'view' that that can't be got to by 'a majority'.". Unlike you, I don't run away from a question when asked one – though you haven't actually specifically put this question in the form that you have above so the the insertion of the word "still" in the above is mischievous and misleading The answer to your question is straightforward: the "view" that a scientist develops is something that is obtained after years and years of sustained study and research. I don't claim that the level of understanding that a scientist reaches in his or her particular line of research – let us say astrophysics – is not something that cannot also be got a majority but only if the majority also engages in years and years of sustained study and research. You cant expect it to magically appear overnight can you? Or perhaps you do in your case. Simply reflecting on this shows just how stupid your whole argument is. If a majority were to devote themselves to years and years of study and research in the field of astrophysics to equip themselves with a level of understanding equivalent to that of a qualified astrophysicists then what about the hundreds of other fields of scientific endeavour? What about, say, molecular biology.? Do you expect the majority to similarly devote years and years of study and research to molecular biology as well? Has it not occurred to you that doing one thing may prevent you from another, that to become specialised in one field has opportunity costs which prevent you from becoming an expert in another if only becuase we just dont have time enough to do both things?You have an almost childlike view of the way world ticks, LBird, which I find quite astonishing in someone who otherwise comes across as quite erudite. You just don't things through, do you? Like your crackpot idea that 7 billion people must vote in multiple thousands of plebiscites every year to validate the "truth" of each new scientific theory as it comes on stream. Quite apart from the total impracticality of such a suggestion , you totally neglect to explain why a vote is needed in the case of determining the truth of a scientific theory .You run away from this question every time it is put to you. Thats because you don't understand what democracy is for as i said at the outset. Its about practical decisions that affect us, not abstract "truth" And so we come to your claim that I am positing an 'elite' in opposition to a 'mass' . No I'm not at all. What I have been trying to tell you that the "elite" you read into my proposition is a MIRAGE a complete figment of your imagination. There is no elite. All there is is a complex social division of labour. I've explained this all to you but you wont listen. The trained astrophysicist certainly differs from the mass in the level of understanding he or she has as far as the field of astrophysics is concerned. But as far as the field of molecular biology is concerned that trained astrophysicist is equally part of the mass. In other words, you could say that EVERYONE in society is both part of an "elite" – with respect to their own area of expertise- and part of the mass with respect to other areas of expertise. In other words there is no sociologically identifiable trans-social entity called an "elite" in my view of communism – nor for that matter, a "mass". It is simply a case of individuals necessarily being different from each other It is precisely the "vulgar communism" of people like you that Marx attacked – the preposterous suggestion that people are all equal and identical in their abilities. Thats is not the kind of equality we communists strive to achieve. What we seek is social equality with respect to peoples' standing in relation to each other. There is no power that a trained astrophysicists could possibly wield over the "mass" in a communist society notwithstanding that he or she clearly differs from the mass in respect of the level of understanding attained in the subject of astrophysics. The social basis of elite power in the proper sense disappears completely in a communist society where goods and services are freely accessible to the general public and where all labour is voluntarily performed. There is no leverage any one or any group can exercise over anyone else under these circumstances. You have claimed a high level of understanding by a few experts in a particular field of scientific endeavour somehow invests them with a power over society which is at odds with the democratic nature of communism. Well go on prove it!. Show us how this "power" could materialise in a communist society
robbo203 wrote:For just once try engaging with the arguments that are presented than continuously try to misrepresent them to save face.No, I'm not going to 'engage with the arguments' that you 'present'.I know I'm wasting my time, and yours, Vin's, YMS's, and anybody else's who isn't interested the the philosophical relationship between subject/object/knowledge.Stick with what you believe, robbo, and I can get back to some reading on other subjects.My 18 months posting here have developed, tremendously, my understanding of these issues of ontology, epistemology, science and truth. I've read dozens of books, from both the 19th and 20th centuries, which I probably wouldn't have, without the recommendations of others, including some by you.If my contributions have helped others, then I'm happy, because I aimed to try to do just that, but if they haven't, then I just have to reluctantly accept that I've failed in that social task.On a wider note, I think that I've discovered that the SPGB's politics are not mine. Politics emerge from philosophy, and I don't share that basis with those who post here. Perhaps there are some who don't post, who regard themselves as closer to my beliefs, but probably not.Given that I've had many similar discussions on LibCom and the ICC site, too, and had similar responses, perhaps it's time for me to admit to myself that the 'socialism/communism/Marxism', that I look to, doesn't really exist.Anyway, my disenchantment is not just with you, robbo, so no personal hard feelings – you build for socialism in the way that you see fit.
Quote:I don't share that basis with those who post here. Perhaps there are some who don't post, who regard themselves as closer to my beliefs, but probably not.Given that I've had many similar discussions on LibCom and the ICC site, too, and had similar responses, perhaps it's time for me to admit to myself that the 'socialism/communism/Marxism', that I look to, doesn't really exist.alanjjohnstone wrote:Wonder what happened to gilbert o'sullivan. Canny little songwriter.With regard Lbird, it is your views that are dogmatic and unchanging. The proof is in your repitition of the same stuff over and over again on all threads. Before you go, just for my own curiosity, what DO you mean by 'Communism'?
Vin wrote:With regard Lbird, it is your views that are dogmatic and unchanging…. Before you go, just for my own curiosity, what DO you mean by 'Communism'?By 'Communism', I mean the democratic control of production.Since 'truth' is a social product, I also mean that 'truth' must be under our control.'Dogmatic and unchanging', to the end.
LBird wrote:I know I'm wasting my time, and yours, Vin's, YMS's, and anybody else's who isn't interested the the philosophical relationship between subject/object/knowledge.LBird, somebody once said something along the lines that philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways and that the point is to change it. I don't have any great problem with your view on the "philosophical relationship between subject/object/knowledge". In fact, if you recall, months and months ago I expressed support for the position you were advancing which was a fundamental assault on the notion of objectivity in science – positivism – and the idea that science is somehow value free. You may or may believe that you are unique in holding these views on this forum but you are not and there are others here apart from me who likewise hold them. Where you fall down badly, and with all due respect, is not the philosophical basis of your thinking but in your working out of the practical implications of what you are saying – like your ludicrous idea of everyone voting on scientific theories. You never explained how or why. Did you seriously think for one moment what all that would entail in practical terms? I don't think so and your reluctance to engage with the arguments at a practical level was all too telling. It suggests you subconsciously knew you were on dodgy grounds I think you would be far better advised to shift your focus of attention away from abstract philosophy for a while to something a little more practically oriented and down to earth, to be brutally frank. You've been reading too many philosophy books lately. Time to take a break!
robbo203 wrote:I think you would be far better advised to shift your focus of attention away from abstract philosophy for a while to something a little more practically oriented and down to earth, to be brutally frank. You've been reading too many philosophy books lately. Time to take a break!I know that your advice is well-meant, robbo, and comradely.But, in fact, having been active and 'practically oriented and down to earth', just like every other worker who gets involved in 'revolutionary politics', if there's one thing that I've learnt, it's that 'abstract philosophy', if left to 'our betters', will dominate our ideas.And, 'to be brutally frank', you haven't been reading enough philosophy books lately.But, I agree, 'time for a break'.
Some food for thought, for those opposed to ‘politics in physics’, on the context of the emergence of this longstanding bourgeois view of the relationship between science and politics. This is a view which Communists should replace with one that argues for the democratisation of all science and truth-production.
W. Schafer(ed) Finalization in Science (1983) pp. 252-3, wrote:The traditional relationship between science and politics was based upon a historic compromise worked out in the mid-seventeenth century. The New Science of “experimental philosophy” relinquished all of the moral, political, educational and social aims established for it by Bacon, Comenius, Winstanley and many others in the early-seventeenth century. The absolutist state rewarded the renunciation of the ideals of science as a radical project for socio-political reform with the offer of wide-ranging privileges for “pure” natural science; the founding of the Royal Society in London(1662) and the Academie Royale des Sciences in Paris(1666) formed part of this process. Royal support for the New Science was paid for by separating science from politics.[my bolds]http://www.bokus.com/bok/9789027715494/finalization-in-science/
I don't think everyone can specialize in all branches of scientific study that would be required in your module of social organization Lbird, not humanly possible. Communists strive for social equality not individual uniformity. I do not understand the term 'truth production' either because in the scientific world there is no such thing as an absolute truth, such thinking would prove to be subjective and illogical.
No offence, CP, but I've been through these issues on a number of threads, and if you want to believe, from what you've read so far by my 'interpreters', that I think that 'everyone can specialize in all branches of scientific study' and that I desire 'individual uniformity', then I'll have to let you continue to hold on dearly to those myths!If you want to know what I actually think, you'll have to read those threads, and take account of what I actually say, rather than what others tell you that I say.If you're interested in ontology and epistemology, and do some background reading (of which I've done decades' worth), then you might be able to ask some questions to tempt me into further discussion. I started these threads simply to help other comrades avoid that long toil, and hopefully, help myself to develop further. But, on the former, I've failed. On the latter, I've advanced by leaps and bounds, but under my own steam, rather than collectively, as I wished.But, if that's not your bag, and you don't really want to understand why I don't argue that 'everyone can specialize in all branches of scientific study' (and the answer involves ontology and epistemology), then just pass over this thread, too.I'm sure that you can think of far more interesting things to do with your time! I can!
LBird wrote:No offence, CP, but I've been through these issues on a number of threads, and if you want to believe, from what you've read so far by my 'interpreters', that I think that 'everyone can specialize in all branches of scientific study' and that I desire 'individual uniformity', then I'll have to let you continue to hold on dearly to those myths!If you want to know what I actually think, you'll have to read those threads, and take account of what I actually say, rather than what others tell you that I say.If you're interested in ontology and epistemology, and do some background reading (of which I've done decades' worth), then you might be able to ask some questions to tempt me into further discussion. I started these threads simply to help other comrades avoid that long toil, and hopefully, help myself to develop further. But, on the former, I've failed. On the latter, I've advanced by leaps and bounds, but under my own steam, rather than collectively, as I wished.But, if that's not your bag, and you don't really want to understand why I don't argue that 'everyone can specialize in all branches of scientific study' (and the answer involves ontology and epistemology), then just pass over this thread, too.I'm sure that you can think of far more interesting things to do with your time! I can!I havn't even heard of those ideologies so I can see how I could have misinterperated your views.metaphiysics dealing with the nature of being and epistemology which has to do I guess with the interperatation of solid beliefs and opinions. so this thread isn't actually about communist theory but epistemology and ontology?confused…
Capitalist Pig wrote:metaphiysics dealing with the nature of being and epistemology which has to do I guess with the interperatation of solid beliefs and opinions. so this thread isn't actually about communist theory but epistemology and ontology?confused…So is everybody else, CP, and I'm clearly not helping!All the things that you mention are interlinked, and the several threads on 'science' here discuss it all in great detail.
LBird wrote:I'd like to start a new thread to discuss 'science' with those who already consider themselves Communists.By that, I mean those who already share similar ideas to me about society.I think that I take a broadly Marxist perspective, and so don't consider myself an 'individual', but a 'worker'. I think 'ideas' are socially-produced and class-based, so that 'ideas about science' will also be of class origin. I think, again broadly, that there are two competing 'ideas' about the world (social and natural), that is, 'ruling class' ideas and 'exploited class' ideas, and that these are relevent to a discussion about 'science'.If any comrades post, and don't appear to share my 'ideology', the first thing that I'll do is to ask them what ideology they are employing.Can those comrades, who already know that they don't share my ideological views, please ignore this thread, because I don't think that they'll benefit from participation. If what I write appears to be 'too much' for those comrades, could they start their own thread to explain their disagreements; perhaps they could title this alternative thread of theirs "Science for Scientists", or somesuch.Instead of having all people specialize in all branches of science, you are trying to itentify social(rulingclass) and natural(exploited class) ideas in 'science'. I believed all science was 'science' regardless of the social background of the scientist but apparently this is untrue?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.