Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
You're a tenacious bleeder, CP!OK, I'll take the bait.
CP wrote:I believed all science was 'science' regardless of the social background of the scientist but apparently this is untrue?What about Dr. Mengele?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_MengeleBy all the definitions of 'scientist', he was a scientist.As a scientist, he was employing the 'scientific method'.Yet, we regard his 'social background' as playing a massive part in his science, and condemn his science for that reason.So, here is an example of 'science' of which it is 'untrue' to say we are 'regardless of the social backgound of the scientist'.Do you still believe what you thought about 'all science'?
the outcomes of experiments can have a certain bias toward the interests of the investors of them, this is true, but I don't believe it would be productive to classify all science as bias toward the interest of the capitalist class because they were funded by its members. I think this would be like burning books simply because almost all science today and in the past was funded by the ruling class
Capitalist Pig wrote:the outcomes of experiments can have a certain bias toward the interests of the investors of them, this is true, but I don't believe it would be productive to classify all science as bias toward the interest of the capitalist class because they were funded by its members. I think this would be like burning books simply because almost all science today and in the past was funded by the ruling classYou're entitled to follow the what the bourgeoisie have told you, CP, but since you haven't answered my question about your view now about 'all science', after my previous post, I'll leave our exchange at this point.All I can say, to you as I've said to the others, is that, if you don't have any worries about 'science' and you think it has a non-political 'neutral method', and it produces 'The Truth', why bother to ask me to explain?You have to already have come to have serious doubts about those premises before asking for clarification of your doubts. All I can do is to deepen your existing worries, and propose an alternative that you already know is necessary, even if you don't yet know what that alternative is. That is, the discussion has to be about 'what alternative?', rather than 'There is no alternative!'.I've said this before, too: I find it strange that comrades who have already come to see through 'capitalism', 'the free market' and Thatcher's mantra of 'There Is No Alternative' (hence her nickname, TINA), and realise that the alternative can't be explained through the premises of neo-classical economics, but has to be explained by revolutionary ideas which undermine capitalism at its roots, can't see that similar problems exist, which requires a revolutionary and critical approach, and which also applies to 'science'.Sorry, CP, it looks like you're going to have to wade through several threads here, and dozens of books and articles quoted therein, to get to the point of being critical of 'science'.Perhaps there isn't a shortcut, and I've been entirely wrong in that premise.Whilst you think that my views "classify all science as bias toward the interest of the capitalist class" and that they entail "burning books", we're not going anywhere soon.If you do believe that, it's no wonder you want to stick with 'science', the non-political sort. The fact that this is a 19th century belief, a myth still propagated, and widely believed today, shows to me the power of ruling class ideas.Whilst the 'atom' is non-political, the 'commodity' will remain non-political.
Whilst you think that my views "classify all science as bias toward the interest of the capitalist class" and that they entail "burning books", we're not going anywhere soon.If you do believe that, it's no wonder you want to stick with 'science', the non-political sort. The fact that this is a 19th century belief, a myth still propagated, and widely believed today, shows to me the power of ruling class ideas. ok what is this myth because this is new to me. Your saying that i'm being influenced by the 'ruling class' concerning my ideas of 'science'. Is science not in the interest of the 'exploited class' or do you identify multible kinds of 'science' based on the 'social class' of the scientist? Ex. one scientist owns stocks or a business so that discredits all of his work because of these facts, or another scientist lives on only wages so by this fact alone makes his 'science' worth looking at? and my view of science is just a collection of knowledge and the pursuit of a greater knowledge in a multitude of subjects in the physical world.
Capitalist Pig wrote:and my view of science is just a collection of knowledge and the pursuit of a greater knowledge in a multitude of subjects in the physical world.That's so naively cute, CP!You clearly haven't read my link to Dr. Mengele's scientific activities.Have you heard of the Tuskegee Experiment, perchance?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experimentYou probably won't read that, either.Isn't the innocence of youth frightening, comrades?
Capitalist Pig wrote:ok i'll read it but you don't have to be a dick
He does. That's all there is to him.I think 'dick' is putting it mildly.
Lbird I don't understand so science is not legidiment if social injustice occurs during particular experiments? Or are you just objected to all scienctific study because social injusice may occer? Science is all and the same no matter if social injustice occers during experiments, but you are saying otherwise?The outcome of experiments may be influencd by the interests of investors, which means the study is fettered. But are you saying all science funded by the capitalist class/ruling class is to be done away with and never mentioned again? In capitalism research and development is invensted in to realize a profit but useful and groundbreaking technologies will still be produced. Do you want to completely forget all the technological progress that has been funded by the state simply because it was funded by the state? If none of this is relevant to your idea of science and how it should be carried out and implemented in society then you should be clearer about your own ideological position because i'm stumped
Capitalist Pig wrote:ok i'll read it but you don't have to be a dickThat's what those who can't read posts and follow up the implications, and instead avoid those implications and constantly change the goalposts, always call those trying to help. It's almost as if the illiterate and ignorant can't identify their terrible condition…
Vin wrote:Capitalist Pig wrote:ok i'll read it but you don't have to be a dickHe does. That's all there is to him.I think 'dick' is putting it mildly.
I rest my case, CP.
Capitalist Pig wrote:If none of this is relevant to your idea of science and how it should be carried out and implemented in society then you should be clearer about your own ideological position because i'm stumpedYou still haven't got it yet, have you, CP?You have to be clearer about your own, existing, 'ideological position' about 'your idea of science'.Then, you might have some hope of contrasting that with mine.Come back when you've read the links that I've already provided.If you think Mengele and Tuskegee are fine, we have no more to discuss.
[/quote]That's what those who can't read posts and follow up the implications, and instead avoid those implications and constantly change the goalposts, always call those trying to help. It's almost as if the illiterate and ignorant can't identify their terrible condition…[/quote]by the way fuck you.First 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.
Capitalist Pig wrote:wow nice completely ignore all of my questions and call me ignorant.wow nice completely ignore all of my answers and call me a dick.
Capitalist Pig wrote:Quote:That's what those who can't read posts and follow up the implications, and instead avoid those implications and constantly change the goalposts, always call those trying to help. It's almost as if the illiterate and ignorant can't identify their terrible condition…by the way fuck you.
That must be your 'scientific method', eh, CP?I'm just following your method – you call me 'a dick', I call you 'illiterate and ignorant'.But only one of us is correct.It never fails to amaze me, that people think they can hurl insults, then cry like babies when insults are returned.Are you so out of touch with life?Here we go, anyway… fuck you, too.Third 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.This user is suspended for an indefinite period.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.