Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LB you did not reply to one of my questions but simply repeated your own positian time and time again, you insulted me because I did not adhere to your ideology and now you have insulted me again. Can you explain to me how this is a reasonable debate? Because it just sounds like some guy repeating what he read or heard. If you are not willing to challenge your own ideas then why am I wasting my time? because this is obviously degrading to child-like behavior.Thank you for your feedback
Some more food for thought, on the incorrectness of materialism’s claim to have objective knowledge (being without consciousness) when faced with a famous physicist’s claim (similar to Marx’s idealism-materialism) that knowledge is always social (being with consciousness). Knowledge is a social relationship of object and subject, not a reflection of object, without a subject. Thus, ‘truth’ is a social and historical creation of humans, not a timeless and asocial ‘Truth’.
Rhodes, p. 77, wrote:“It is wrong,” he [Niels Bohr] told his colleagues repeatedly, “to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is” – which is the territory classical physics had claimed for itself. “Physics concerns what we can say about nature.”http://www.amazon.co.uk/Making-Atomic-Bomb-Richard-Rhodes/dp/1471111237Materialism echoes classical physics; Einstein and Bohr echo Marx.Anyone want a discussion?
CP, I think what LBird is trying to say but in his usual offensive and patronising manner is quite simply that science is not "value free" – that its agenda is shaped by economic interests and that the practice of its practitioners (the scientists) are ideologically informed. We can see this in the way scientists will cling on to their pet theory in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, for example T S Kuhn's famous 1962 work "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is a seminal source in this regard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions) and is worth a read if you can get hold of a copy..Although the thought will horrify LBird, I actually agree with him on this point although I think on a quite a number of other points he is daft as a brush – particularly his unbelievably silly idea that the entire world population should vote on the "truth" of thousands upon thousands of scientific theories. Can you ever begin to imagine it … Its just that LBird has a habit of rubbing people up the wrong way. But don't be put off by his mannerism; on this point at least there is some sense in what he is saying
ok so you guys are basicly saying that all science is formed from ideologies, which means there is no such thing as objective thinking because everything we know is based on ideology
Capitalist Pig wrote:ok so you guys are basicly saying that all science is formed from ideologies, which means there is no such thing as objective thinking because everything we know is based on ideologyHmm. I would put it somewhat differently – that there is no such thing as purely objective thinking. In the social sciences this refers to the problem of "reflexivity"- that we are part of the very thing we are meant to be "objectively" observing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_%28social_theory%29) But even in the physical sciences there is the "observer effect" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_%28physics%29) – that is quite apart from the other factors I mentioned and which Kuhn touched on in the formulation of scientific theories… Hope this helps!
that makes sense, varibles that scientists are unaware of may effect the outcome of their experiments which causes them to be fettered. Or the manner in which the scientists carry out their experiments becomes a varible to be reconized itself.
Why the moderators of this forum do not apply the proper rules ? I think this forum was created in order to discuss about socialism, it was not created in order to insult each others. It might discourage new peoples to join this forum. I am glad that I am not the moderator of this forum
mcolome1 wrote:Why the moderators of this forum do not apply the proper rules ? I think this forum was created in order to discuss about socialism, it was not created in order to insult each others. It might discourage new peoples to join this forum. I am glad that I am not the moderator of this forumPlease note the action taken with #1350.
LBird wrote: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.
moderator wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Why the moderators of this forum do not apply the proper rules ? I think this forum was created in order to discuss about socialism, it was not created in order to insult each others. It might discourage new peoples to join this forum. I am glad that I am not the moderator of this forumPlease note the action taken with #1350.
Moderator!Congratulations !!!. I supported the decision that you have taken under messages number 1350 and 1359.I had not read the first one because I was not longer reading all the messages of this forum, I thought that I had joined a Mexican Palenque or a Gallera to watch the Cocks fights, or a child care center to deal with little children fighting for their toys When I want to see bull fights ( Corridas de toros ) I go to Spain or to Portugal, I do not have to join a socialist forumWe had the same problems at the WSM forum, and we were forced to take drastic measures too.That type of behaviors produce negative impressions on the newcomers.
mcolome1 wrote:moderator wrote:mcolome1 wrote:Why the moderators of this forum do not apply the proper rules ? I think this forum was created in order to discuss about socialism, it was not created in order to insult each others. It might discourage new peoples to join this forum. I am glad that I am not the moderator of this forumPlease note the action taken with #1350.
Moderator!Congratulations !!!. I supported the decision that you have taken under messages number 1350 and 1359.I had not read the first one because I was not longer reading all the messages of this forum, I thought that I had joined a Mexican Palenque or a Gallera to watch the Cocks fights, or a child care center to deal with little children fighting for their toys When I want to see bull fights ( Corridas de toros ) I go to Spain or to Portugal, I do not have to join a socialist forumWe had the same problems at the WSM forum, and we were forced to take drastic measures too.That type of behaviors produce negative impressions on the newcomers.
There is also #1348 where I took action.
sorry for the vulgarity he just really annoyed me when he said I was illiterate and stupid. I'll ignore comments like that from now on
I couldn't help myself when i saw this …i just had to post it
Quote:“Science isn’t about voting,” he says. “We don’t vote on the theory of relativity. We don’t vote on evolution. The image of scientists voting gives the public the impression that science is arbitrary.”https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/01/2006-space-oddity-pluto-debate-row
alanjjohnstone wrote:I couldn't help myself when i saw this …i just had to post itQuote:“Science isn’t about voting,” he says. “We don’t vote on the theory of relativity. We don’t vote on evolution. The image of scientists voting gives the public the impression that science is arbitrary.”https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/01/2006-space-oddity-pluto-debate-row
It's a good article, well worth reading.It raises epistemological issues about power in science, who creates categories, the nature of reality and truth, etc.
I look forward for some leisurely few hours to read through the new edition of New Scientist on what is reality. I am sure there will be a few points relevant to the socialist understanding of the universe that others might wish to discuss. https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/metaphysics/Register for free access to the articles
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.