Brian
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:By the way, I don't think he was an official Zeitgeist candidate even though he was expressing their ideas. I think they give their members a free hand to stand in elections or even join a party if they want to while as an organisation being "non-political".
I suspect the reason he stood on the Resource Based Economy ticket which TZM advocate was to get free publicity for the idea. Much like us in that respect. However, because TZM are strictly arguing for a change in values to bring about the necessary changes in capitalism they have unfortunately dumped all political dialogue in the waste basket labeled 'party political activity'.Although their members have a free hand to stand in elections they are not encouraged to do so for they see no need for a political challenge being organised by the 99% to bring about a revolutionary transformation in the ownership of the means of living.According to TZM the necessary changes in values are brought about by an evolutionary process and not a revolutionary process. I have yet to figure out how they reached this conclusion when history explains otherwise.
Also:19. Responses to articles in the letters column do appear under the name of the Socialist Standard Editorial Committee. However, in practice what occurs is the committee request the writer of the article to reply. Not all responses to articles are published in the Socialist Standard, especially if it's thought it's going to result in protracted correspondence. Nevertheless, the editorial committee reply to all responses.20. Corrections are approved by the editorial committee once the necessary research is completed.
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:How many times do we have to say that we do not subscribe to the the "science as absolute certainty" or "science as discovery of reality as it is" theories?[my bold]Say once, just once, that 'we are not certain' that the earth goes round the sun, and we're there!Then, we can start to address some of the other issues, which you and other posters have reasonably raised, with a discussion of the 'social subject' (unless someone wants to argue for 'individual' or 'elite' subject).[ps. will read your link later]
Hold on please. There's a difference between accepting the absolute of the earth going round the sun and accepting the whole field of science as an absolute. Science is in a state of flux and always will be which is itself an absolute and also a certainty, however there are some fields of scientific discovery which we would accept has an absolute and a certainty.
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:So all truths are relative in the sense that they are only approximations and the complete knowledge of the whole picture of absolute truths will always remain elusive. Due I presume to the dynamics of change, which is also an absolute, and when considered in conjunction with the multiplicity of the endless factors involved that bring these changes into existence – means in effect – that our understanding of truth is only of a partial and temporary nature?Am I right or am I wrong?Perhaps one caveat, Brian.Because humans are involved, it is possible that 'knowledge' (scientific truth at one stage of history) has been incorrectly produced. So, the nature of 'approximation' is uncertain.I think it's better to regard 'truth' as a process, rather than a fixed discovery. So, perhaps your term 'partial and temporary' is adequate, as long as 'temporary' can mean 'for millenia only'!Science is a social activity and understanding of it must be rooted in the society that does the activity. Changing a society could have unforseen effects. And as we wish to change society, I think that it's worth discussing the possible effects of that on both 'truth' production and scientific method!
Does this mean you are in agreement with DJP post 316?
LBird wrote:ALB wrote:LBird wrote:OK, I'm a counter-revolutionary relativist.I'm afraid you have pleaded guilty to the wrong charge. What you stand accused of is "post-modernist revisionism".
Ok, it's a fair cop, guv!I plead guilty to counter-revolutionary relativism and post-modernist revisionism.And I'd like one count of 'capitalist-roadster-ism' to be taken into consideration, too.
Could you all stop this bickering and please get on with it! I have more than enough distractions and confusion to deal with. Speculation at this stage on what -isms is appropriate to the contributions by LBird is going to cut short my learning process on this subject.
So all truths are relative in the sense that they are only approximations and the complete knowledge of the whole picture of absolute truths will always remain elusive. Due I presume to the dynamics of change, which is also an absolute, and when considered in conjunction with the multiplicity of the endless factors involved that bring these changes into existence – means in effect – that our understanding of truth is only of a partial and temporary nature?Am I right or am I wrong?
You may well be a bit unscientific with this suggestion when the book in question is very hard to come by?
steve colborn wrote:That, in a nutshell is what you are on about really, is'nt it, skin colour?Steve.Hmm, not quite, he's also plugging: 1. The discredited eugenics arguments; 2. Enforced segregation; 3. Apartheid; 4. I.Q. testing.However, my own ancestry, like most people is mixed, with African-American on my father's side and my mother coming from Norman stock. Interestingly, my great grandfather was brought into this country, along with 19 other African-Americans by the mine owner George Davies to teach the 'welsh' miners a new method on extracting coal from the Ocean Colliery. Also the history of the local colliery, Cwm, Beddau, records a total of at least 15 different peoples or if you prefer 'tribes' having worked and settled there. I'm a socialist which when added to the above mix (pun) discredits many of his arguments. Indeed, how come my ancestry has allowed me to survive, and become a socialist in such an hostile environment? Finally, I do not consider myself welsh, british, european, black, brown or white but a citizen of the world and a member of the human race.Why should I allow a social construct like 'race' restrict my development and movement when I have a world to win?
LBird wrote:Brian wrote:ALB wrote:Brian wrote:From my recollection LBird has many times pointed out the distinction between what was 'thought to be true' and the actual 'truth' becoming revealed through further scientific discovery and investigation.I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. This is precisely the position LBird is arguing against, as I assume he will confirm by return of post. I'm not sure I'd defend it either.
OK so it just goes to show how confusing this thread has gone. Hopefully if LBird does confirm this is not his position he'll also explain in simple terms the reasons why he does'nt defend it.
I'll try, comrade!If I explain it in terms of my 'NHS Computer System', an analogy with which you're familiar.The system is a 'true' representation of the NHS for the purposes for which humans created it.But it's clearly not the whole 'truth' of the NHS, because the NHS consists of innumerable 'facts', the vast majority of which are meaningless for human purposes.But another set of humans could write another system, which focussed on different aspects of the NHS, a second system which we would also regard as 'true', but which is different from the first 'truth'.So, the 'truth' of any scientific knowledge has to be related to the humans who constructed the 'knowledge', and 'why', and 'how', and a later better theorised and executed process could produce another true representation which is then considered by humans to be better for their new purposes, and thus succeeds and replaces an earlier truth.Does this help, Brian? Truth is in an eternal process of human production.Thus, my answer to your question about 'actual truth' being eventually 'revealed' is 'No'.'Actual truth' is the NHS, itself. It is the object, which consists of innumerable entities and relationships, and which it is impossible to 'know' in its entirety.The only way one can maintain that 'true' is the 'object' is to adopt a 19th century theory of cognition, according to which the mind is passive and simply registers sense-impressions (all of them) and the mind acts as a 'mirror' which reflects the 'object'.The bourgeoisie pretend that science still does this, although, as you've read on this thread (posts by YMS, and video by DJP) most scientists who give it any thought acknowledge that this can't be done.Please ask questions if I'm still unclear, and try to picture how knowledge would be created if not by the process I'm suggesting, which is the process I think most modern philosophers of science would accept.
OK I'm getting there. I gather from what you are saying that even ' truth' is subject to the social/human/natural dynamics of change depending on what is selected and who constructed the 'knowledge' and 'why' and 'how' a new 'truth' becomes a clearer representation of that change?
ALB wrote:Brian wrote:From my recollection LBird has many times pointed out the distinction between what was 'thought to be true' and the actual 'truth' becoming revealed through further scientific discovery and investigation.I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, Brian. This is precisely the position LBird is arguing against, as I assume he will confirm by return of post. I'm not sure I'd defend it either.
OK so it just goes to show how confusing this thread has gone. Hopefully if LBird does confirm this is not his position he'll also explain in simple terms the reasons why he does'nt defend it.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:If you didn't understand my analogy, why not ask questions, rather than make erroneous assumptions?Sorry I only have a certain limited amount of time and energy to spend on this.Besides, there's nothing in post 292 that I would disagree with.What I disagree with is the epistimological leep you make from this to your criteria of truth. Which would entail that creationism, Thor and pholigiston where once true.
Steady on. From my recollection LBird has many times pointed out the distinction between what was 'thought to be true' and the actual 'truth' becoming revealed through further scientific discovery and investigation.
LBird wrote:If we can leave the intricacies of Bogdanov side for the moment, ALB, you’ve said something that I don’t agree with.ALB wrote:They would merely be saying that "sense-impressions" precede thinking about them (a not unreasonable position that we have been trying to convince you of).Positivism is not committed to the view that "'sense impressions' tell us the 'whole truth'", only that knowledge is constructed by the mind by organising sense impressions. I can't see how anyone (other than an idealist) can argue that sense-impressions are not primary, but that before they can be experienced the person experiencing them has to have a theory. This is not how a child acquires knowledge (nor how the pre-human mind would have evolved into the human mind). For the new-born child, the world is indeed a mass of mere sensations which it eventually learns to make some sense of by learning the names of parts of it. As someone once put it if not in so many words, sensations have to precede thinking about them.
And we organise "sense impressions" by filtering those which have no immediate effect on our circumstances. This filtering also avoids overwhelming our mind with too much information.
DJP wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:I am not one for tarring whole sections of society with the same brush, but I have experience of off duty soldiers looking for trouble. I even knew a guy years ago who was stabbed while on holiday in Spain by a drunk off duty soldier. I am sure many others have had the delightful experience of drunk off duty soldiers.Probably nothing like a good dose of PTSD to bring out violence in you…
And don't I know it!
DJP wrote:Brian wrote:Again its so obvious that your attraction towards Schaff is bordering on idolatry and therefore you are not applying critical thinking in a robustic manner towards him.I don't think this is fair. Complex issues like this do require a more extensive background reading than can be gleamed from reading a few forum posts. LBird says he is impressed by Schaffs theory of cognition and agrees with it, that is fair enough. The trouble is Schaff's work is hard to find and not available online. So most of us can't discuss Schaff, hence the references to Deitzgen and Pannekoek. You don't think we are Deitzgen or Pannekoek idolizers do you?
I can't speak for other posters or members but not having read much of either Deitzgen or Pannekoek i have no wish to detract further from the discussion by nailing my flag to the mast. That said I agree that this is a very complex subject area and there are extreme difficulties in obtaining the essential reading material but speaking from a Joe Blogs standpoint it would serve mine and other's understanding of the subject if LBird approached Schaff from a critical perspective, albeit by using 'proper english' to explain where and why he disagrees. If any that is?For example twc rather unwisely started off with posts which were way out for my comprehension, thus the filters came down on auto pilot! However once it became plain to twc that this was the incorrect approach to take their most recent posts are far more understanding and accommodating for poor old Joe Blogs. After all is said and done if the likes of myself are failed to be persuaded by the arguments on this thread by any poster who are into the subject of the philosophy of science the discussion is in danger of becoming sterile by remaining within the confines of a select few. I would hate to see that occurring just because a few posters fail to accommodate poor old Joe Blogs. At long last twc has done it in my estimation. Its now down to LBird to come forth with the same line of approach towards Schaff, e.g. become critical. Otherwise my comments on "idolatry" stands.
