DJP
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:I regard 'science' as a central bastion of bourgeois authority
Why then is there so much scientific research that undermines many claims that have previously been used to justify the capitalist system? For example the findings of behavioural economics have shown the central claims of neo-classical economics to be false.And what political implications are there to be found in physics, astronomy and geology?Do you think in socialism the philosophers should also be removed from being 'in charge' of philosophy? Surely they would have as much, if not more, opportunity for creating mischief.In fact perhaps we should remove all 'control' from all of those undertaking tasks that require specialist training, lest they set up a special clique and try and take over the world?
Bertrand Russell wrote:The concept of 'truth' as something dependent upon facts largely outside human control has been one of the ways in which philosophy hithero has inculcated the necessary element of humility. When this check upon pride is removed, a further step is taken on the road towards a certain kind of madness – the intoxication of power which invaded philosophy with Fichte, and to which modern men, whether philosophers or not, are prone. I am persuaded that this intoxication is the greatest danger of our time, and that any philosophy which, however unintentionally , contributes to it is increasing the danger of a vast social disasterLBird wrote:My mistake, I've made a gross error, if the SPGB look to Engels' (and Plekhanov, Kautsky and Lenin's) philosophical views of 'materialism'.You're mistaken if you think there is some kind of homogenous 'party line' on this matter, you're also mistaken if you think all the contributors to this thread are SPGB members.But I would like to know where or how specifically you think Anti-Duhring is antithetical to Lenin as Philosopher.
LBird wrote:‘mathematics’ is a social construct. I can show that ‘2+2=11’, in base 3. Further, if we change the meanings of the symbols ‘2’ and ‘5’, then ‘2+2=5’ would be ‘true’.Lewis Carol wrote:“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”Is Lbird trying to make the same point as Humpty Dumpty?
Seeing as a paradigm change does not occur instantaneously does that mean that there was a period of time when the theories of Ptolemy and Copernicus where both true? Or where neither true? Or did the celestial bodies cease their motion before realigning their motions to suit whatever the predominate theory of the time was?In all seriousness though it seems to me LBird's definition of "truth" throws all possiblity of rational discourse out of the window.
ALB wrote:Does this mean it was "true" that the Sun moved round the Earth until the view that the Earth moves around the Sun became the new "truth"?If anyone answers "yes" to this they have swallowed too much postmodern bullshit and would do well to read any of the books by Alan Sokal
Alf wrote:i'd like to hear others' views on this,Personally it seems to me that 'Human Nature' (so I guess 'species being' with it) is just another metaphysical concept which doesn't stand even up to logical analysis regardless of any empirical observations – much like other concepts such as 'Free Will'.If 'Human Nature' means the nature of humans independent of the environment, then such a thing could never exist.If I was to consider the nature of water I could say it is a liquid at room temperature, a gas at 100c and a solid at 0c. But if I was to ponder what the 'true nature' of water is regardless of the environment it would be could be none of these things since it is the influence of the environment that the water exists in that determines it physical characteristics. To observe water sans environment tells us nothing of the nature of water.A human being is a biological system that exists in a co-determining relationship with it's environment. Human behaviour is the result of the interplay between biological factors, the environment and cultural reinforcement. The configuration of these factors takes many forms and has a seemingly infinite number of outcomes. Those who pick and choose certain behaviours as the result of 'Human Nature' and others as the result of something else (magic?) seem to be making an arbitrary choice, usually to support some pre-conceived moral viewpoint.On the other hand if you expand 'Human Nature' to mean 'what humans do' the term becomes so broad that you may as well discard it and use 'Human Behaviour' instead.Anyway, that's my hastily typed out thoughts on this…
LBird wrote:Should science (in all its manifestations and phases) under Communism be under the control of 'special experts' (ie. 'scientists') or democratic control?If 'democratic control' means that all people should have an equal say in all decisions then I don't think such a thing would be of use. Certain areas of decision making do require specialist knowledge, for example I don't think airline pilots should decide the best way to land the plane by taking a poll of the passengers.But if 'democratic control' means that all people potentially have a say in the decision making process then there is no conflict. Anyone who had the desire and capacity to fill a particular role would be able to undertake the relevant training required to be able to do it.I don't see how you could have a technological society without some kind of specialists, and as long as new people where able to enter the field (why wouldn't they) this wouldn't be a problem.So in a society of common ownership those who have an interest and ability for scientific work would be able to freely develop and apply there skills and expertise.
LBird wrote:Scientific knowledge is produced by humans and has the status of a ‘truth’. This ‘truth’ is not the same thing as the independently-existing object, of which some ‘knowledge’ has been actively constructed by humans. Thus, humans being fallible, a ‘truth’ (scientific knowledge) might be actually untrue. This can be revealed by other humans interrogating the same independently-existing object and actively constructing another ‘truth’ which is then judged by humans to be a more accurate (but still not final or complete) ‘truth’. Thus, ‘truth’ has a history. It is not ‘The Truth’.Since society creates ‘truths’, they are social truths. It is only a short step to realise that, in a class-divided society, ‘truth’ will have a class component, sometimes great, sometimes small. And judgements between ‘truths’ are social judgements. There is no universal ‘truth’ which a supposedly ‘value-free’ method can produce. Humans are not ‘value-free’.If you want to use this definition of 'truth' then I would agree with the above. Though to avoid the confusion between 'truth' and 'The Truth', perhaps it would be clearer and better to talk of sceintific 'hypotheses' instead of scientific 'truths'?
Knowledge can only ever be partial. In some cases it would seem sensible to leave the decisions to those that have more knowledge about the particular issue. To think otherwise would, to me, seem to be falling for the "democratic fallacy". What you want is not a majority, but an informed majority – whatever the issue may be.The truth of the matter always exists independently of those that observe it.I don't really think it makes sense to talk about a "communist" science or a "bourgeois" science any more than it makes sense to talk of a "socialist" mathematics or a "capitalist" geology. All that would change with a change in the mode of production would be the direction in which scientific research and the application of technology is applied. The principle of skepticism and deductive reasoning etc remain the same. Does Pannekoek write about this stuff in Lenin as Philosopher?
Kliman et al. have made there paper critising Heinrich here:http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/economic-crisis/the-unmaking-of-marxs-capital-heinrichs-attempt-to-eliminate-marxs-crisis-theory.html
According to people such as Marshall Sahlins, in his book Man the Hunter, people in hunter gatherer societies worked a lot less than do people in modern society.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society#.22Work_time.22_and_.22leisure_time.22Wondered if anyone one here has come across anything to counter or bolster this claim?May use it in passing in my talk on Saturday.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/event/robot-stole-my-job-employment-automation-and-profit-norwich-200pm
celticnachos wrote:I thought you were all anti-Trotsky, you do know that is permanent revolution?The Socialist Party of Great Britain has been around for a long time. Here's what was written in the August 1918 edition of the Socialist Standard
Quote:Is this huge mass of people, numbering about 160,000,000 and spread over eight and a half millions of square miles, ready for Socialism? Are the hunters of the North, the struggling peasant proprietors of the South, the agricultural wage slaves of the Central Provinces, and the industrial wage slaves of the towns convinced of the necessity, and equipped with the knowledge requisite, for the establishment of the social ownership of the means of life?Unless a mental revolution such as the world has never seen before has taken place, or an economic change has occurred immensely more rapidly than history has recorded, the answer is “No!”And it is extremely significant that neither Trotsky nor Litvinoff say a single word on this aspect of the situation….The full article is here:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1918/no-168-august-1918/revolution-russia-where-it-fails
Alex Woodrow wrote:So give me specific examples of raw materials which you can't find in a certain area which people need so that they can live.Well if you insist on being spoon-fed.To have any level of technological development you're going to need access to copper, if you have any knowledge of geology you will know that this is not evenly distributed throughout the Earths crust and can only be found in certain areas.But, if you want to take it down to the most basic level, how about flint for making arrow heads and tools? Again, flint only occurs in areas where the geological conditions are right, in this case it is formed in chalk deposits.So even at the most basic level of technology no single local area is ever going to be able to produce all the raw materials it requires, nature is not so kind.I think where you are going wrong is assuming global = hierarchical and local = egalitarian. This is a fallacy.
