robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
BTW LBird you still did not address my point. Do you think Marx was being an “individualist” for coming out with statements such as “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”
I think that a distinction can be made between “individualism” and “individuality” and that what Marx – and I are talking relates to the later not the former. That book written by Nicholas Abercrombie, Stephen Hill and Bryan S. Turner entitled “Sovereign Individuals of Capitalism” (1986), presents a very strong case for making such a distinction
It’s an individualist ideology that pretends to workers that ‘no-one’ has ‘power’, and so hides from them just who does have power. And ‘someone’ always does.
Groan. More misrepresentation from LBird!
I didn’t say “no one has power” per se. I addressing your very specific question in relation to BD’s point : “So if everything that is social produced must be subject to democracy, presumably, this would also include music, art, literature,etc. as all are socially produced.”
To which you responded:
“If these social products were not subject to democracy, BD, who do you have in mind that would have power over them?
No one will exercise power over these social products in socialist society. People will be free to express themselves in music , art and literature as they chose.
To reiterate what I said:
This is NOT to negate the need for democratic control, only to limit the extent of its expression to where it is actually needed – in situations where there is an actual or potential clash of interests for example. My liking one brand of music is not going to prevent you from liking another. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
I really wish you would read more carefully what others write before offering completely inapt, not to say, inept criticism of what they write. This is not the first time you have done this either…
Bijou Drains wrote: “So if everything that is social produced must be subject to democracy, presumably, this would also include music, art, literature,etc. as all are socially produced.”
If these social products were not subject to democracy, BD, who do you have in mind that would have power over them?
The answer, LBird, is NO-ONE!
You seem obsessed with the need to control everything and to exert “power” over everything. This is control freakery gone haywire!
What about freedom of expression ? Marx argued that “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all” Next, I suppose you will be calling Marx a bourgeois individualist!
This is NOT to negate the need for democratic control, only to limit the extent of its expression to where it is actually needed – in situations where there is an actual or potential clash of interests for example. My liking one brand of music is not going to prevent you from liking another. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
Diversity is the spice of life. It is capitalism that is intent upon undermining diversity and replace it with the cultural monotony of bourgeois commercialism. You mirror the selfsame logic of capitalist thinking on this subject with your obsession with the need for totalitarian uniformity and social approval. Only you wish to replace the market with the vote as the mechanism for absolute social control and the means by which a flourishing human society can be transformed into something more akin to a beehive for bees
LBird
It seems that no matter how hard I try to make you understand what I am saying you don’t seem to be interested in actually engaging with my arguments or those of others here on this forum You blithely ignore what they say and address only a completely spurious made-up version of what you like to think they are saying
And you never answer a point blank question directly when it is put to you – like “will scientific theories be voted upon in socialist society?” Your entire argument points to the fact that this is indeed what you think will be the case but you don’t want to explicitly say this because you know deep down this is a particularly silly idea and you don’t want to appear foolish . So you skirt around the question and witter on vaguely about the “ideological assumptions” underlying the question
ALB is right. You are all over the place politically and philosophically. You are completely muddled and confused on a lot things
A quick example
In post 215197 you say of me:
“You (apparently) don’t want democratic communism, which is fine by me, but means you don’t share my ideology”
Yet in post 215212 you say:
I’m not ‘misrepresenting’ you, robbo.
I argue: “I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”“.
You argue “I hold that communism would be “democratically organised””So you acknowledge that I support the notion that communism should be democratically organised but you don’t think that I want democratic communism, huh? Hmmm. You need to make up your mind on what you think your opponent is saying before criticising it.
This whole debate is NOT about whether or not there will be democratic organisation in communism – I have said all along that there will be far more democratic decision making in communism than is the case today and that I am fully for that. Rather the arguments is about the LIMITS of democratic decision making – how far you can sensibly take it
You say:
“I argue ‘scientific theories’ are socially produced.
You argue ‘scientific theories’ are * produced (I’ve never got you to tell us what * represents). If something is ‘socially produced’, since ‘I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”’, I argue that social production would be democratically organised.”I spent probably the best part of half an hour explaining to you earlier that just because production is social does not mean the total pattern or the entire structure of production can be democratically organised. I gave you the example of my laptop. Directly or indirectly millions upon millions of workers right across the world have made possible the manufacture of this laptop.
Does that mean that all these millions and millions of workers should be able to democratically control every aspect of, and every stage in, the process of manufacturing my lap top??? Of course not. That would be absolutely absurd and impossible
What is possible, on the other hand, is that they democratically control their own workplaces, for instance. I have no problem with this but (allegedly) democratic society-wide central planning, which is what you seem to want, is totally out of the question. Its just not possible
You then go on to say
I argue ‘scientific theories’ are socially produced.
You argue ‘scientific theories’ are * produced (I’ve never got you to tell us what * represents).If something is ‘socially produced’, since ‘I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”’, I argue that social production would be democratically organised.
You seem to argue for, on the one hand, ‘democratically organised’ communism, but on the other, regard ‘scientific theories’ as not part of ‘communism’.I don’t know how you imagine that I regard scientific theories as “not part of communism” and, contrary to what you claim, I explicitly said “scientific theories are socially produced” . So what was the point of your comment that “You argue ‘scientific theories’ are * produced (I’ve never got you to tell us what * represents).” I’ve said how they are produced.
However to reiterate – just because something is socially produced does NOT automatically mean it ought to be democratically organised
Some aspects of the production of goods and services in a socialist society can and ought to be democratically organised such as the set up within individual production units. Some aspects of the praxis of science can also be democratically organised and I gave you a specific example
But the origination and validation of Scientific theories as such ? Nope That’s neither possible nor desirable. Even if the scientific theories are socially produced this is no grounds whatsoever for suggesting that this particular aspect of science should be democratically organised
As you know very well there are 2 reasons why I hold this view
1) There is absolutely no point in wanting to subject scientific theories to a vote. What purpose does this serve? You have never explained. One can understand the purpose of holding a democratic vote to decide on where to construct a new school in one’s town because if option C is voted for this precludes options A and B. But this argument simply does not apply in the case of a scientific theory since knowledge has the characteristic of being non-excludible and non-rivalrous unlike tangible goods – to use the jargon (google the terms if you are unsure as to their meaning). The origination and validation of scientific ideas should be completely free of any form of control – whether by a so called elite or society as a whole
2) It is totally impractical to subject scientific theories to a vote by everyone. To be be democratic such a vote would indeed have to involve everyone in society – about 8 billion people – since you such theories are socially prpduced. There are tens of thousands of scientific theories , past and present , each of which according to you, will needed to be voted upon.
More than likely for any particular theory the vast majority of us will know little or nothing about the theory or indeed have any interest in the theory. You will be lucky indeed to get 0.001 percent of the population to vote any theory at all. How democratic is that? By the time they get round to voting on scientific theory Number 12 – with 120,000 more theories still to vote on – they will have given up on this particularly pointless and timewasting procedure. I know I wouldn’t bother and I am sure this is case with everyone else on this forum probably even you. I haven’t even touched on the mammoth logistics such vote would entail (and we are talking about multiple global plebiscites corresponding to multiple theories)
Sorry LBird, but to say you are plugging a lost cause would be a gross understatement
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are NOT voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live.
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually, that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are not voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are not voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
Sigh. Once again LBird – of course I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”. I just don’t believe democracy can and should be extended to the origination and validation of scientific theories. Please stop mispresenting me!!!
I think you have a very muddled approach to the whole question of “social production”. The laptop on which I am writing this response is “socially produced”. The components of which it is made each entail complex production chains going back to the extraction of the raw materials from Mother Nature. Each of these production chains involve multiple stages in the process eventuating in the production of those components in question which are then assembled into the laptop I am currently using.
Now all of these production chains or sequences of stages in the manufacture of a laptop, involve directly or indirectly, millions upon millions of workers distributed right across the globe. This is what makes this laptop a product of “social(ised) production”
So then what are to make of your comment:
On my part, as I’ve said, time and time again, ALL SOCIAL PRODUCTION MUST BE DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED. It’s called ‘democratic socialism’, robbo.
Do we take it then that all those millions and millions of workers directly or indirectly involved in the social production of this laptop must , according to you, should exercise democratic control over the entire process – every aspect of it – of producing a laptop from start to finish? That is completely bonkers, LBird, and even you must surely see this. It is totally totally impractical!
So just because something is “socially produced” does NOT automatically require that the process of producing it should be “democratically control”. There are limits – both practical and theoretical – to democracy which you don’t seem to grasp at all
That does NOT mean communism/socialism will not be substantially MORE democratic than is the case today under capitalism. You seem have this very simplistic black-or-white of the world inasmuch as you seem to think that if someone questions the need for democratic decision-making in certain aspects of life this means they repudiate democratic decision-making in toto. That doesn’t follow at all!
At any rate, once again you have wriggled out of directly answering my question of whether you think “scientific theories should all be put to a vote” by asserting:
It depend whether one believes that there is any source of ‘scientific theories’ outside of a humanity which socially produces its theories, robbo.
Since scientific theories are socially produced, and I agree that they are, in that they are product of collaborative effort over time, I take it then that you DO actually literally believe scientific theories – tens of thousands of them every year – should actually be put to a vote. Since humanity as a whole is involved in the production of this knowledge, according to you, one presumes you are saying it is humanity as a whole that should be enabled to vote on these theories
Could you please now directly answer these specific questions so we know more clearly what is going on in your mind:
1) Are you definitively saying that the 8 billion people that comprise humanity should be able to vote on whether, say, the concept of “anti-matter” in astrophysics is scientifically valid?
2) How do propose to organise this global plebiscite on whether the concept of anti matter is scientific valid? What sort of resources will be required to make this happen?
3) What happens if only 0.001 percent of the global electorate bother to cast a vote? Will the vote be declared null and void?
4) What do you propose to do about all the other already established scientific theories – hundreds of thousands of them? Will they also be subjected to a global plebiscite?
5) If more people vote in favour of a particular scientific theory than against it, will the opponents of the theory be required to drop their opposition to the theory and fall in line with the majority opinion? If not what exactly is the purpose of the vote in that case? What in your words, do you hope to accomplish by holding a vote?
I would appreciate a response from you to each of these specific questions
On one side, the materialists’ individualist passive assimilation of knowledge (they play no part in creating the knowledge, and leave that to the ‘experts’), whilst on the other, the Marxists’ social active production of knowledge (they play an inescapable social role in creating the knowledge, and insist that democratic methods must be employed).
Here we go again, LBird. Have you relapsed back into your earlier way of thinking that scientific theories – tens of thousands of them – should all be subject to a vote? What precisely do you mean by “democratic methods must be employed” in the creation of knowledge?
Could you tell us once and for all whether this means “scientific theories should all be put to a vote”
I’ve tried to appeal to ‘democracy’ as grounds for discussion and reconciliation, even my joining, but the ‘materialists’ keep insisting that workers will not be allowed to democratically determine their own truth. The ‘materialists’ claim that there is a small elite, who should be allowed to get on with that scientific task, and people like you should keep their ignorant workers’ noses out of things, like physics, that don’t concern you.
LBird
Just to be clear this is NOT the position of the Socialist Party that you referring to here. The SP does NOT agree with any barriers being putting up to anyone wanting to participate in science and scientific discourse in a socialist society. YOU YOURSELF have agreed that there would be specialists in a socialist society and, by implication, you agree that there would be some people who would know a lot more about a particular subject than others. The layperson may be ignorant of the many of the things to which the specialist is privy but there will be nothing to prevent this layperson acquiring such knowledge if he or she so choses to.
As mentioned earlier, scientific specialists in one particular discipline of science would be part of the lay population as far as other scientific disciplines are concerned. Thus, there would be no “scientific elite” in this particular sociological sense. No individual can ever acquire more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge so it logically follows that, for every scientific discipline, there will necessarily be specialists and lay people.
Nor do we hold that that truth of any scientific theory should be determined by means of a vote – whether by the so called “scientific elite” or the general population. It is absurdly impractical and utterly pointless even trying to “democratically determine” such truth for reasons that have already been clear. Democracy has an important role to play in socialist society but as far as the origination of scientific theories is concerned people will be free to put forward whatever theories they want without being cowed into submission by some officially sanctioned version of The Truth
What is true for me may not be true for you. The point is to have a dialogue, not some ritualistic show of hands, if you really want to involve more people in science. This is what the SP advocates – the removal of barriers to participation and the encouragement of dialogue but without the silly pretence that we are, or ever will be, all equally knowledgeable in every branch of science
There is also this passage from Engels’ introduction to Marx’s “Class Struggles in France” which leaves us in no doubt as to the importance he attached to communist consciousness as a precondition of communist revolution:
When it gets to be a matter of the complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must participate, must understand what is at stake and why they are to act. That much the history of the last fifty years has taught us. But so that the masses may understand what is to be done, long and persistent work is required, and it is this work that we are now performing with results that drive our enemies to despair.
Hi Sympo
No I think that interpretation would be incorrect. You missed the all important qualifier “up to now” in his statement “According to Marx’s views all history up to now, in the case of big events, has come about unconsciously, that is, the events and their further consequences have not been intended”
Marx and Engels saw the communist revolution as signifying something qualitatively different compared with the past – a conscious mass movement. This is clear from this passage in the Communist Manifesto
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority
There is also that famous passage from The German Ideology:
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.
So the success of the communist cause is here dependent on the existence of mass communist consciousness. However, this passage also remind us of what might be called the double meaning of the term “revolution” as both a process and an event. Here the term suggests a process but we tend to think of it as an event – the democratic capture of political to abolish capitalism along with the state.
Both ways of looking at this term are legitimate and, in a way, complementary. Both imply the need for communist consciousness as the precondition for establishing communism
You may disagree with this, but then you have to specify who (and why) an elite should control whatever part of science you wish to preserve from democracy.
Now you are seriously misrepresenting me, L Bird. I have never said an elite would “control” any part of science whatsoever. I simply said there would be specialists in the various branches of sciences. If you say this constitutes an “elite” that’s your interpolation. What is clear is that in a society where the means of living are freely available to all and where labour is performed on a purely voluntary basis, the material basis of political power whereby any one section of society can impose its own will on another will have disappeared
Since you have now explicitly conceded there will be specialists in a socialist society then, if you call these specialists an elite, that puts you in exactly the same position as you imagine I am if you think it is a characteristic of an elite to exercise control to the exclusion of the rest of society. So you’ve boxed yourself into a corner, LBird!
Also, your notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is an ideological one, which is at odds with ‘power’ within science. The notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is used by a hidden elite, to pretend that ‘no-one’ controls social production. It’s a ruling class ideology.
You are not reading what I wrote. By “uncontrolled” I was referring to the process by which scientific theories come to the attention of the public. I hold that this should be a spontaneous process in which anyone should be able to participate – even if in practice it is likely to be the specialists who will most probably be foremost in putting forward these scientific theories because of their greater knowledge of the subject in question
What I have done is simply to reject your absurdly impractical and unnecessary idea that scientific theories (tens of thousands of them!) should be put to a vote to determine whether they are true or not. That’s just ridiculous and its the same kind of thinking that led to Lysenkoism and the suppression of dissident scientists by the authoritarian soviet state (see my previous post)
How you can possibly imagine that the spontaneous and free process by which scientific theories come to the attention of the public implies the existence of some kind of “hidden elite” I have not the foggiest idea. The very fact that it is spontaneous means it is not controlled but is rather self regulating. Democracy I have argued has a role to play in science in respect of the application of scientific theories e,g, technological innovation but emphatically NOT in the origination of these theories
If you want to impose the stipulation that scientific theories should all be subjected to a vote to determine their truth status, this will not only destroy the creative process of scientific enquiry by imposing a Lysenkoist style mass conformity on the thinking of scientists who would be fearful of questioning the “democratically” and dogmatically established TRUTH – it will almost certainly result in the rise of an authoritarian ruling class using the facade of democracy to stamp its own will on society
I’m interested in your view, even though I oppose it. I characterise your view as an ‘anti-democratic’ view of science
Just noticed this comment of yours LBird. This is misleading. It is true that I strongly believe that democracy has no place in the formulation of scientific theory as such. As I suggested above it would actually undermine the process of scientific enquiry were scientist obliged to conform to some officially sanctioned scientific explanation for the phenomena being investigated
Remember Lysenkoism? This is what becomes of wanting to “control” the production of scientific theories , democratically or otherwise:
Lysenkoism (Russian: Лысе́нковщина, tr. Lysenkovshchina) was a political campaign led by Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century, rejecting natural selection in favour of Lamarckism and exaggerated claims for the benefits of vernalization and grafting. In time, the term has come to be identified as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable.
More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed or imprisoned, and numerous scientists were executed in the campaign to suppress scientific opponents. The president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, who had encouraged Lysenko, was sent to prison and died there, while Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed. Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines were harmed or banned.
Other countries of the Eastern Bloc including Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the German Democratic Republic accepted Lysenkoism as the official “new biology”, to varying degrees, as did the People’s Republic of China for some years.
The government of the USSR supported the campaign, and Joseph Stalin personally edited a speech by Lysenko in a way that reflected his support for what would come to be known as Lysenkoism, despite his skepticism toward Lysenko’s assertion that all science is class-oriented in nature.[1] Lysenko served as the director of the Soviet Union’s Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
That said, I also clearly stated that there is a role for democracy in science – not in the process formulation of scientific theories but rather in deciding on the priorities of scientific research
These two things are quite different, LBird and I hope you can appreciate the difference
robbo, you’re arguing that “the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically“. I’m not arguing this, it’s you.
No I am not. On the contrary I made it quite clear that the process of formulating theories should be completely uncontrolled by anyone. That is, it should be spontaneous and free. As I said very clearly I don’t see any point whatsoever in voting on some theory to decide on whether it is true or not (I leave aside the question of how you organise such a vote by “society as a whole democratically”). That is what I have understood you to mean by “control” in the context of scientific theory – that a democratic vote should be taken to determine its truth status which would transform or elevate the theory into a officially sanctioned dogma which “society” (and those specialist scientists in it) would be expected to accept as The Truth.
I thought I had made it pretty clear I am opposed to “controlling” the production of scientific theories in this way. This is totally against the whole spirit of scientific enquiry. What you seem to be advocating is what the Catholic Church did to Galileo in ordering the suppression of his heliocentric view of the universe as heretical
Nor am I suggesting – as you seem to imply – that the task of formulating scientific theories should confined to the specialists in some imperative sense. On the contrary it should be open to anyone to put forward a theory. Its just that in practice most theory formulation is likely to be come from the specialists themselves for the very simple that they tend to know a lot more about the subject they are dealing with than the general public, having had the training
