SocialistPunk
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Not entirely fair there Vin.This is a socialist site. LBird comes on and states his ideology is that of a communist/socialist.The first question he gets is define what you mean by ideology. What the hell was that? Fair enough if his socialist credentials were in question, just ask. But starting on that, come on.
DJP The implication came from your poorly worded statement, asking how capitalist ideology affects the findings of non social sciences. I gave some examples of how capitalism drives science in certain ways.You asked how we sort out the bad science from good science. I provided some examples.Now you bring boiling water into it. If you had asked how ideology affects boiling water, I wouldn't have answered your question in the way I did. I might have said, it would if they used my kettle.My appologies for any confusion.
Although in context of what I said in reply to DJP I think it has more bearing than we previously realised.
DJP, I know you don't deny the affect capitalism has on science, but what you said implies that science is neutral when it comes to research and findings etc.Well for starters a socialist society would rule out the bad science that was falsified, deliberately slanted etc because of money. If the article in the Economist is to be accepted at face value, there is a lot of it about.Socialism would require that science was useful, either for application or as knowledge in itself. Scientists would perhaps be able to enjoy their work more. We would see rigorous testing, verification peer review etc, all open for public scrutiny. We would own the knowledge in common. The very act of freeing up science from the constraints of capitalism would itself allow science to be more accountable.To say it would be the same whatever the society is wrong. The article points out the lowering of peer review and less and less verification is taking place. So capitalism is affecting how science functions even on that level. One example is that it's becoming unsexy to verify other experiments, by repeating the same ones over and over. Meaning often dodgy info is finding its way into the pool of knowledge. Why is this happening, because there is no prestige and little funding to carry out such vital work. The ideology of capitalism directly influencing how science is done.And I haven't even touched upon the scientists who are busy creating ever more effective ways of killing and maiming people. I wonder what their ideology could be?So like it or not"ideology" does affect science and as such is surely impossible to separate. The question to ask would be do scientists know this?So it's either science for communists or science for capitalists. Take you pick.
Something I spotted via LBird's quoting of it.
DJP wrote:No I don't see how capitalist ideology affects the findings of geology or astronomy or any other science where the area of enquiry is not related to class powerI posted a link to an article from the Economist earlier on in this thread and it pointed out the problems in science coming from the pressures of capitalism, obviously it didn't lay blame on capitalism. What it highlighted was the distortion of many scientific findings due to economic pressure etc.So in reality the ideology of capitalism does have an effect on many scientific findings. If you "sex up" or fail to rigorously verify your findings because you are hunting for the next bit of funding or pandering to your corporate sponsor, then the ideology of money is playing its part in your scientific research. I expect that is applicable to every area of scientific enquiry in our money orientated society..
DJP wrote:SocialistPunk wrote:There are differing schools of thought within mathematics and I'm sure that what one school sees as a proven fact the others would probably disagree. That pesky bias again.I'm not sure that is actually the case with mathematics, would be interesting if someone could find a real life example…
Just going by what I read on a couple of mathematics forums DJP. I got the impression by what they were discussing, it's advanced mathematics and the philosophy of mathematics. I won't be able to provide any examples, as I'm not a mathematician and I'm not interested in maths.
Young Master Smeet wrote:SP,Mathematicians disagree strongly about what cannot be proved, but once something is proven, it stays proven: the proof of an infinite number of primes remains true. DJP correctly spotted my naughtiness in introducing truth in a deductive sense when what we're talking about natural sciences we're talking about inductive proof, which is prone to Hume's Black Swan.Anyway, back to socialism. Whilst I think Rovelli's almost Holmesian notion of expanding on what is theoretically established is interesting, he notes otehrs are trying different routes. This is fine, because there is no one scientific method. If we get to our materialist roots, we come back to science being reliable organised knowledge.Reliable brings up a number of features. It means that knowledge is confirmed by the senses and ideas of other people. Science doesn't lie in the data, but in the discourse between scientists, as they try and extend their sense perceptions (and their understanding of these perceptions).People who talk to each other a lot, and who share a detailed common understanding will naturally develop an efficiency in communication, a jargon, because to not do so would be cumbersome. Why use three words when a single made up word (neologism) will do the job just as nicely. Of course, translating between these registers is a skill additional to the basic skill set of a scientific practitioner.There are differing schools of thought within mathematics and I'm sure that what one school sees as a proven fact the others would probably disagree. That pesky bias again.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Admittedly, it took Russell & Whitehead over 300 pages to prove thet 1+1=2(Note, though, that they hadn't yet defined what + meant).No jargon dripping, elitist, self indulgent bullshit, there then.I am very surprised that a socialist is unable to see the inbuilt elitism among the various scientific communities. Many of the words used in science are Latin. The language of elitist authority. Universities were once sanctum's of elitism, some still are. No common folk went to "uni" at one time, you had to have money or status. Then Polytechnics were introduced to train the unclean in subjects that required a level of technical ability beyond that attained in basic schools. The hallowed universities couldn't churn out enough technically trained people to compete with the growth in technology. Then the Poly's became Universities, probably to reduce the appearance of elitism within the education system. Yet the elite universities still exist and are populated with a disproportionate amount of wealthy students.So the use of convoluted words and phrases has it's roots firmly in elitism, not some notion about efficiency of discussion. What's easy about having to learn an outmoded language or a set of made up words to be able to engage in discussion?A socialist revolution would open up this elitist world and demand that experts be able to explain their ideas in less than 300 pages of waffle. Part of the democratisation of knowledge, that would expand learning among a global socialist community.
Thanks for the lesson DJP.Of course setting the parameters in advance will give us the truth we want every time. That was precisely my point in highlighting the statement in the first place.Maybe I should have used philosophical jargon. In fact that is part of the problem, and is more relevant to this thread. Science, philosophy, mathematics, religion and politics all have unnecessary convoluted elitist baggage built in. It perpetuates the idea of a special elite, separate from the masses. Hopefully a socialist revolution will cut through the bullshit and ensure these deliberately clouded worlds become clearer and therefore more accessible. I think LBird previously referred to scientists and other experts being expected to explain their ideas clearly.Back to the bullshit.I expect you are aware there are differing ideas regarding the definition of logic? So even in mathematics and logic we still can't escape bias.
Rovelli wrote:Rovelli wrote:Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of thinking at the present level of knowledge. Science is extremely reliable; it’s not certain. In fact, not only is it not certain, but it’s the lack of certainty that grounds it. Scientific ideas are credible not because they are sure but because they’re the ones that have survived all the possible past critiques, and they’re the most credible because they were put on the table for everybody’s criticism.Young Master Smeet wrote:Well, stuff me sideways, if that isn't exactly what i've been saying. It seems that Rovelli has been agreeing with me all along!YMS it's interesting you seem to agree with Rovelli and the lack of certainty or "truth" in science, yet you have no difficulty with pronouncing the below bold statement.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I introduced maths because the standard of proof in maths is very high, and when mathematicians say something is true, it is.I've been checking out some mathematics forums and apart from being baffled by the subjects, what comes across quite clearly is the disagreement. So much for mathematicians being privy to some universal truth.Mathematics is a language and like all languages, is subject to translation, alteration, spelling mistakes and ultimately bias and disagreement. This is precsely what we find in the field of mathematics and science.If "The truth is out there", why is there so much disagreement? Because we can't seperate ourselves from what we seek to explain.
Thanks for posting the new head office sign Gnome, I like it.It is striking with good use of contrast and it places emphasis on the Socialist Party, while still cleverly keeping the SPGB abbreviation. Good stuff.I still have the view the party lost an opportunity many moons ago, long before the 1980's to have cornered the Socialist Party identity. Now we are into the 21st century and every left wing group calls itself some variation of Socialist Party.Vin is spot on with the view a lack of any consistent branding has worked against the party. Sadly today it is too late to attempt to capture a lost opportunity for the reason I give regarding the other Socialist groups out there. Imagine if the party had entered the post war end of empire years with a single strong identity, The Socialist Party, I doubt we would have seen every other group fighting over the leftovers.Hesitancy and fear of losing a few will donations has cost dearly in more important ways.
On the issue of the ridiculous use of Great Britain in the title, for those who are a bit obsessive with the outdated use of the GB bit, a bit embarrassing given that even the openly nationalist BNP don't use the word Great in their title, there is a compromise that may suit both sides of the debate.As it is supposedly used only as a historical, geographical reference, what about the words Great Britain in a smaller font size to that of the words The Socialist Party. That way the emphasis on the socialist identity is pushed to the forefront and the smaller location is downplayed and becomes simply a location.I always squirm when I see the full title with all words given the same emphasis, because from an advertising, branding position, it cries out that all are of equal importance. For an internationalist party that seeks to see the end of the importance of nationality and sees geographical location as simply destination, it is a bit self defeating.Like it or not, it sends out an introverted, out of date message. So my advice is either ditch it or downplay it.
It is an interesting article Alan. I think such claims have been made before, as I'm sure I heard about something like this a few years back.If it turned out to be the case, then atheists are simply in denial for the sake of it.Damn it, never really gave much thought to that before, gonna have to check.
Adam, I think we are both touching on elements of the truth on the Judaic aspect of the afterlife. I also found a lot of stuff about the differing views on this matter between the Sadducees and Pharisees. I read somewhere about an explanation regarding the Sadducees conservative view of concern only for the life in "the here and now", being as a result of the Exodus from Egypt. The idea is that because the Egyptians were so focused on an afterlife, it was decided by Moses, presumably with a nod from god, that it best to down play the importance of the idea. of an afterlife. I also came across stuff that told of degrees of reward in the Judaic afterlife, based on performance in this one.The evolution of religion is fascinating stuff.
Loosely speaking mathematics could be described as a useful, abstract tool for demonstrating logical thought. But then it opens up a whole new chapter of this discussion and we end up nowhere, as usual.You admit it is arguable, meaning there is no consensus.Stating that a human description of patterns is a "fact" is saying very little about the nature of "truth".Fact, 1+1=2, 2+2=4 and on and on.
