Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:D'y'know, the hired prize-fighters of the bourgeoisie in academia couldn't put up as good a rearguard action, against any radical, critical thought about 'science', as this site has done!
I suspect that your ideology leads you to see everything as an attack, vide your mistaking "Th Feng Shueists are coming!" for "The Vandals are coming" despite he empirical evidence.
Ah, turns out I do agree with it, which might be why I didn't pick up on it when you were discussing it elseplace, I just didn't associate the term.btw. Lbird seems to have added yet another meaning of ideology in the above post, now it seems to mean a theory.
Oh, away man, in good faith, I asked you what one of the points on your bullet list means. For all I know I might agree with it under another name) or disagree, but in a way that might be more fruitful for research/discussion. What are Lakatos' "multiple research programmes"?
Quote:c) one doesn't subscribe to Lakatos view of multiple 'research programmes';What does this mean?
But I have read your outline, and reported my impression based on it, and upon what I have read elsewhere. I haven't shouted anything about vandals, but critiqued it based upon the model of ideology it relies on. I've also said, in its similarity to knowledge organisation tools, it could be useful in terms of the processing of data. At the least it could well be a useful refinement on the way of thinking about the scientific procedure, as useful of delineating the difference between grey and off-white.So, it's not so much a fear of vandalism, more that it seems you're just rearranging the furniture.The Feng Shuists are coming! The Feng Shuists are coming!
Quote:Your comment, about 'leaving nothing changed' is unsupported by any evidence. It's an opinion, but it would have to be justified by argument.Yes, that is my opinion, AFAICS CR calls for serial refinement of the theory, supported by experiment. Or, to quote the wikipedia article:
Quote:The implication of this is that science should be understood as an ongoing process in which scientists improve the concepts they use to understand the mechanisms that they study. It should not, in contrast to the claim of empiricists, be about the identification of a coincidence between a postulated independent variable and dependent variable.As I said about the ISCU dfinition of science I posted this morning, this is perfectly compatible, it is only addressing the question of how we organise the systematic investigation and how we select our hypothesese. That is my impression from what I've read and what you've said.Yes, a scientist can continue to do their daily work without consciously applying these principles (but they might be thre) much as a shop keeper who has never read a word of Smith can continue to do their job. the difference is, we talk of abolishing shop keepers, not of abolishing scientists.
Oh, and I hav said that I fear this tends back towards Hegelian idealism, and relies upon a totalising model of ideology that in the end does require high priests and Leninism, because the fact ideology becomes the one eternal truth.
LBird wrote:YMS wrote:…in practical terms, for most scientists, I doubt this changes the day job.Is that an approach that you'd take to discussing Capital and value? Surely this is a philosophical discussion, to help us to understand the process of science?
Well, certainly Capital has nothing to say about how to build a house, or even plan an economy, and we don't need to have read Capital to be a socialist or build socialism. The difference is that the information Capital gives us gives us the impetus to abolish the relations it describes whilst, AFAICS, the CR model is a refinement (or reinterpretation) of existing practice that would leave nothing changed. We're not going to abolish investigation of nature and the unknown.I've already stated my general concerns about CR, from your precis and what I read on Wikipedia. It sounds like an adaptation to the information age, and reminded me a lot of Facet Analysishttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306457312001203and Entity Analysishttp://www.martymodell.com/dadmc/dadmc13.htmlSo, maybe there is some value in the approach in terms of organising information and data for research.
Some may find the Wikipedia article useful:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism_%28philosophy_of_the_social_sciences%29(although that suggests that Alex Callinicos adheres to theory, which suggests to me that it is not Leninist-proof). I assume this is the intended theory not:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism_%28philosophy_of_perception%29Whilst I can see the value of looking at the deep process logic (much like Value theory itself, as Value does not exist in any physical form, and yet is present as an emergent property of the logic of the production process), in practical terms, for most scientists, I doubt this changes the day job. As indicated above, this is about refining the systematic part of the scientific process, and where the hypotheses come from. Which is anotehr way of saying that we're heading back to some notion of essence and Plato's cave.Or, Hegel's famous "What is actual is rational, what is rational is actual". I believe there is a slight punning on tha "act" of "actual". This may be the route Bhaskar took back towards some spirituality (if the Wikipedia page is correct on that point).I assume we're not discussing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_critical_realismbut I do wonder if this is one of those philosophical paths that winds its way to Hegel waiting with his arms folded. After all, Callinicos, IIRC, is influenced by Althusser and that strand of Marxism, which AFAICS is heading back towards idealism, where Ideology becomes the evolving world spirit.
Further from, the ICSU:
Quote:Science is the attainment of knowledge through research — the systematic exploration and explanation of the unknown. The scientific process is based on the formulation and testing of hypotheses by the generation of verifiable evidence from observations and experiment s.Now, there is nothing thee that I think LBird can dispute (or indeed has disputed) as the definition of science. The question seems to be what is "systematic" and where do the hypotheses come from?On the question of the relation of consciousness to data. ISTR a, funnily enough, empirical proof that we live ina world constructed by our minds. Apparently (I think I read this in Pannekoek's Anthropogenesis) the strength of light from a distant star striking our retinas is less than the energy is takes to transmit the energy to our brain down our nerves (much less to process the data and create an 'image' in our minds). This means our bodies and our brains are putting nergy, and structure and ifnormation into the system, we construct our data as much, if not more, than we passively receive it. If this is true in daily life, it is true in science.Now, we, as human beings, are pretty much biologically identical, but the brain, like a muscle, can be trained and developed in particular strengths, and will gain habits of thought and connecting ideas.
Just loking at an ISCU publication, on the principle of Universality (one of their key principles) I found this quote:
Quote:Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right s states that, ‘everyone has the right to…share in scientific advancement and its benefits.’ Access to scientific data, information and research materials is essential for scientist s and for those wishing to benefit from the products of science. This is acknowledged in recent UNESCO and OECD guidelines on access to information and data.In practice, there are many obstacles to providing universal and equitable access to these fundamental building block s of science. These may be technical, such as poor internet access for on-line resources; financial, such a s charges for scientific journals; or security-related, such as access to certain categories of equipment or materials. In some instances the obstacles are the result of the behaviour of the scientific community it self and it s reluctance to share data and materials. Comprehensive solutions are needed to address all these issues, and developing such solutions is a long term process involving many stakeholders and interests. At the level of individual scientist s, when discrimination is preventing access, it is a clear breach of the Principle of Universality and appropriate interventions, on a case-by-case basis, can be effective.As they also note, some of those obstacles are commercial. This illustrates the case that socialism can benefit science, by removing the barriers of national and commercial competition, and creating a space where we can realise the true benefits of scientific co-operation. http://www.icsu.org/publications/cfrs/freedom-responsibility-booklet/ICSU-CFRS-booklet.pdf
OK, more entertaining.Socialism, as we understand it is the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of producing and distributing wealth by, and in the interests of, the whole community.People would work according to their own self-defined abilities, and take according to their self defined needs. It would be, necessarilly, a free association of producers.So, in order to fulfil these requirements, there must be freedom of expression and conscience and freedom of association. Minorities must have the opportunity to try and become majorities: a vote is not the end but the continuation of an argument.Say, if a group wanted to re-form the Flat Easrth society, then the socialist commonwealth would have to allow them the resources and opportunities to put their case. It would be expected that internally the New Flat Earth Society would be democratic and open (possibly as a condition for being recognised and having access to offices, and sundry bits of equipment to allow them to keepo running, porobably communesurate with their size). The majority would be under no obligation to put the views of the NFES to a vote, but they would have the opportunity to state their case.Likewise the 10,000 Hours of Planetology Research Society:(Membership restricted to those who could demonstrate 10,000 hours of research and study in the field of planetology). Again, it would be run democratically by it's members (and may actually be smaller than the NFES).Now, there would be rare large scale Equipment Providers, much like the CERN Accelerator, The Planetary Satelite Network, and Radio Telescopes (and also smaller chemistry labs) etc. Now, just as people will have to prove they can dive, in socialism, before they can work as a Deep Sea Diver on the Oil Rigs, so too will the (lets call them universities) place rational restrictions on the use of scarce and delicate equipment. We could speculate that 'bids' to perform research would be submitted, with recommendations by societies and known experts. Maybe something like the Gale Shapley Stable Matching Algorithm might be used to score the applications to play with the toys. Maybe Juries of non-experts would assess the bids, in the light of evidence.Plans for new such researches would have to be published, debated and developed, and incorporated into whatever production plans we make for production, in order to build such massive and complex research projects. Much as we assume the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) would provide some sort of worldwide co-ordinate for agriculture and agricultural expertise, so a worldwide physics, chemistry and general science council would be needed to co-ordinate and advise. Maybe suceeding from the ICSU (International Council for Science and Understanding ) that currently exists.In any case, in a public discussion, people would pay more heed to the 10,000 Hours of Planetology Research Society than the NFES (possibly).In this story, there is no need for a vote to settle whether the world is round or flat. The NFES would be free to continue its researches, and to be resourced from the common stores. They could even sail to antatctica looking to the Ice Wall around the Earth, if they want.
Oh, quick post on social production of knowledge. This podcast from The bbc is useful: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/maths/maths_20100929-2330a.mp3
Quote:06 The Mathematicians who helped EinsteinWed, 29 Sep 10Duration:14 mins Seeing in four dimensions. Professor Marcus du Sautoy on the pioneers who pushed mathematics into new dimensions and the strange new geometries they created. Emeritus Professor Roger Penrose confirms that even Einstein sometimes struggled with his maths.As it notes, Gauss Riemann and several others thought of Non-euclidean geometry at the same time, and without their maths (their concepts) Einstein could not and modelled relativity.
1) I simply note where I mentioned the etymological meaning of "truth" as "loyal", thus truth is simply a denotative statement loyal/correct/corresponding with the observable data. I have also said that all denotative utterances are performative (and contested/contestable).2) Rocks cannot speak, but there is much we cannot say about them, even in their muteness. We cannot say they do not have density, mass or three dimensions. If a rock is grey, we cannot say that it is yellow. We can refine that colour denotation by instead of saying "grey" saying that the rock reflects light waves of XX herz. Once measured, we cannot say that the rock has a resistance of X if the measurements say Y. Yes, density, mass and dimensions are concepts, but they are concepts that have been debated, defined and refined through an endless process of speech acts. The rules of the language game of science are stricter than the language game of an argument down the pub.3) Socialism is not an ideology. The idea that ideology is the one true universal truth (which seems to be the premise of Lbirds position) is itself an ideological act. By this idea ideology stops being the means by which the ruling class ideas are dominant (note, not only and not uncontested) ideas and becomes an inhrent trait of human society. This was a popular dodge by Leninists, such as Althusser, as it justified dictatorship to giude the unconscious masses who could not free themselves from ideology (some of them ended up returning to Heelian idealism since history becomes the history of ideology, not lived human exprience). If we think of ideology as the process by which we mis-recognise ourselves, or dissociate ourselves from our lived experience, then it's opposite is when our conscious being is in accord with our livde experience, i.e. our consciousness is true to our lived experience.4) The religious are much more likely to win any scientific votes.More entertaining post later.
