Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:It seems to me that his whole works are opposed to the notion of a "fixed, timeless, Truth", which is required if no ideology is held to be present in scientific knowledge.
This, again, depends on what you mean by ideology. in a classless society, where there are no established rulers to threaten, then the production of knowledge cannot be used to support them (through distortion) nor be a chance to overthrow them (and thus be suppressed), any knowledge would simply, then, be produced as that which we are capable of producing.For instance, what is the ideology of astronomy? is there any? It no longer threatens the established regimes and their god, whether M1223 is a nebula or a galaxy is of no social import: it is knowledge without ideology: that does not mean that the knowledge is free of pressupositions, premises and ideas filtered through the limits of the human mind, but it is not ideological.That knowledge cannot 100% capture the real world (I have a working model of the universe, unfortunately, it's life size) is an idea as old as the five monkies and the elephant.As I say, if by ideology you simply mean our mental maps of the world, then that is a banal and pointless observation, if you mean the struggle for class power, then that can be ended.Anyway, a crossed out section of the German ideology to end.
Charlie & Fred wrote:We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist. The history of nature, called natural science, does not concern us here; but we will have to examine the history of men, since almost the whole ideology amounts either to a distorted conception of this history or to a complete abstraction from it. Ideology is itself only one of the aspects of this history.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm
Much of it rests on the question of deliberateness of ideology. I remember seeing an OU programme on it, many years ago. norman Tebbit blithely used the 'everyone has a point of bias' argument, and that it is natural and unconscious. Tony Benn was on alleging a degree of deliberateness. One of my old lecturers, a self confessed empiricist, took the view of ideology as view-point. This, though, I'd suggest, raises it to the point of banal redundnancy, and robs the examination of ideology of political force.If we look at ideology as the ways and means by which the ideas of the dominant class become the dominant ideas, this changes things dramatically. First off, it suggests that without a dominant class there will be no ideology (this is conconant with the claim that without class there is no politics, we move from the dispute over who gets to make the decisions, to actual technical decision making based on reason). To my mind this means a communist ideology cannot exist (saving some Stalinist notion of bthe dictatorship of the proletariat as communists rule over non-communist classes).The implication for science here is that there is a rational and non-ideological way of gathering knowledge that is distorted in class society, and the elimination of class warfare will allow a genuine reason to examine the world freed from such conflict. Further, in a society of abundance, this reason will not be limited by economic conastraints, only real ones.And there we get back to science and socialism, via a slight detour through ideology.
Actually, I don't think I can completely abandon discussion of ideology: since ideology and science (or science reformulated as pragmatism, realism, reason, logic, etc.) are often posited as antonyms. Tony Blair made a career out of contrasting realism to ideology (and thus, ideologically, distorting the meaning of ideology, hence one reason we can't use the common sense definition). I'll leave it there for now.
Young Master Smeet Post #19 wrote:(OED definitions of science)So, there are more OED definitions, but the broad thrust is of reliable systematic knowledge, which we could roughly formulate as knowledge derived for and with an Other (in) mind: that does not exist just for me but for an Other. That differs from language, the shaping of my thoughts into a form I can transmit them to an Other in as much as the idea was created with the other in mind. The language games of science are highly structured with definite registers.Back when I was first trying to grapp[le with some basic terms. I'll leave ideology alone for now, but we will have to come back to it, because the common sense value doesn't hold. Indeed, as has been argued elsewhere before, ideology is common sense…
Well, there is plenty of point in doing so, because that definition you give is merely a synopnym for creed, so why not use creed?The OED list four meaningas, two obsolete or rare so:
OED wrote:1. a. (a) The study of ideas; that branch of philosophy or psychology which deals with the origin and nature of ideas. (b) spec. The system introduced by the French philosopher Étienne Condillac (1715–80), according to which all ideas are derived from sensations.4. A systematic scheme of ideas, usually relating to politics, economics, or society and forming the basis of action or policy; a set of beliefs governing conduct. Also: the forming or holding of such a scheme of ideas.But the term also has specific meanings used in marxist terminology, which may require furtehr explication above and beyond the everyday uses.
There's no reason why any socialist should know all about ideology. To be a socialist is to want a system of society based on common ownership and democratic control.I have read hundreds of pages on the question of ideology, and it isn't as clear cut as you seem to suggest.1) A near synonym for creed. ;2)A weltungshaung
) False consciousness. ;4) Unconscious assumptions. ;5) The study of the origin of ideas. ;6) A mind set, or consciousness itself. ;7) Consciously political ;that's seven very different meanings it can hold, from a rough call off the top of my head — compare with the closeness of the varierty of meanings for science, and it's clear that the term ideology is subject to some heavy ideological dispute.And here's why we need to understand Piketty:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28459473
BBC wrote:A wealth tax on people with assets of more than £3m should be imposed, the Green Party says.Setting the tax at 1% to 2% would raise between £21.5bn and £43bn annually from the wealthiest 1% people in the UK, the party, which has one MP, says.Expect Piketty's name to be used in support. Mind, a wealth tax was what Adam Smith advocated, so it's not the most radical thing under the sun. Still, an interesting shift.
LBird,but I have being trying to discuss communism and science. What have you got to say on the matter? What propositions are you putting forward?
LBird,there's a third: that you're not explaining yourself very well. What, exactly, do you want to say about science?
LBird wrote:Another thread gone to the dogs.How so? Is this a response to my post discussing the term science itself?
LBird,it's a lot easier to make your point if you actually make your point.You could have thrown a hundred or so people at me who had something to say about means and ends, including Stalin.As things stand I didn't think your definition of reformist actually covered reformists, since it could include pro-capitalists and conservatives, reformists, at least in our context, are people who either think capitalism can be formed into something different. That doesn't necessarilly imply elitism.
OED wrote:SCIENCE 1 a. The state or fact of knowing; knowledge or cognizance of something; knowledge as a personal attribute. Now arch. and rare.1 †b. Theoretical or intellectual understanding, as distinct from moral conviction. Paired or contrasted with conscience. Obs.†2. Knowledge or understanding acquired by study; acquaintance with or mastery of any branch of learning. Also in pl.: (a person's) various kinds of knowledge. Obs. 3 a. A particular area of knowledge or study; a recognized branch of learning; spec. (in the Middle Ages) each of the seven subjects forming the trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). Cf. art n.1 9a(a). Now arch.3 b. In extended use, denoting a game, sport, or other activity conceived as being similarly organized. Freq. somewhat humorous. Now rare except in noble science n.4 a. Paired or contrasted with art (see art n.1 3a). A discipline, field of study, or activity concerned with theory rather than method, or requiring the knowledge and systematic application of principles, rather than relying on traditional rules, acquired skill, or intuition.4 b. A branch of study that deals with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less comprehended by general laws, and incorporating trustworthy methods (now esp. those involving the scientific method and which incorporate falsifiable hypotheses) for the discovery of new truth in its own domain. 4 c. With of. Denoting the application of scientific methods in a field of study, activity, etc., previously considered open only to theories based on subjective, historical, or undemonstrable abstract criteria. 5 a. The kind of organized knowledge or intellectual activity of which the various branches of learning are examples. In early use, with reference to sense 3a: what is taught in universities or may be learned by study. In later use: scientific disciplines considered collectively, as distinguished from other departments of learning; scientific doctrine or investigation; the collective understanding of scientists. Also with modifying word.5 b. spec. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the physical universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. Also: this as a subject of study or examination. Cf. natural science n.5 c. With the. The scientific principles or processes which govern or underpin a (specified) phenomenon, technology, etc. Also: the scientific research into these principles or processes. Usu. with of or behind.So, there are more OED definitions, but the broad thrust is of reliable systematic knowledge, which we could roughly formulate as knowledge derived for and with an Other (in) mind: that does not exist just for me but for an Other. That differs from language, the shaping of my thoughts into a form I can transmit them to an Other in as much asthe uidea was created with the otehr in mind. The language games of science are highly structured with definite registers.
LBird,ever heard of James Duff Brown?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Duff_Brown
