Ideology and class

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I don't really understand how scientific theories can be ideologically endorsed. Its like saying that scientists should embrace pseudoscientists. But I don't know maybe I just need to read his post hehe…

 Wel,l LBird's position is that science can never really be "value free" and that the data that the scientist gathers to support his or her theory or hypothesis necessarily involves selection which in turn involves ideology – our particular set of basic assumptions we make about the world around us.  Ideology is the prism through which we inescapably view the world, in other words. Although LBird seems to think he is the only one here promoting this particular view of science and society in general he is not.  His constantly going on about it is only a cover to hide from scrutiny the much more questionable aspect of what he is saying – which is that because science is ideologically informed, so to speak, that the "workers" by which he means everyone – not "workers" in the class sense – should have a say in determining what is  "scientifically correct" or "scientifically true" I think that this is a ridiculous idea, not because I take an "elitist view" of science – to the contrary I believe that if anyone wants to become, say, an astrophysicist  that there should be absolutely no barriers placed in the way of him or her becoming an astrophysicist. It is ridiculous, rather, because it is totally impractical to expect everyone to know everything in science in order to vote on whether each and every scientific theory is true of not.  How can you possibly vote on something when you you don't know what it you voting about? (This is to say nothing of the logistics of organising many thousands of separate  worldwide votes for the many thouisands of scientific theories that appear each year). I know myself next to nothing about astrophysics, for instance. I would not dare to presume that a certain theory in astrophysics was true or false.  But LBird expects everyone to know everything that there is to know so that everything in science can be voted on by the entire global population to determine the truth of each theory.. Its nuts frankly. That apart , I don't see the need to vote on a scientific theory at all.  The popularity of a theory among the voters doesn't necessarily make it true in some absolutist sense and, more to the point, it is not going to convince those who think it is not true from continuing to believe it is not true. So what exactly is the point of the vote in the first place?

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Wel,l LBird's position is that science can never really be "value free" and that the data that the scientist gathers to support his or her theory or hypothesis necessarily involves selection which in turn involves ideology – our particular set of basic assumptions we make about the world around us.  Ideology is the prism through which we inescapably view the world, in other words. Although LBird seems to think he is the only one here promoting this particular view of science and society in general he is not.  His constantly going on about it is only a cover to hide from scrutiny the much more questionable aspect of what he is saying – which is that because science is ideologically informed, so to speak, that the "workers" by which he means everyone – not "workers" in the class sense – should have a say in determining what is  "scientifically correct" or "scientifically true"

This is all entirely true, Capitalist Pig. But I take it seriously, unlike robbo.

robbo203 wrote:

I think that this is a ridiculous idea, not because I take an "elitist view" of science – to the contrary I believe that if anyone wants to become, say, an astrophysicist  that there should be absolutely no barriers placed in the way of him or her becoming an astrophysicist. It is ridiculous, rather, because it is totally impractical to expect everyone to know everything in science in order to vote on whether each and every scientific theory is true of not.  How can you possibly vote on something when you you don't know what it you voting about? (This is to say nothing of the logistics of organising many thousands of separate  worldwide votes for the many thouisands of scientific theories that appear each year). I know myself next to nothing about astrophysics, for instance. I would not dare to presume that a certain theory in astrophysics was true or false.  But LBird expects everyone to know everything that there is to know so that everything in science can be voted on by the entire global population to determine the truth of each theory.. Its nuts frankly.

CP, if you replace robbo's 'science' with 'means of production', you'll start to appreciate the dangers of robbo's stance, for anyone who seeks democratic control of the means of production, ie. socialism.The elitists, like robbo, will simply use the same arguments about us controlling production: they'll say that 'it is totally impracticable in order to vote', when we 'don't know what we are voting about'. And 'the LOGISTICS'! Heaven, however will the "dirty, thick one's" manage that! How can they PRESUME to know?Yes, the 'democratic control of production': "It's nuts, frankly!"

robbo203 wrote:

That apart , I don't see the need to vote on a scientific theory at all.  The popularity of a theory among the voters doesn't necessarily make it true in some absolutist sense and, more to the point, it is not going to convince those who think it is not true from continuing to believe it is not true. So what exactly is the point of the vote in the first place?

The clincher, from the elitist perspective. 'So, what exactly is the point of the vote in the first place?' Why give it to workers? Or blacks? Or, god forbid, women!No, they all did without the vote in the 19th century, when science really worked, and we 'scientists' and 'academics' weren't expected to account for our 'theory and practice' to the Hoi Polloi.CP, robbo blames Einstein. Me? I think we should take account of modern physics, and seek to educate and organise ourselves, and to undermine bourgeois elitist theories of 'science' (which even they know can't be sustained, but keep pretending about, because then they retain their authority).

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo wrote:

…a self-critical open-minded undogmatic  approach that is supposed to be the hall mark of scientific endeavour where "the truth" is something that is never absolute but only provisional.

That's interesting, robbo, So, you oppose ALB and DJP's view on science?

I can't see anything to disagree with in the quote from Robbo above….What do you think "ALB's and DJP's" view on science is?

I was referring to a discussion we had last year, which touched on the 'sun and earth' issue.If you agree with robbo about the 'provisional' nature of scientific truth, do you agree about the provisional nature of our knowledge of the 'sun/earth' relationship? Last year you and ALB maintained that the 'earth going round the sun' is an absolute truth. If you've had further thoughts, we could discuss this important philosophical issue.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Last year you and ALB maintained that the 'earth going round the sun' is an absolute truth.

Well no, that's not what we where saying. You just read people so that they say what you want them to. I have no more time to waste with you.Ciao.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Last year you and ALB maintained that the 'earth going round the sun' is an absolute truth.

Well no, that's not what we where saying. You just read people so that they say what you want them to. I have no more time to waste with you.Ciao.

Why did I even imagine that you might have started to think.All the evidence shows that you haven't before, but I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.My mistake.Ciao.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

 CP, if you replace robbo's 'science' with 'means of production', you'll start to appreciate the dangers of robbo's stance, for anyone who seeks democratic control of the means of production, ie. socialism.The elitists, like robbo, will simply use the same arguments about us controlling production: they'll say that 'it is totally impracticable in order to vote', when we 'don't know what we are voting about'. And 'the LOGISTICS'! Heaven, however will the "dirty, thick one's" manage that! How can they PRESUME to know?Yes, the 'democratic control of production': "It's nuts, frankly!"

  Ha! Replacing "robbo's 'science' with 'means of production', indeed!  This shows the desperate lengths to which LBird will go save face and evade answering the questions I posed, questions  which expose his position for the utter folly it is .  I was specifically NOT talking about  controlling the means of production; I have no problem with the idea of "democratic control of the means of production", broadl;y speaking. I made it absolutely clear that I was talking specifically  about workers voting on the merits of scientific theories to determine their  "truth" – a suggestion that you yourself, might I remind you, specifically proposed.   I also made it absolutely clear that democracy is about practical decisions that affect us,  and decisions relating to managing the means of production would clearly come under this rubric.  The "truth" of scientific theories, however,  would clearly notLBird's  all too transpent attempt to dishonestly smuggle in the suggestion that what I am saying is equivalent to denying workers can democratically control the means of production shows that he is rattled, not thinking clearly at all, has his back to the wall and will grasp at even the flimsiest straw to get out of the ever deepening hole he has dug for himself. Oh and the jibe about "logistics" – well, go on LBird, I dare you –  EXPLAIN the logistics of your harebrained scheme whereby you propose to organise a democratic vote on each and every scientific theory that is churned out – multiple thousands of them every year  –  by the entire worlds population of 7 billion inhabits.  We are all ears, LBird, just waiting to hear this earth shattering explanation of yours that will enlighten us unelightened ones.   You basically want everyone to metamorphise into some kind of all knowing god , with a working knowledge of every scientific theory going and then, on top of that,  to be able to depatch 7 billion voting papers to the citizens of Planet Earth (or Planet GaGa land) as the case may be) multiplied by the number of new scientific theories – thousands of 'em – that come on stream, each and every year.  (I take it you are indeed a fully paid up citizen of planet Gaga despatched as an emissary to explain the merits of your higher so called democratic communist civilisation to us humanoids.  At least you are certainly not from this planet, good ol' Mother Earth)

LBird wrote:

 The clincher, from the elitist perspective. 'So, what exactly is the point of the vote in the first place?' Why give it to workers? Or blacks? Or, god forbid, women!

More diversionary nonsense from LBird.  And you can't even get your basic argument straight, your thinking is so screwed up.  I am not talking about who should be "given" a vote  and you know damn well restricted electorates is not what I am talking about.  I am saying why vote at all on the question of the truth of some scientific theory?  What exactly is the point of it?  Are you intending for example that once a vote is taken, people should not be allowed to question this democratically decided upon "truth"? Or what? You just dont say. You waffle on aimlessly and pointlessly compleley lost in your own little world of mindless mantras.  I cant make up my mind whether your head is stuck in the clouds or up your own backside.Instead of getting into tizzy you could at least have made some minimal effort to try  to explain what that point was but no. All too predictably you did  not. And you wonder why nobody here takes you seriously any longer!

[Anonymous]

I think in the WSM we had a long  discussion about the concept of ideology and class. We also tried to explain the difference between Engels' conception of ideology and Marx's conception of ideology, and why Engels used that expressionhttp://comments.gmane.org/gmane.politics.socialism.wsm.general/15643

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

I'm very happy to discuss the matter with you, but I am not playing these kind of games.

What? The 'kind of games' that involve philosophical discussion?I had higher hopes of you, Hud, but I'm to be disappointed, once again.

Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question!  Either that, or tell us you can't.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

I'm very happy to discuss the matter with you, but I am not playing these kind of games.

What? The 'kind of games' that involve philosophical discussion?I had higher hopes of you, Hud, but I'm to be disappointed, once again.

Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question!  Either that, or tell us you can't.

Your one-sided condemnation of me, and ignoring of robbo's avoiding answering why he is contradicting himself, just shows me that I'm going to have the same problems with you as with the others.If you seriously were interested in discussing, you would have either been even-handed asking us both to 'answer the question', or you could have simply ignored robbo's confused views, and concentrated on our discussion.But no, you have to join the ignorant gang, who don't like philosophical 'kind of games'.Perhaps you should just stick to your simplistic world of 'evidence', and let it take you where it merely goes.As a method, it's laughable that educated people should still think that it's a legitimate method. Science shows us that humans are inescapably and actively involved in producing knowledge. You'll be telling us next that the police 'simply follow the evidence'.BTW, Marx didn't simply follow the evidence of the goverment books, as you seem to think. He used them to back up his 'theory', and that theory is heavily impregnated with ideological and ethical concerns.Sorry, I'm playing those 'kind of games', yet again, aren't I? Y'know, the grown-up ones, which you, robbo and DJP seem to abhor so much.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question!  Either that, or tell us you can't.

Your one-sided condemnation of me, and ignoring of robbo's avoiding answering why he is contradicting himself, just shows me that I'm going to have the same problems with you as with the others.

 Has it not occurred to you that it might be  you who is the problem, LBird? Or is it  a case of everyone else walking out of step, bar you?  And what "contradiction" are you referring to anyway?

LBird wrote:

If you seriously were interested in discussing, you would have either been even-handed asking us both to 'answer the question', or you could have simply ignored robbo's confused views, and concentrated on our discussion.

There  is nothing "confused" about my views.  I've stated very clearly what they are. I've asked  probing questions of you several times which you have declined to answer, preferring to scuttle back to the comfort zone that is your own little worldview  which you shore up against rational assault by erecting  a wall of impenetrable dogma, tediously and endlessly regurgitated. You are the political equivalent of a doorstopping Jehovah Witness rep, frankly.And you apparently have no scruples about dishonestly misrepresenting what others say.  You portray me (and others here) as "elitist " for the sin of having simply stated that as mere mortals none of us , including the most brilliant scientist alive, is capable  of familiarising themselves with the details of each and every single  scientific theory doing the rounds. Its just not humanly possible! I know logic is not your strong point but if what I say is true then it follows logically that for any given scientific theory (and there are thousands upon thousands that are churned out every year) there is only likely to be a relatively small percentage of the population who are  likely to be intimately acquainted with the details of the theory in question.  Is this an unreasonable proposition? I don't think so.  If you say it is then what you are saying in effect is that we are all capable of knowing EVERYTHING in the world of  science.  In other words we are all capable of a kind of  godlike omniscience.  Is this what you are claiming? I dare you to put your money where your mouth and admit it because ,as far as I can see, that follows quite logically from your criticism of my position .  My position – I repeat – is that for any given scientific theory there is unlikely to be any more than a small minority who are acquainted with the details of the theory itself.Is this an elitist position?  NO IT IS NOT!!!  You don't  appear to understand what "elitism" means just as you do not understand what democracy is about either.   My position would be "elitist" if I were to insist on placing barriers on others, not familiar with a particular scientific theory,  becoming familiar  with that theory..   But I have gone out of my way to oppose the idea of any sort of barrier whatsoever being placed in front of individuals that would prevent  them from acquiring the necessary understanding to be able to competently critique the theory in question. I say let people become whatever they want to become, pursue any interest they wish to pursue.  I have also gone out of my way  to oppose your stupid idea of subjecting a scientific theory to a "vote" in order to determine its "truth". If anyone is potentially an elitist it is you because your idea of "voting" on scientific theories would mean in effect that some people not familiar with the theory could in theory  be prevented from voting. I reject the whole idea of voting on the theory. I' ll  say nothing  here of the utter stupidity of your idea of 7 billion people voting  on the thousands upon thousands of scientific theories that come on stream every year though clearly , it would seem, you are just too embarrassed to face up to what it is you are actually proposing in practical sense.  Having to descend from the clouds so to speak and put actual  flesh on the bones of what you saying terrifies you which is why you run away from every question that it is ever thrown at you.  You are the quintessential idealist with your head completely  in the clouds and  without a clue when it comes to putting theory into practice…

LBird wrote:

But no, you have to join the ignorant gang, who don't like philosophical 'kind of games'.Perhaps you should just stick to your simplistic world of 'evidence', and let it take you where it merely goes.As a method, it's laughable that educated people should still think that it's a legitimate method.

What a hypocrite!!!  And particularly in view of what LBird has  said on the "Chamsy" thread – viz

LBird wrote:

Sadly, now lost in the SPGB, if YMS, robbo and their 'elite, expert, academic' cadre, who will tell us dumb workers the Truth, are anything to go by.

 Yes, LBird it seems the only one here who considers himself to be several notches above the  "ignorant gang" and part of the elite of "educated people" is your good self!  LOL

[Hud955]

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question!  Either that, or tell us you can't.

 Sorry, I'm playing those 'kind of games', yet again, aren't I? Y'know, the grown-up ones, which you, robbo and DJP seem to abhor so much.

 Yes you  are, LB.  I don't know whether they are 'grown up' or not but I doubt that they are honest.   

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question!  Either that, or tell us you can't.

 Sorry, I'm playing those 'kind of games', yet again, aren't I? Y'know, the grown-up ones, which you, robbo and DJP seem to abhor so much.

 Yes you  are, LB.  I don't know whether they are 'grown up' or not but I doubt that they are honest.   

This tells us everything about your (and your sympathisers') attitude to learning.I would never accuse any of you of being 'dishonest'; I'd accuse you of ignorance, but I have no fear of you being 'dishonest'. You're all entirely honest, according to the lights of your ideology.Your problem is that you refuse to listen, learn and critically assess what you're being told.You can't do this, because your ideology of science is going unexamined, and my criticisms are thus 'dishonest'.So much for all the talk of 'free thought' from you lot.It's much easier to label the unknown as 'trolling' or 'dishonesty', rather than question some of your own dearly-held ruling class ideas, like the issue of science, truth, academics and democracy.Ah well, Hud, back to good, old fashioned, 19th century, academic and scientific 'honesty' for you.Quite frankly, mate, you're just like most other academics that I've met: they shit themselves when confronted by self-confident workers who are Communists, and who insist upon undermining their 'authority' in the eyes of the other students.But, but… I'm a professor! I know things you don't! I can't accept that I've spent my whole career following the wrong method in my search for 'Truth'! I've written PAPERS! Who are you, anyway, you working class guttersnipe?!KMA.

[robbo203]

LBird wrote:

It's much easier to label the unknown as 'trolling' or 'dishonesty', rather than question some of your own dearly-held ruling class ideas, like the issue of science, truth, academics and democracy.Ah well, Hud, back to good, old fashioned, 19th century, academic and scientific 'honesty' for you.Quite frankly, mate, you're just like most other academics that I've met: they shit themselves when confronted by self-confident workers who are Communists, and who insist upon undermining their 'authority' in the eyes of the other students.But, but… I'm a professor! I know things you don't! I can't accept that I've spent my whole career following the wrong method in my search for 'Truth'! I've written PAPERS! Who are you, anyway, you working class guttersnipe?!

 Says the man who earlier said this….

LBird wrote:

But no, you have to join the ignorant gang, who don't like philosophical 'kind of games'.Perhaps you should just stick to your simplistic world of 'evidence', and let it take you where it merely goes.As a method, it's laughable that educated people should still think that it's a legitimate method.

 What a hypocrite! And yes, LBird, the fact that you are pathologically dishonest in your gross misrepresentation of others has been pointed out to you time and time again but like a typically  pathologically dishonest individual you are in complete denial over this.

[LBird]

robbo, when I wrote:

LBird wrote:

As a method, it's laughable that educated people should still think that it's a legitimate method.

…I was reflecting scientific opinion.The fact that you and the others apparently know nothing whatsoever about scientific method, and refuse to read up on it, also proves your ignorance.So, calling me 'pathologically dishonest' and a 'hypocrite' says more about your educational level than my morality.In fact, I think I'll add 'childish' to my estimation.

[moderator1]

Reminder: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.

[Author]

Posts