Ideology and class
- This topic has 62 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:The only inference one can draw is that once a scientific theory has been determined by means of vote to be "true" by the global working class (7 billion people), then according to him, no criticism of the theory will be permitted.
[my bold]I'm replying to this one allegation because it's a bare-faced lie, and robbo knows it.I've constantly argued that 'truth' is a social product, just like a 'policy', and must be voted upon.We scientists know that 'truth changes': what's 'true' one year, is often not true, the next. I've given lots of examples in the past of this.So, in fact, my position is the exact opposite of robbo's lie.
Well, what is the point of voting on the "truth" of a scientific theory in that case if it is not to shore it up against critical assault? I cannot think of any possible reason, can you? I've asked you umpteen times to supply a reason but as usual you have just run away from the question. If you have some other reason as to why a scientific theories must be voted upon well then spit it out – tell us what is! And, while you are about it, also tell us how you propose to organise literally multiple thousands of plebiscite among a global population of 7 billion every year relating to all those new scientific theories that come on stream. Or what makes you think that anyone on earth, let alone the majority, are capable of understanding the totality of scientific theories in order to competently vote upon them which you insist must be done. Why don't you answer these questions, LBird? Why do you constantly evade them? All you ever seem to do is patronisingly affect a air of weary resignation that you have "tried to help others on this forum see the light" but have failed. Your whole approach reeks of elitism – how dare this ignorant rabble question my superior judgement by asking such questions as the above and I will demonstrate my superiority by refusing to answer them! What a hypocrite. I did not say., by the way, that you ever said the reason why scientific theories "must be voted upon" is to ensure that criticism of theories shall not be permitted thereafter. I said that that this is an inference to be drawn from your insistence that such a vote must be taken. There is a difference between drawing an inference and making a bald statement to that effect, you know…. And if as you say the truth changes, then that makes your proposal that scientific theories "must be voted upon" by the global population even more ridiculous!. So now in addition to all those new theories coming on stream, all 7 billion of us may well be revisiting those old theories time and time again to vote once again upon them. Will any of us ever have time in between swotting up on the latest theory in microbiology doing the rounds and trudging off to the polling booths, to actually get down to produce our means of subsistence? I doubt it
LBird wrote:The real truth about robbo's elitist perspective is that it holds that 'truth', once 'known', can't be changed. That ideological belief is the basis of the power of elite experts.Except, of course, that this bears no relation whatsoever to anything I have ever said or suggested. I have actually explicitly stated that the "truth" is only ever provisional and advanced this as a further reason as to the pointlessness of voting upon it!So having accused others of bare-faced lies, it appears you are the elite expert on this forum in the concoction of bare faced lies
LBird wrote:robbo is opposed to democracy, hides his ideology, wants the 'language of maths' to be continued, doesn't want to make science and its explanations open to all, and won't have 'truth' examined and determined by humanity.More lies from LBrid. I've said quite explicitly that I support democratic decision making where it is needed but not where it is not needed. I have said quite openly where I thought it is needed – in relation to practical decisions that affect our lives. I have also argued that this needed to be tailored to circumstances. Some decisions are local in nature; others global. The former will tend to exclude in de facto terms everyone else in global society if only because of the sheer overwhelming number of such decisions that have to be made every single day. The citizens in the borough of Islington cannot possibly be aware of the issues facing the citizens of some suburb of the city of Kisangani, statistically speaking. Here's another question for LBird – does he think the global population must be involved in deciding whether a new library should be built in Islington. Yes or no. LBird? I mention this becuase this is precisely the same reasoning that informs my approach to science which stupidly LBird characterises as "elitist". Its got nothing to do with elitism , a word which LBird seems not to understand. Its about the social division of labour. You cannot possibly become a competent neurosurgeon as well as a competent structural engineer, competent marine biologist or competent in all of the thousands upon thousands of other occupations. A degree of specialisation is unavoidable. LBird's view of the world is utterly childish and behind the mantra of his supposed commitment to democracy, he has no grasp whatsoever of the actual complexities we are dealing with
LBird wrote:robbo wants elite experts, who pretend to have a politically-neutral method (one not related to society or history) to tell us 'The Truth', in a language of heiroglyphs.More lies from LBird. I have never once claimed that experts employ a politically-neutral method. Oddly enough that is the one thing I do agree with LBird upon – that science can never be value free. However unless you are actually engaged in serious research on, let us say, the dynamics of cell division in microbiology, how are you going to be able to tell others what the "truth" is? Does it worry me that in de facto terms only a small minority are in a position to competently tell me what is going on in the process of cell division. Not at all. That gives them not one iota of more social power over me in a communist world where democratic decision making will apply where it is needed – in the practical decisions of daily life – and not where it is not needed , in the production of truth in science.. The latter is just a crackpot idea and I cannot help noticing that apart from just regurgitating the same old tedious mantra times and time again, LBird has not been able to advance a single credible argument to support this idea of his. He has run away from every question that has been asked of him because he knows that to even attempt to answer them will expose him as a complete buffoon .
robbo, I know you're not going to read anything I write, and that's a shame, because I could help you to start to get to grips with some difficult philosophical isues that have dogged science throughout the 20th century, but why not have a read of someone else's views on these matters, like the McCarthy book I've recommended, above?The fact that you (and the others) can see that there is something to what I'm saying, even if you don't agree with where I think it takes us as socialists, means that you owe it to yourself to dig deeper into 'democratic science', especially given the time that you've spent arguing with me.Perhaps you can get beyond the personal debate with me, and look further into the ideas: after all, they're not my individual ideas, and many others have moved in this direction, too.If not, I think that you'll lose out. Don't let this intense disagreement here put you off examining the social ideas.
I think Stuart has hit on an interesting point on Ideology and the impossibility of communication. Lets tease that out.1) Ideology mediates all truth claims about the world, with unstated (and unstatable) premises, presuppositions and assumptions.2) The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class: so ideology mediates in the interests of class rule.3) Therefore ideology is part of the world, and can be subject to truth claims.4) But any truth claim about ideology is subject to mediation by ideology.5) Therefore all statements about ideology are in the interests of the ruling class.If you meet anyone who talks about ideology, they are trying to put a ruling class policeman in your head.
YMS wrote:If you meet anyone who talks about ideology, they are trying to put a ruling class policeman in your head.Perfectly logical conclusion.From someone who starts from the premise that 'I am an individual, and outside of society and its ideas'.Of course, this, too, is an 'ideology'.From a Marxist/Communist ideological viewpoint, again, of course.The key mistake YMS made in his 'logic' is the premise that:
YMS wrote:The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class: so ideology mediates in the interests of class rule.YMS, as will be apparent to any socialists here, has made the fundamental error of equating 'ruling ideas' to 'all ideas'. Clearly, we socialists argue that there are both ruling ideas and critical ideas, the fomer produced by the ruling class, and the latter produced by the exploited class.Therefore, his statement…
YMS wrote:5) Therefore all statements about ideology are in the interests of the ruling class.[my bold]… is only logical for someone employing YMS's ideology. It is not logical for anyone employing Marxist/Communist ideology.We can conclude that:
Quote:Therefore some statements about ideology are in the interests of the exploited class.YMS, like robbo, is an individualist.This is the source of their rejection of 'democratic science'.They both believe they live in a world outside of ideology; and if they do, they presume 'scientists' can, too. I don't have that particular ideological belief.The difference between us is, I don't hide my ideological beliefs. They do; also to themselves, apparently.PS. I wouldn't take any lead from stuart on philosophy, YMS.
Quote:The difference between us is, I don't hide my ideological beliefs.But the point is Lbird, you do hide them. Everything you say about your ideology contains hidden ideological elements. You cannot expose your ideology, because that would be an non-ideological truth claim about the world. Nor can you know whether your ideas are working class ideas, or ruling class ideas.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Quote:The difference between us is, I don't hide my ideological beliefs.But the point is Lbird, you do hide them. Everything you say about your ideology contains hidden ideological elements. You cannot expose your ideology, because that would be an non-ideological truth claim about the world. Nor can you know whether your ideas are working class ideas, or ruling class ideas.
Hmmmm… perhaps stuart is actually more advanced, and can provide you with a philosophical lead, YMS…
On ideology and the impossibility of communication: Yes, I agree with YMS. When Ayn Rand first met her future acolytes Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, they report that they eagerly started asking her questions. She batted them all away, and said that talking with each other was impossible unless they could be sure they were talking the same language. And that took a lot of time, effort and discussion. Hence her often asked question, "What are your premises?"Rand I think was right about this. I think it's one of the reasons the SPGB functions better internally than many other political organisations: the "membership test" ensures that everyone can speak the language and communicate with each other. And it's why internet chat can sometimes be so hard and degenerate so quickly into rudeness – we've not even sussed out our "premises"!Anyway, I hope my admiting that I like Ayn Rand will help LBird see that actually I'm even worse philosophically than he suspected!
stuartw2112 wrote:Anyway, I hope my admiting that I like Ayn Rand will help LBird see that actually I'm even worse philosophically than he suspected!LOL!Touche, stuart!
*Watches Lbird run away into the distance*Either one can make non-ideological claims about the world, or one cannot. If one cannot, then one cannot make non-ideoloigical claims about one's ideology, including its source and its objective partisanship.
Indeed, excellent point, well made!I think I was trying to get at something similar when I kept asking him what the point of discussing anything was. Are we trying to get at "the truth"? Or are we just spinning tales from our own ideological perspective? Clearly, most of the time we're just doing the latter. But if the former is not possible, if we're not at least trying to push in that direction, why should I listen to your story at all? Mine is bound to be far more interesting and witty than yours!
Young Master Smeet wrote:Either one can make non-ideological claims about the world, or one cannot.Though this of course depends on how broad you defininition of 'ideology'… Define it too broadly and I don't think you're saying anything of much use.
LBird wrote:robbo, I know you're not going to read anything I write, and that's a shame, because I could help you to start to get to grips with some difficult philosophical isues that have dogged science throughout the 20th century, but why not have a read of someone else's views on these matters, like the McCarthy book I've recommended, above?The fact that you (and the others) can see that there is something to what I'm saying, even if you don't agree with where I think it takes us as socialists, means that you owe it to yourself to dig deeper into 'democratic science', especially given the time that you've spent arguing with me.I don't have any problem with "digging deeper", LBird – you would do well to take your own advice to heart – but what I do have a problem with, as does seemingly everyone else on this list is your irritating habit of misrepresenting what others say and your point blank refusal to answer the questions put to you – "why is it necessary to vote on scientific theories?", "how is it remotely possible that anyone, even the most gifted scientist alive, could acquire such a comprehensive grasp of the totality of scientific theories as to be able knowledgeably vote upon them?", "how is the popular participation of the global public – 7 billion individuals – in the process of voting upon literally thousands upon thousands of scientific theories going to be organised in practical terms?". Your refusal to answer these questions demonstrates to me that you are arguing in bad faith. Yet again all you have done here in your latest missive is to deflect attention from this huge whopping great hole in your argument, by affecting an air of weary resignation that you have tried assist what you call the "ignorant lot" on this list reach a "deeper understanding" of the complexities of "philosophical issues" involved but have failed. Do you have any inkling just how smug, supercilious and patronising you come across as being and why you rub people up the wrong way? I guess not. Even now you presume to tell me "I know you're not going to read anything I write". I can assure you LBird I go through everything you write with a tooth comb before I respond to your nonsense.I doubt very much that the McCarthy book you recommend says anything along like what you have been proposing at all. I suspect by the term "democratic science" in this instance is simply meant a wider involvement of the public in science , a much greater effort to make science accessible to the lay person and so on. That I can fully endorse and if that is all you were suggesting then there would, quite simply, be no argument between us.But we both know – don't we ? – that that is world way from what you have actually been proposing: that the global population should be able to vote on the totality of scientific theories . That is a proposal that to date you have made absolutely no attempt to substantiate as being remotely credible
DJP wrote:Though this of course depends on how broad you defininition of 'ideology'… Define it too broadly and I don't think you're saying anything of much use.Well, indeed, in many hands "ideology" simply becomes an excuse for why the apparent material conditions have not yet lead to a workers revolution. The big problem being, if everyone is under the spell of ideology, how can anyone become free of it? was answered by the vanguard party, or an elite who could see through ideology (possibly intellectuals outside the class); or, by an appeal to "science" as being an ideology buster. I'd suggest, as you say, that a much more restricted definition of ideology means we don't have to come up with such magic thinking work arounds.
stuartw2112 wrote:On ideology and the impossibility of communication: Yes, I agreeIn that case I don't understand you!
Came across the following website. Looks intersting. Haven't read through it all yet, (including the other articles on ideology) but thought more knowledgeable members could give it the once over (if they haven't already) and let me know if it's reliable etc.http://academic.uprm.edu/~laviles/id219.htm
Quote:'If the essence and appearance of things directly coincided, all science would be superfluous'. Does Marx's dictum lead to novel insights? The purpose of science is to discover the nature of reality concealed under surface appearance. Based on this definition, Marx makes the above assertion – if things appeared exactly as they are, there would be no need for science to remove the veil of appearance. Social science, therefore, is the search for the real nature of society, underneath all of its visible, external façades. If the reality of society is easily observable in our everyday experience, then there is no need for scientific reflection on society, as Marx defines science. The idea that society has an 'appearance', which is not the same as social 'essence', forms the starting point for the Marxist discussion of ideology. Ideology is what allows a society to persist, even though the essence of that society may contain contradictions.It is important to note that the difference between appearance and reality is not due to some form of false belief or faulty vision on the part of the observer. The appearances are caused by the reality. There is no 'mistake' in the observance of society, because it is the nature of society that the essence projects a certain appearance. It is the nature of a mirage that it is an illusion, it is not a case of 'faulty vision'. A person with normal vision will still see a mirage, as it is the very essence of the mirage which creates the illusion. Marx was primarily concerned with the nature of the capitalist mode of production. The cardinal tenets of Marx's theory of the essence of capitalism are: Only expenditure of labour creates economic value, in proportion to the amount of labour expended; workers do not receive the whole value of what they produce – capitalists enjoy profits due to surplus value, for which the worker is not paid; labour power is the only form of capital investment which creates profit. (1) The social appearance, on the other hand is: An object is worth what it can be exchanged for in the market, i.e. its exchange-value; workers appear to be paid for all of their labour; capital is seen to 'create' profit. There is clearly a marked difference between the appearance and essence of society. Marx uses the idea of 'commodity fetishism' to explain this difference.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.