Science ‘as it is’? Or ‘a social power?
- This topic has 22 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
"If you control access to the scientific literature, it is, to all intents and purposes, like controlling science."
Most of the research funding in the UK is mandates open access to scientific papers arising from the research. I think that trend is true across the EU and the States. Progress is being made in the FAIR data principles:https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciplesIn many ways, Science is communism in action today, bursting at the seems of proprietary society. The science workers are proletarians working for a salary. The workers run science from top to bottom, just not in their own interests.Note how, in the article, our dear friends at Elsevier, are using the free labour of scientists as content creators and reviewers.Just to say, publishers do play a valuable role, when they select and market content, we will still need some of that function even in socialism: teh alternative is to look at the wild west of predatory publishing of fake open access journals with made up editorial boards.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Just to say, publishers do play a valuable role, when they select and market content, we will still need some of that function even in socialism: teh alternative is to look at the wild west of predatory publishing of fake open access journals with made up editorial boards.[my bold]No, you're wrong, YMS.Whilst 'they select', they have the power of selection. This power, within a democratically productive society like socialism, must be under democratic control. Only the social producers can 'select'.The 'alternative' is democratic control of publishing, not your supposed contrast of 'no power' to 'elite power'.You're not a democrat, YMS, so you can only conceive of either 'complete anarchy' or 'a good elite'. As such, you're not a socialist, because socialism is the democratic control of production.
LBird wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Just to say, publishers do play a valuable role, when they select and market content, we will still need some of that function even in socialism: teh alternative is to look at the wild west of predatory publishing of fake open access journals with made up editorial boards.[my bold]No, you're wrong, YMS.Whilst 'they select', they have the power of selection. This power, within a democratically productive society like socialism, must be under democratic control. Only the social producers can 'select'.The 'alternative' is democratic control of publishing, not your supposed contrast of 'no power' to 'elite power'.You're not a democrat, YMS, so you can only conceive of either 'complete anarchy' or 'a good elite'. As such, you're not a socialist, because socialism is the democratic control of production.
The question is, L Bird, does the whole population select and carry out the business of every selection (apparently your preferred choice). Or do we democratically select the selectors, trust them to get on with doing their job under our scrutiny, and then act if they do not act in our interest. (SPGB approach)?
LBird wrote:Whilst 'they select', they have the power of selection. This power, within a democratically productive society like socialism, must be under democratic control. Only the social producers can 'select'.Yes, I agree entirely, the task of assessing the quality of writing must be under democratic control, but we can't all read a book before we decide to publish it to everyone, someone has to perform the editorial function: certainly, juries, volunteer editorial boards, learned societies, etc. will have a role to play. But the bottom line is, we need to know before we open the book, or journal article, are we looking at the results of serious study by someone with a track record in the field, or the writings of a 13-year old boy in their bedroom. teh latter, is of course, free to publish, and may well turn something worthwhile up.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Whilst 'they select', they have the power of selection. This power, within a democratically productive society like socialism, must be under democratic control. Only the social producers can 'select'.Yes, I agree entirely, the task of assessing the quality of writing must be under democratic control, but we can't all read a book before we decide to publish it to everyone, someone has to perform the editorial function: certainly, juries, volunteer editorial boards, learned societies, etc. will have a role to play.
No.The only 'editorial role' will be an elected one.That's what 'democratic control' means, YMS, which you then (contradicting yourself like Engels in his letters) discard, with talk of individuals and elites self-selecting themselves.What don't you get about 'democratic control'? You use the term seemingly without any political understanding of what it means regarding power.Either you're ignorant (again, like Engels), or you're using 'democratic' as a figleaf to hide your real political beliefs, about 'free individuals' and 'self-selecting elites'.It's quite simply, really. We elect editors who share our political views, and we either accept or reject their recommendations, based upon our collective judgement as to whether the editors' opinions further our needs, interests and purposes.There are no elites who 'know better' than the democratic social producers. That is the only acceptable political stance within socialism. There is not a 'special consciousness' which is not available to workers, either now or in the future. To argue otherwise, is to support Leninism, and the cadre party which has this supposed 'special consciousness'.
Don't you know? Don't you see? Hasn't it been obvious all along?I AM ENGELS!Mwuhahahahahaha.Anyway, that aside. There doesn't have to be only one path to publishing, different materials, in different contexts (and different volumes) will need different scales of invovlement by different people: the editors of some learned societies would be elected,by that society, and their publications mainly disseminated to their memebrs.At some point in the process comes technical unelected labour: or will we elect every library shelver?Citizen juries are perfectly compatable with democratic control, and may have a role to play. The point is, socialism ends the material interst in such control, there would be no incentive nor advantage in manipulating the scientific content of scholarly publishing.BTW, in the UK your local public library has can give you access to a limited range of peer reviewed scientific journals already:http://freetoviewjournals.pls.org.uk/Oh, and do tell what would happen to someone who, unelected, starts disseminating printed materials on science, written on the back of brown paper envelopes?
There is only one path, YMS. The democratic path. We're talking about power.You're an individualist, and wish to realise the bourgeois myth of being a 'free individual', all with their 'own power'.
But don't you accept that different groups within society will have different needs, I would, for instance, have no need for voting for the editor of the Aberdeen Herald (or whatever the local paper will be called), but we will need local papers on a local scale. One editor cannot vote for them all.Juries are democratic, n'est pas, Engels has spoken.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Oh, and do tell what would happen to someone who, unelected, starts disseminating printed materials on science, written on the back of brown paper envelopes?BTW, duly noted that you didn't answr this question.
LBird wrote:There is only one path, YMS. The democratic path. We're talking about power.You're an individualist, and wish to realise the bourgeois myth of being a 'free individual', all with their 'own power'.You wouldn't know democracy if it hit you in the face. Idealists, Stalinists and Leninists like yourself have a distorted view of democracy where 'truth' once arrived at is imposed by socially organised violence. The proletariate party decides truthYou have made all this clear "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, "1984 LBird's view of Democratic Communism
Young Master Smeet wrote:Young Master Smeet wrote:Oh, and do tell what would happen to someone who, unelected, starts disseminating printed materials on science, written on the back of brown paper envelopes?BTW, duly noted that you didn't answr this question.
You're like an irritating child, who just won't stop asking the same question, even when explained to a hundred times.Why would anyone use a brown paper envelope to write on science? They'll have the finest universities, facilities and minds that we can produce, all at their beck and call.Still, even they wish to do this, and pass the brown paper envelope onto their elected authorities, those democratic authorities will judge on the usefulness to our social production of the ideas contained thereon, bearing in mind our needs, interests and purposes.Of course, if the reason that the particular individual using this strange, anti-social method, is doing this because they are mentally ill, we'll probably ignore their advice to turn chips into rocket fuel. We'll probably store the brown paper envelope, though, for future consultation, if it turns out that, though mentally ill at the time, the writer actually had a good idea. I presume we'd at least photocopy it, for dissemination, because the individualist method of passing on a brown paper envelope for individuals to read, wouldn't suit our needs, interests and purposes, in our world social production.Now, leave me alone, or I'll set the bogeyman on you.Vin, I've got a job for you…
LBird wrote:Why would anyone use a brown paper envelope to write on science? They'll have the finest universities, facilities and minds that we can produce, all at their beck and call.Because their theories have been voted down? Because the democratically elected editor declined to publish their paper? But, of sound mind, and determined in their views despite the vote, they keep on disseminating their documents. Would libraries be allowed to pass them on?So, would you print and disseminate rejected ideas? Would there be a Rupert Sheldrake in your world?
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:Why would anyone use a brown paper envelope to write on science? They'll have the finest universities, facilities and minds that we can produce, all at their beck and call.Because their theories have been voted down? Because the democratically elected editor declined to publish their paper? But, of sound mind, and determined in their views despite the vote, they keep on disseminating their documents.
Yes, and when the 'brown envelope' 'individualist physicist' has their theories about 'chips into rocket fuel' and their claim to be 'completely sane' voted down, they'll be sent to the department that we'll set up, to which you'll be elected secretary, in which post you can spend all your 'individual time' writing out their 'theory' onto several billion 'brown envelopes', which the 'completely sane' theorist insists is the only method to propagate their 'theory' around the world'.I, for one, god knows, sincerely hope that we get to socialism, so that I can help to elect you to such a socially and politically important research post.
YMS wrote:Would libraries be allowed to pass them on?So, would you print and disseminate rejected ideas?Only the democratic producers can assess the usefulness, potential usefulness, or sheer lunacy of these 'brown envelope' theories. Perhaps others will look with favour on your individualist theory never to dismiss any 'theory', and they'll then assign the social labour, required to write out all those brown envelopes, to everyone on this planet. Of course, if there's only one of your favoured theorists, with one theory, we will all have to write only one brown envelope – but, since you insist that all the theories of all the theorists must be published according to their individual wishes, we'll probably spend most of our time in your 'socialism' doing pointless tasks, just to keep your 'individualist' beliefs happy.In the real world, meanwhile, I suspect that there'll be a 'weeding out' of some theories that the world social producers deem democratically to be 'of no use, even potentially', and so they wouldn't use up our social resources printing and disseminating them to libraries.Then again, perhaps I'm wrong, and 7 billion people will share your obsession with 'individualism in production', and socialism will consist of us all endlessly filling out brown envelopes with theories about 'chips into rocket fuel'.
Quote:Only the democratic producers can assess the usefulness, potential usefulness, or sheer lunacy of these 'brown envelope' theories. Perhaps others will look with favour on your individualist theory never to dismiss any 'theory', and they'll then assign the social labour, required to write out all those brown envelopes, to everyone on this planet.*watches Lbird dance around the point*The Theorist, having been rejected by he 'social producers' managers to scrape together enough envelopes, waste paper or other materials in order to print a few thousand pamphlets at home (she re-purposes wallpaper, even). She sends these pamphlets to the great and smal libraries housing collections in her language.Her theories, whilst rejected, did garner the support of a minority, she's not alone, and she's still publishing. And, for added fun, she has been working in her field for decades, and is no crank.Should libraries stock her books/pamphlets? Should she be stopped?BTW, I do think that in socialism, every paper that confirms to a certain production quality should have a space in scholarly publications, and self publication for small groups and individuals should be an option. I should hope that the elected editor should allow dissenting voices, just on principle.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.