Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
LBird wrote:I'm a Marxist and a Communist, YMS, stop prevaricating and playing silly. If you're not, I'm not interested on this thread in discussing these thinkers with you. Start a new thread called 'Science for bourgeois liberals', or some such.And indeed, take your hatred of democracy somewhere else.
This is another typical of your outrageous distortions of those who disagree with you.YMS does not "hate" democracy. He's just making the point that it is pointless as a means of settling matters of opinion (such as scientific theories). It's essential of course for deciding important matters requiring action but that goes without saying as socialism/communism is based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production by and in the interest of society as a whole.If there's a vote on whether or not the Earth is flat, no doubt the view that it is not would be carried overwhelmingly, but that wouldn't change the minds of those who think it is flat. So what would the vote achieve? It would only be an expression of opinion since those who don't agree won't be prevented from still expressing their opinion (would they?). Might as well leave people doing research in a particular field argue and settle things amongst themselves (if necessary even by a vote as the one a couple of years ago amongst astronomers on whether or not Pluto should still be regarded as a planet).I too don't see the point of voting on the "truth" of scientific theories (as opposed to research programmes and the running of research institutes). That doesn't make me an anti-democrat but just a democrat who accepts that a vote is not necessarily the way to settle matters of opinion. Anyway, see the separate thread you asked for on the extent and limits of democracy.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:I'm a Marxist and a Communist, YMS, stop prevaricating and playing silly. If you're not, I'm not interested on this thread in discussing these thinkers with you. Start a new thread called 'Science for bourgeois liberals', or some such.And indeed, take your hatred of democracy somewhere else.This is another typical of your outrageous distortions of those who disagree with you.YMS does not "hate" democracy.
Look, I'm sick to the back teeth of you accusing me of 'outrageous distortions'.Can't you read what YMS is writing?He does 'hate democracy'.And not just in 'science', but in his estimation of Communism.He thinks it means 'individual freedom'.
ALB wrote:Anyway, see the separate thread you asked for on the extent and limits of democracy.No, you tell YMS to take his anti-democratic tirades to the other thread; whilst he persists on this thread, I'll keep pointing out his 'anti-democratic hatred' of voting.
ALB wrote:That doesn't make me an anti-democrat but just a democrat who accepts that a vote is not necessarily the way to settle matters of opinion.So, how will society 'settle matters of opinion' in science? Ordeal by combat? Ordeal by fire? Consensus? Vendetta?Let Mengele decide, because he's educated?There seems to be a widespread fear of the 'masses' on this site, and I find it very unhealthy. I must say, given the SPGB's propaganda line, I'm very surprised.When the SPGB gain a majority in parliament, they are going to disband parliament and hand 'legitimacy' over to the parallel Workers' Councils, to legitimise "Workers' Power", aren't they? So that all the current state organs obey orders given by the Councils?I really am beginning to wonder about the seriousness that posters here place upon Workers (the proletariat) actually running everything. There is an undercurrent of elitism, which is most noticeable in YMS's posts, with his focus on mathematics, etc.Ask YMS who's going to tell him what to do and think under Communism.I'll answer 'My Commune'. I'll bet YMS doesn't – or a few others here.
LBird wrote:When the SPGB gain a majority in parliament, they are going to disband parliament and hand 'legitimacy' over to the parallel Workers' Councils, to legitimise "Workers' Power", aren't they? So that all the current state organs obey orders given by the Councils?There you go again projecting current terminology onto the future society and in the process causing confusion. I suggest before you go any further you read our pamphlet 'What's wrong in using parliament' so you digest and understand where we are coming from in reference to the revolutionary process and the decision making process in socialism in particular.Of course scientific decisions of importance will be taken up by the community, but for the general community to deal with scientific opinion and expect them to vote on it is not a practical proposition for them or the scientific community. Indeed, if this thread is anything to go by – which is riddled with opinion – it would be a great turnoff for the electorate and inevitably lead to a minority deciding which opinion holds water. Which is elitism, which we are all trying to avoid – including YMS.Democracy can be a two edged sword so can we try and keep the discussion focused on the thread title before we start dipping our toes in the decision making process for scientific progress and action. There is a specific thread for this type of discussion.
Materialists hold that every thing and event in the universe is physical in every respect. About the above statement, can anyone answer the following question without directing me to some cranky professor's long-winded,cryptic confusion. Is a thought material ?
Thought isn't an object, it's a process. Thoughts are nothing more than brain processes. Mental states are multi-realisable, meaning that thought x can be realised in multiple configurations of grey matter.Thought is a physical process occuring in brains like flow is a physical process occuring in rivers.What do you think? What good reason is there to think otherwise?But just as Strawson said in the paper quoted "If one hasn't felt a kind of vertigo of astonishment, when facing the thought that consciousness is a wholly physical phenomenon in every respect, then one hasn't begun to be a thoughtful materialist. One hasn't got to the starting line."
Reminder: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.
Well Northern Light and DJP, that's you two told, a side discussion regarding the processes of the human brain leading to thought has no place on a thread titled "Science for Communists".There have been a dozen times this thread has veered "off topic", yet now a bit of harmless discussion of actual science by a couple of socialists/communists appears, it's "off topic"? Weird.
This thread is titled, "Science for Communists". There is no specific branch of "science" circumscribed for discussion on this thread. As far as I understand, the discussion can bounce from the biological, to the psychological, to the "sociallly scientific", ETC ETC. All are valid topics for inclusion in a discussion on "science"!I think, to take every branch of "science" as it is brought up, on to a "seperate thread" would dilute from the object of this thread.Wideranging and disparate discussion is, to my mind, a necessity if we are to come to any conclusions re, "Science for Communists".
I concur, cdes. The 'mind' has been discussed thoroughly on this thread as part of the subject. I hope northern light is not put off entering into the debate
steve colborn wrote:Wideranging and disparate discussion is, to my mind, a necessity if we are to come to any conclusions re, "Science for Communists".I couldn't agree more, steve. Eventually, all disciplines will have to be discussed.The only reason for my focus upon 'physics' is that in every discussion I've ever had about 'science', and I've mentioned chemistry, biology, sociology, psychology, history, etc. etc., as a source of explanations or analogies, the response from the bourgeois-brainwashed is always "Ah, but that's not real science!".For those brought up in this society, the only 'science' is 'physics', and they demand that all models or theories pass the test of 'physics', even when the models and theories are really for a different 'science'.So, if Communists are ever going to argue about science, they need to already be aware of this, and be able to tackle the issue head-on, and destroy the ideological notion that 'physics' is the only 'real' science.'Physics' is a human activity, just like 'sociology', which is why I've tried to take this discussion forward on the basis of Marx's desire for a 'unified method', which applies equally to physics and sociology.I'm sure you're already aware of my opinion that Critical Realism seems to be the best candidate for this job.But first, we've got to get past the 'physicalists' and naive realists, who reject democracy in science.Whilst science is still regarded as an activity not amenable to proletarian democratic control, we're lost. We'll be at the mercy of an elite, who'll pretend to have a 'neutral method'.
LBird wrote:Whilst science is still regarded as an activity not amenable to proletarian democratic control, we're lost. We'll be at the mercy of an elite, who'll pretend to have a 'neutral method'.What if a communist majority vote for a 'neutral method'? What comes first, your ieology or democracy?
LBird wrote:We'll be at the mercy of an elite, who'll pretend to have a 'neutral method'.or at the mercy of an elite that claims there is no such thing
Please note a Reminder unlike a Warning is not aimed at any specific user but all users. #679&680 are not in breach of the guidelines and rules.
LBird wrote:I'm sure you're already aware of my opinion that Critical Realism seems to be the best candidate for this job.Unfortunately it seems no one else shares this opion.CR seems like a non starter not least for its insistence on occult like "non-physical casaul powers", what are they and how do they exert these powers? From what I can make out it's a bit like a reversion to ancient greek teleological explanations…
How fair do you think this summary is LBird?http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2013/09/14/more-words-on-critical-realism-getting-clear-on-the-basics/
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.