Science for Communists?
- This topic has 1,435 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Young Master Smeet wrote:"widest dissemination of information",No subscription costs for learned journals, well stocked libraries with no membership costs, open access to datasets where practicable (subject to reasonable privacy of participanmts in experiments)"open debate"No pre-censorship, peer reviewed journals, free association and adequate resources made for groups to promulgate opinion."maximum number of people"the debate never ends.
To this list, I'd add:'An education system from kindergarten to post-PhD research open to all, in any subject that they choose, at any point in their lives'.'An education system that teaches critical thinking about any 'truths', and thus stresses that choices have to be made about 'truths', and that the best 'chooser' is the widest possible number of people'.'The linking of any form of power, authority and legitimacy with political ideology, because all power, authority and legitimacy has a political basis and political implications for society. That would include all forms of 'science', because science is a social and historical activity by societies, not an activity by 'special individuals', and so anything produced by science is under democratic control'.'Any debates about the 'truthfulness' or otherwise of 'facts', produced by any science (from physics to sociology), must be resolved by a vote'.'Any truths that have been elected (because that is what democratic control implies), just like any elected policy, are always subject to criticism and debate by the whole of society. This implies that we will always search for 'candidate-truths' to help undermine those 'truths' that have been elected as our present 'Truth''.
Vin wrote:robbo203 wrote:So answer the question LBird: would just anyone be allowed to fly a plane regardless of experience or qualifications? Yes or No? No beating about the bush, please. Lets have a straight answer for once. And, no , nobody is "separating society into a two". I can do things in my line of work which I bet a university trained nuclear physicist wouldn't have a clue about. And I'm a horny handed son of toil and proud of it.. What is your expertise BTW?Robbo, this question was asked of LBird at the start of the thread by myself and others. His reply to you and Dave B is the only answer we are going to get.
Yes I know, Vin, but in the naive hope that I might get a straight answer to a straight question I persisted in asking the question but to no avail. Its like trying to get blood out of stone as I'm coming to realise. And he is at again. "since 'truth' is a social product, that the 'truth' of any scientific knowledge should be decided by society, using democratic means"This is ludicrous. Because something is a "social product" does not necessarily mean it should be subjected to "democratic control". That is flawed logic. My toothbrush is a social product. Does that mean 7 billion inhabitants on planet earth should democratically vote on whether I should be allocated a toothbrush and when I might use it. Of course not. LBird is absolutely clueless about what democracy is supposed to be for. Ditto scientific knowledge. How in hell's name are 7 billion people expected to vote, not just on one scientific theory, but thousands upon thousands of them? This is beyond insane. I sometimes wonder if LBird even has any inkling of what he is saying or is it just a knee jerk mantra in his case. How is what he proposes even remotely possible in a logistic sense and what is the point of voting on a scientific theory anyway. LBird never ever answers these questions and he wonders why no one takes him seriously. Quite apart from anything else how does he imagine one would be able to vote on something without knowing what it is you are voting on in the first place. There is no way any one individual no matter how how brainy or highly trained can grasp more than a small fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge. Ergo short of suggesting we should become omniscient overnight what he proposes is out of the question The irony is that he throws a hissy fit when asked a simple question: would just anyone be allowed to fly a plane regardless of experience or qualification. Yet in his fantasy world all 7 billion of us are supposed to eminently qualified, not only in the mechanics of flying a plane, but in every conceivable branch of science in order to "democratically" vote on the truth of scientific theories. Anthing short of that is advocating "elitism" in his book (another term – like democracy – he doesnt understand)How ridiculous.
For those comrades interested about reading further into the issues of science, Marx, and our social relationship with nature, here is another recommendation:Gerard DelantySocial Science: Beyond Constructivism and Realismhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Science-Constructivism-Concepts-Sciences/dp/0335198619Although I don't agree with everything he writes, his book is a cheap and informative introduction to some of the issues.
Another reading recommendation, comrades, about physics and its politics.
Ball, p.25 wrote:It became clear to [Max] Born that what he began to call a ‘quantum mechanics’ could not be constructed by minor amendment of classical, Newtonian mechanics. ‘One must probably introduce entirely new hypotheses’, [Werner] Heisenberg wrote… Born agreed, writing that summer [of 1923] that ‘not only new assumptions in the usual sense of physical hypotheses will be necessary, but the entire system of concepts of physics must be rebuilt from the ground up’. That was a call for revolution, and the ‘new concepts’ that emerged over the next four years amounted to nothing less.[my bold]Philip BallServing the Reich: The Struggle for the Soul of Physics Under Hitlerhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Serving-Reich-Struggle-Physics-Hitler/dp/1847922481The ‘rocks’ do not talk to us, comrades. Humans employ concepts to understand. Concept formation precedes observation. We try to find what we already think exists. We select.This is Marx’s ‘theory and practice’, his ‘idealism-materialism’.Whilst comrades continue to look to ‘materialism’ (or its modern equivalent, ‘physicalism’), they’ll remain confined in a 19th century straitjacket.Societies determine what they see, not the rocks. Humans are the active side, as Marx said in the Theses on Feuerbach, not ‘matter’.
Stop repeating yourself ad nauseam. Rocks don't talk to materialists. You continue with your misrepresentations and Straw men.
LBird wrote:Another reading recommendation, comrades, about physics and its politics.Ball, p.25 wrote:It became clear to [Max] Born that what he began to call a ‘quantum mechanics’ could not be constructed by minor amendment of classical, Newtonian mechanics. ‘One must probably introduce entirely new hypotheses’, [Werner] Heisenberg wrote… Born agreed, writing that summer [of 1923] that ‘not only new assumptions in the usual sense of physical hypotheses will be necessary, but the entire system of concepts of physics must be rebuilt from the ground up’. That was a call for revolution, and the ‘new concepts’ that emerged over the next four years amounted to nothing less.[my bold]Philip BallServing the Reich: The Struggle for the Soul of Physics Under Hitlerhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Serving-Reich-Struggle-Physics-Hitler/dp/1847922481
Doubt if Ball is saying what you seem to imply he is saying – at least in the context of this discussion. He is talking about a revolutionary change in the conceptual basis of Physics; he is not talking about all 7 bllion of us- the global population – becoming knowledgeable and trained Physicists and "democratically" voting from the ground up to replace one set of concepts with another – your crackpot idea. Some of us have got other things to do than devote years of our lives becoming acquainted with the intricacies of theoretical Physics, ya' know…
LBird wrote:The ‘rocks’ do not talk to us, comrades. Humans employ concepts to understand. Concept formation precedes observation. We try to find what we already think exists. We select.This is Marx’s ‘theory and practice’, his ‘idealism-materialism’.Whilst comrades continue to look to ‘materialism’ (or its modern equivalent, ‘physicalism’), they’ll remain confined in a 19th century straitjacket.Societies determine what they see, not the rocks. Humans are the active side, as Marx said in the Theses on Feuerbach, not ‘matter’.Yes, and who exactly is it here that is supposed to be disagreeing with the above sentiments? Your irritatingly repetitive "rocks dont talk" mantra is a boring banality. Dont you think it is time you changed the record and moved on, eh?
Robbo and Vin continue to avoid what 'science' is telling us. "Surely, it can't mean that!"21st century science, of course – the preferred 'science' of the materialists is 19th century.The 'individualists' who have access to 'Material Truth' will not have democracy in science, and a vote by society on its truths.They keep telling us that the 'rocks' hold the truth, and that we can't be allowed to determine our truth about rocks.If humans determine 'truth', then for a Communist society, built upon democratic methods, 'truth' must be a social decision, not a decision by an elite.Back to your non-voting 'rocks', robbo. You're an individualist and an elitist, and you won't have others telling you what 'truth' is, because you claim to have an access all of your own to 'matter'.You've said all this before – you actually said that you won't have 10 comrades outvoting you on your 'own' knowledge. You really believe that you as an individual know better than a wider majority.Because you, like your 'elite experts' (physicists, mathematicians and academics), regard yourselves as 'special individuals', and you won't have the 'despised mass' telling you anything, will you? 'No democracy here!', they maintain.Only democracy in science is acceptable for socialists. That means all social production, including truth.BTW, Vin and robbo, try reading some of the books that I've recommended – you might get a surprise.
Same old bollocks, Lbird. I/we have already answered you, but you don't answer our questions.Do we need experts to research cancer, physics, or will we all be experts in everything. Answer the questions
Dave B wrote:Against this is the non macroscopic idea of; would planes be flown by a democratic committee or decisions about how to put out a fire not be left to the expertise of the trained fire fighters etc?robbo203 wrote:So answer the question LBird: would just anyone be allowed to fly a plane regardless of experience or qualifications? Yes or No? No beating about the bush, please. Lets have a straight answer for once.You're going to have to read the books, Vin.I can't do that for you.The answer is: 'Since Communist society will democratically control production, and 'truth' is produced by societies, then 'truth production' must be democratically controlled'.That is, 'Truth' will be elected, and perhaps later rejected, by society as a whole, not by 'elite experts'.And, talking of 'flying planes by democratic means', the recent tragedy in the Alps sheds a new light on 'control by a single expert, unassailable by the passengers or crew'.There's a metaphor there, about placing our collective hopes in experts who are beyond democratic controls, and where we'll end up.How many lessons does our society need, after Mengele, Shipman, and now Lubitz, and about the myth of 'neutral science'?Faith in ourselves, as collective humanity, is the answer, not faith in experts.You'd think that this would be 'bread and butter' for socialists.
LBird wrote:Back to your non-voting 'rocks', robbo. You're an individualist and an elitist, and you won't have others telling you what 'truth' is, because you claim to have an access all of your own to 'matter'.You've said all this before – you actually said that you won't have 10 comrades outvoting you on your 'own' knowledge. You really believe that you as an individual know better than a wider majority.Are you quite well LBird and not currently partaking of some illegal substance perchance? I've "actually said" that? When? Give me the details. Thread and post number please. (Oh and I guess Saint LBird is totally different. After all, he – god forbid! – doesnt pretend to "know better" than a "wider majority" even though the wider majority on this forum completely opposes the nonsense he spouts – even if that doesnt seem to stop him continuing to spout such nonsense! His actions speak louder than, and contradict, his words )I've said nothing of the sort and you damn well know it, LBird. What I actually said is that I couldn't really see the point of voting for a scientific theory because, if you believe it to be correct and the majority think otherwise, then the mere fact that majority think otherwise is not going to dissuade you and indeed ought not dissuade you from holding that theory. If most people believed that the sun revolved around the earth rather than the earth around would you abandon the idea of a heliocentric universe and meekly fall in line? Yes or No LBird? Oh I forgot – you are not into answering straight questions with straight answers. Silly me
LBird wrote:Because you, like your 'elite experts' (physicists, mathematicians and academics), regard yourselves as 'special individuals', and you won't have the 'despised mass' telling you anything, will you? 'No democracy here!', they maintain.You are so full of crap, it is difficult to know where to even begin deconstructing this idiocyFor a start, I am by my own admission one of the despised mass you rant on about it. I recognise fully my own limitations. I could not, for example, begin to debate with a trained astrophysicist on the merits of, say , String theory (to use my previous example) because I know next to nothing about it. However, that trained astrophysicists may well know next to nothing about things that I know . We are ALL special individuals LBird in that we are all different – a thought which you just cant seem to wrap your head around Secondly, nobody is saying one should not tell somebody who happens to be knowledgeable about a particular subject a thing or two about the subject. Im all for that. In fact I have said quite categorically that I absolutely oppose any restriction on anyone whatsoever making a contribution to scientific theory, Restricting people in that way would indeed be "elitist" and I am opposed root and branch to such elitism. However you cant expect people to make a contribution to some branch of scientific knowledge if they don't have some grounding in it in the first place. Is that an unreasonable proposition to make? Of course not, How the hell can you say something about some obscure theory in say molecular biology if you don't know what it is about in the first place, eh?. To know what it is about you have study it, read up about it , and experiment. All of which takes time and resources. The difference between "elitism" and this is that this is a kind of unavoidable self imposed restriction. It stems from the opportunity costs of decision makingwhich you dont seem to understand at all. If you want to become a trained astrophysist then the the opportunity cost of that may be forfeiting the opportunity to become a trained molecular biologist a result We don't all have the time to become a trained astrophysicist and we certainly don't have the time to be become BOTH a trained astrophysicist AND a trained molecular biologist. Yet you expect all of us to be competent enough in EVERY single field of scientific endeavour in order to be able to "democratically vote" on the totality of scientific theories. This is beyond insane
LBird wrote:Only democracy in science is acceptable for socialists. That means all social production, including truth.Like I said, you don't under stand either the scientific process or the democratic process. You don't understand their purpose of function As for social production I have asked you this before but as usual you have completely ignored my question: would there be localised decision making in your fantasy world? Would there be say a town or village where it is essentially only the people who live there who happen to intimately know the town or village they reside in where they want to site, say, a new medical centre. If so how is this different from a dispersed scientific community of astrophysicists who happen to know about String Theory unlike the rest of us . Most of us like me I guess couldn't really be arsed to know om great detail. There are other things about the world that I find a lot more interesting frankly. See, to be consistent LBIrd you would have to rule out any idea of local decision making in your fantasy world because to have local decision making by your warped logic is the equivalent of allowing experts to decide the merits id some scientific theory, So that means in your fantasy world every decision relating to social production would be taken by all 7 billion inhabitants of planet Earth and there could be no such thing as sub-global planning – yes? That makes you an advocate of society wide central planning . There will be only one single mind that will address the totality of social [production and it will be global in scope. Though you don't seem to realise it your position is actually a Leninist one and while you declare yourself in favour of democracy in practise what you advocate will turn out to be the most viciously anti democratic dispensation imaginable. The sheer futility of what you advocate will be the pretext on which a tiny elite will assuredly grasp the reins of social power and impose their decisions on the majority by diktat while pretending to embody the democratic will of that self same majority
robbo, it would be a better use of your time to read one of the books that I've recommended (Delanty, perhaps?) rather than keep indulging in lengthy diatribes.Unless you engage on a philosophical level, it's pointless trying to explain to you.
Hi LBirdi won't impinge too much on your discussion, and while I think it is a very good thing to get the broad mass of people educated and involved with as many matters of society as possible, could you just answer me one thing:If in the days when most people believed that the Sun orbited the Earth, a vote of the population had been taken to confirm this, would the result have been "the truth"?Meel
Meel wrote:If in the days when most people believed that the Sun orbited the Earth, a vote of the population had been taken to confirm this, would the result have been "the truth"?Yes, it was.But irrelevant to our concerns, now.We have three factors to consider:1. We're Communists, who insist that the means of production must be under democratic control;2. Science since Einstein has taught us that 'truth' is a social and historical construct, and not an eternal, universal 'Truth', as alleged by 19th century science;3. Marx argued, as did others influenced by German Idealism, that both external reality and human consciousness are required, and that it's consciousness that is the 'active side', not 'matter'.So, if one is not a Communist, doesn't know anything about modern physics (especially Einstein's views) and disagrees with Marx's Theses on Feuerbach, then one can continue to hold the ideological belief, propagated by the bourgeoisie, that when science tells us something, like 'the earth orbits the sun', that it can be taken as an eternal, universal Truth.It's then a short step to having faith in a 'neutral method' (ie., non-political method), employed by 'disinterested' physicists, who thus retain power, authority and legitimacy when faced with workers' demands for the 'democratic control of production'. The bourgeoisie continue to pretend they have such disinterested, neutral academics, because they use the fake 'legitimacy' conferred by 'science' to argue that 'democracy' is impossible when faced with 'elite-expert' opinion.I'm a Democratic Communist, Meel, so I would argue these opinions. All science is political. And science must be under our democratic control.If you're not a Communist and a Democrat, then you can ignore my opinions. You won't share my ideology of science.
LBird wrote:robbo, it would be a better use of your time to read one of the books that I've recommended (Delanty, perhaps?) rather than keep indulging in lengthy diatribes.Unless you engage on a philosophical level, it's pointless trying to explain to you.You still dont get it do you, LBird? Philosophically, I dont have a problem with what you are saying about "idealism-materialism". That has never been the issue at least as far as I am concerned – as well you know – and doubtless others here as well. The problem is your preposterous suggestion that scientific theories should be subjected to a democratic vote by the global population. You simply refuse to explain HOW or WHY, despite every request to do so. In your recent response to Vin, you say: 'Since Communist society will democratically control production, and 'truth' is produced by societies, then 'truth production' must be democratically controlled'. That is, 'Truth' will be elected, and perhaps later rejected, by society as a whole, not by 'elite experts'. Are you saying that in a communist society as a whole – global society – will democratically control the totality of production and there will be no regional or local decisionmaking? YES OR NO Are you saying that in a communist society everyone in society must acquire the level of expertise exhibited by experts today not just in one branch of science but in every branch (something which no expert let alone lay person alive today can remotely claim to have acquired) YES OR NO If the above is not what you what you are saying do you think it is possible to meaningfully vote on something if you dont have any inkling of what the vote is about? YES OR NO Please answer these questions with an honest straightforwar answer, LBird. Stop trying to constantly divert attention away from these questions to irritation of just about everyone here, and try for once to once, to engage with what this debate is really about. Stop trying to deflect blame on others when you have only yourself to blame for the complete incredulity which your posts give rise to
robbo203 wrote:You still dont get it do you, LBird?Philosophically, I dont have a problem with what you are saying…No, your 'problem' with 'what I'm saying' is merely a 'political' one.You won't have democratic science. You argue for elite science.The final arbiter of 'truth' must be society: if necessary, all 7 billion must vote.Socialism must start from the premise that 'scientific explanation' is understandable by all.Science must be open to all, as the producer of concepts, as a social activity to test those concepts, as the arbiter of the truth of the results of those activities.There will be no 'Latin-speaking priests', who are seen as the source of 'The Truth' about a 'reality' that remains unfathomable to 'the uneducated, uncaring, illiterate, masses'.If any scientist claims to 'know' something, they will have created this 'knowledge' by social means, in a historical context, 'matter' will not have 'spoken to them', and they will be compelled to explain this socially-created 'knowledge' to us all.With the revolution, will come a Reformation in bourgeois science. The Bible will be open to all.You hate this sort of talk, robbo, because it smacks, to you, of 'bringing politics into science'.I've got news for you, mate: science is, and always has been, a political activity. Only purveyors of bourgeois ideology argue otherwise, because they need to preserve the power, authority and legitimacy of an 'elite science' to bolster their own undemocratic power.And 'special individuals', like you, who will not have their comrades 'telling them what to think!'. Who needs the aid of their comrades to think, when they have access to a disinterested, neutral method, beloved of all 'special individuals', who hanker for 'free association', rather than 'workers' power'.Individualists always reject democracy, because democracy implies power outside of the individual."From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" is not an individualist slogan, but a collective one.Society determines 'abilities and needs', not an individual their own. In that sense, 'association' is not 'free'. 'Freedom' is a democratic act, the right to participate, not to secede. We are all inescapably social beings, with all the rights and responsibilities that that brings.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.