[ALB]

Here's something (the bit in bold) from another thread which is better discussed here:

LBird wrote:

Our defence of science must rest upon Communist foundations, including the democratic control of all aspects of our future society: economy, polity, science… and ideology (including religion).[emphasis added].

I'm not too sure what the "democratic control of ideology" means. On the face of it, this could be interpreted as meaning that in a socialist/communist society people's ideas should also be subject to democratic control, but surely, in a future socialist society, the field of democratic decision-making will have its limits (matters of collective interest). I can't see it extending to such things as the way people dress, what they eat or what they think. In fact, if it did that would be worse than what happens now under capitalism. Surely these are matters for individual choice?.

[ALB]

It  wasn't meant as a sidetrack, but did have to be clarified. Glad you didn't mean it literally. Actually, it's not so much religion that I want to discuss as what are the limits to the field of democratic decision-making in a socialist/communist society, i.e what decisions can be left to individual choice and what to be made collectively. I'll post something on this already existing thread:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum/general-discussion/what-would-real-democracy-look

[ALB]

You are right. This entry needs correcting on a number of points. It reflects Lenin's, not Marx's, concept of socialism as a separate society (from communism) where the state and the working class will still exist. This was not Marx's view.Writing in 1875 he did envisage a "first stage of communist society" in which full free access to all goods and services might not be technologically possible (perhaps it wouldn't have been in 1875), but it was still a stage of "communist society", i.e a classless, stateless, moneyless society based on the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production. So, for him, even in its earliest days communist society there would be no classes (not even a working class) and no state.In fact, Marx and Engels used socialism" and "communism" (and other terms such as "association") interchangeably to describe the same type of society that would take over from capitalism. He preferred "communism". We prefer "socialism". But, in the end, it doesn't matter which term is used as they are simply different ways of referring to the same thing.For a more accurate description of what Marx meant by socialism see:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1973/no-832-december-1973/marxs-conception-socialismhttp://bataillesocialiste.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/lenin_reads_marx_on_socialism.pdf

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

I simply meant that 'religion' would be got rid of by democratic methods.

On the face of it, this is a bit worrying, especially as you also said that in future socialist/communist society "ideology" would also be under democratic control.I think we are all agreed that religion will have virtually died out by the time socialism is established, but I'can imagine that a small minority of people might continue to entertain religious views and customs. The way you've put it above could suggest that they will be banned as a result of a democratic vote.  Would that not be "thought control" as would telling (even by a democratic vote) people what "ideology" they should hold?Tell me that this isn't what you meant.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Our defence of science must rest upon Communist foundations, including the democratic control of all aspects of our future society: economy, polity, science… and ideology (including religion).

I meant to pick you upon this earlier but got distracted. What do you mean by "the democratic control of … religion" in future socialist/communist society? Depending on your reply might even be the subject for a separate thread.

[ALB]

The international Militant Tendency back infiltrating the Labour Party as the supposed "mass party of the working class". History repeating itself as a farce. I think I'll give this a miss.

[ALB]

Dave wrote:

It seems to me that what is needed is to start again in some ways and present to workers the idea that socialism is essentially democratic and that the wealth that is collectively produced should also be used to solve social problems rather than going into capitalist speculation.

Exactly, and that's what we tried to do during the whole period last century of Labour/Communist Party domination of radical working class thought, campaigning for socialism (defined as the common ownership and democratic control of the means of production) while they concentrated on try to get reforms to capitalism and/or state capitalism. What is still needed today is to campaign for socialism and a socialist party to do this in an organised way. Which is what we do.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

But to deal with your question, I'd say that the theory that the Earth goes round the Sun is very much more "certain", than its opposite (because of its explanatory and predictive power) just as the theory of evolution through natural selection is very much more certain than divine creation. In other words, while science doesn't (can't and doesn't seek to) produce absolute certainty it can produce an acceptable degree, even a very high degree, of "certainty", for all practical purposes.

Well, I agree with this.[…..]To finish, your words above, in effect if not in form, agree that it is possible to regard the 'sun going round the earth thesis' of the 17th century as 'true', in its time. This is an argument about 'knowledge' and its historical and social production, not an argument about 'what's most likely'.

So it appears that the only disagreement between you and the rest of us is whether or not it makes sense to say that it was "true", before 1700, to say that the Sun went round the Earth.I can't understand why you are prepared to go to the stake over this. To deny that this is the case is not to abandon a historical materialist approach to knowledge and scientific understanding. A case can still be made as to why the view that the Sun went round the Earth was adequate for practical purposes up to 1700 (an overwhelmingly agricultural society that just needed to know about the seasons) but not after, as for instance in that SPGB Education & Discussion document from 1980 (to do with the development of capitalism and industry).

Quote:

In the years before Newton's time capitalism had been developing apace; the charter of the Royal Society, to which he belonged, explicitly formulated certain scientific and technical problems for which a solution was urgently required. The large-scale steam engine had just come into service in the mines and a theory of mechanics was essential if its operation was to be understood and refined. How urgent this was Cromwell had disclosed during the Civil War, when in one year he required. 335 new cannon, 1500 guns, 117,000 cannon balls and 5000 hand bombs. War on such a scale required scientific and. technical sophistication. Moreover the application of the empirical arts of war required rationalisation and a theory was needed which would draw together much of the discrete experimentation on ballistics of the recent past, so that efficient warfare might be waged against trading competitors. Likewise with the heavier machinery which was beginning to be used in the weaving industry; the mechanical properties of the wood and metal parts required elucidating if breakages were to be avoided. Add to these the problems of navigation in an era of expanding world trade and you have a set of social and economic roots which sustained interest in the development of the theories in Newton's Principia. Observation and experience alone did not in this case determine the actions of the scientific community; the requirements of the nascent capitalist society must be added to them.

LBird wrote:

how you can be certain that the sun didn't go round the earth, as was thought, in the 17th century.

The answer is that we can be as certain that the Sun didn't go round the Earth before 1700 as we can that it doesn't today; in fact this is an integral part of the current, adequate theory of the solar system which allows us to say  that it is as "certain" as can reasonably be that the Earth has always gone round the Sun. We have ventured here from the field of astronomy to history and I can't see how you can deny that it was a historical "fact" (with all the qualifications that need to be attached to this word) that on 30 January 1649 the Earth went round the Sun just as that on that day Charles I was beheaded. Or are you saying we can't be "certain" of that either? And if we can be certain that Charles I was beheaded that day why can't we be equally certain that the Earth went round the Sunon that day too?You've gone unnecessarily out on a limb here, but it's not too late to climb back.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Say once, just once, that 'we are not certain' that the earth goes round the sun

As the creationist said to the evolutionist: admit that you are not certain that the theory of evolution is right …. so that creationism can be taught as an equal possibility. See this from an Islamic scholar (a contradiction in terms, I know):http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/has-evolution-been-misunderstood-revelation-science-and-certainty/Here's his opening gambit:

Quote:

Over the past few decades there has been a growing discourse on science, evolution and its compatibility with Divine revelation. This discourse can be summarised in the following way: the theory of evolution has been established as a scientific fact therefore a believer in a particular revealed text, such as the Qur’an, must reconcile evolution with their holy book. If there is no hope for reconciliation there are three main outcomes: the religious text is discarded, evolution is renounced, or a hope for a better understanding of the religious text and evolution in the future. However, in this growing discussion there is a hidden premise. This premise is that science produces certainty, evolution is fact and science is the only way to establish or verify truth claims. This premise is assumed in the popular discussion amongst many religious people, popular scientists and even the media, and by not bringing this premise to the forefront of the debate many Muslims (and fellow theists) have been left confused and disheartened.It is not the scope of this article to enter into a discussion concerning the various approaches taken by scholars and thinkers to reconcile evolution with revelation. What will be discussed is what can be described as a foundational approach to the discussion or what is sometimes referred to as an epistemic approach. We believe that this approach exposes the false assumption that the theory of evolution is a fact, or is certain. Therefore, the need for reconciliation is not entirely necessary. By understanding the scientific method and the philosophy of science, and applying the concepts and principles to evolution, it will be evident that it is not a fact, and thus does not reach the level of certainty. This is also true for many of the intellectual outputs of science[emphasis added].

You're on dangerous ground here. I  suggest a hasty retreat on your part might be advisable.But to deal with your question, I'd say that the theory that the Earth goes round the Sun is very much more "certain", than its opposite (because of its explanatory and predictive power) just as the theory of evolution through natural selection is very much more certain than divine creation. In other words, while science doesn't (can't and doesn't seek to) produce absolute certainty it can produce an acceptable degree, even a very high degree, of "certainty", for all practical purposes.PS Nearly forgot to ask: Would you say that the theory of evolution is more "certain" than that of divine cfreation? If so, why?

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

it seems that you, ALB and Brian have already taken the most difficult steps, with your acceptance of most of what we've discussed about object and knowledge, but the final step is to let go of 'science as certainty'.

How many times do we have to say that we do not subscribe to the the "science as absolute  certainty" or "science as discovery of reality as it is"  theories?And, how many times do we have to ask you to state what you consider to be the rules for deciding when a theory can be said to be accurate/adequate/truthful/even 99% certain?I suspect that your reluctance to do this is due to the fact that it won't be very different from ours (accuracy of prediction of the future course of phenomena), but we'll see (perhaps).In any event, what do think of this article on the various theories of truth (and in particular how would you refute the theory attributed to William James):http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/theories-of-truth.html

[ALB]

And of course there's the fate of the Co-operative Bank in the UK, forced to go to the Stock Exchange to raise more capital and avoid going under.  Those who believe in an "ethical" capitalism are just naive (apart from those who make money from it while their scheme lasts).

[ALB]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

We were very cynical of Occupy's self-appointed economics group

We were, mainly because of their funny money and currency crank theory about banks being able to create credit from nothing. I wouldn't be too sure that they would welcome this initiative as it will disprove their "thin air" theory of banking.The "Occupy Money Cooperative" is not actually a bank (though they seem to have plans to become one). They are appealing for nearly $1 million start-up capital and will have to at least balance the books from the fees they will charge to people who use their card. The planned Occupy bank would have to do the same and would not be able to lend more than will be deposited in it or which they will borrow.It might never get off the ground as so far they have only raised less than $7000.

[ALB]

It will be interesting to see which platform gets the less votes at the founding Conference of the new reformist party on 30 November: the "CPGB" one or the one presented by "Workers Power"?

[ALB]

He does not seem to realise how insulting it is to tell someone they are a member of intellectually inferior "race".  But it's clearly time to stop feeding him.

[ALB]

I know this is turning round in circles (but it's better than ploughing through the crap from that racist on another thread), but I don't think your justification for saying that before 1700 it was "true" to say that the Sun moved round the Earth holds water. One consequence of this approach would be that we would have to say that, before the first humans evolved, nothing was "true", that the Earth and Sun didn't even exist (I know that both the "Earth" and the "Sun" are intellectual constructs out of the passing world of observable phenomena and don't exist independently of it and that at the time there was no one to so construct them, but still).In any event, part of the current theory that the Earth moves round the Sun is that it has done so ever since the solar system came into existence. So it was "true" before 1700 and it was "true" before humans evolved. So, before 1700, it was not "true" that Sun moved round the Earth and it is a mistake to say that it was.Far more logical to take Brian's misunderstanding of your position and say that before 1700 it was believed to be "true" that the Sun moved round the Earth.This is not to adopt a position of "ahistorical absolute certainty" since if later the current theory should prove to be inadequate then people who have to say that since 1700 it was believed that it was true but now we know it wasn't.If having to say that it was once "true" that the Sun moved round the Earth (or that the ether existed or even that gods existed) is a consequence of the theory of knowledge propounded by Dietzgen and Pannekoek then that theory would be fatally flawed, repudiated by the method of reductio ad absurdum.

[Author]

Posts