Capitalist Pig
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
sorry for the vulgarity he just really annoyed me when he said I was illiterate and stupid. I'll ignore comments like that from now on
that makes sense, varibles that scientists are unaware of may effect the outcome of their experiments which causes them to be fettered. Or the manner in which the scientists carry out their experiments becomes a varible to be reconized itself.
ok so you guys are basicly saying that all science is formed from ideologies, which means there is no such thing as objective thinking because everything we know is based on ideology
LB you did not reply to one of my questions but simply repeated your own positian time and time again, you insulted me because I did not adhere to your ideology and now you have insulted me again. Can you explain to me how this is a reasonable debate? Because it just sounds like some guy repeating what he read or heard. If you are not willing to challenge your own ideas then why am I wasting my time? because this is obviously degrading to child-like behavior.Thank you for your feedback
[/quote]That's what those who can't read posts and follow up the implications, and instead avoid those implications and constantly change the goalposts, always call those trying to help. It's almost as if the illiterate and ignorant can't identify their terrible condition…[/quote]by the way fuck you.First warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
Lbird I don't understand so science is not legidiment if social injustice occurs during particular experiments? Or are you just objected to all scienctific study because social injusice may occer? Science is all and the same no matter if social injustice occers during experiments, but you are saying otherwise?The outcome of experiments may be influencd by the interests of investors, which means the study is fettered. But are you saying all science funded by the capitalist class/ruling class is to be done away with and never mentioned again? In capitalism research and development is invensted in to realize a profit but useful and groundbreaking technologies will still be produced. Do you want to completely forget all the technological progress that has been funded by the state simply because it was funded by the state? If none of this is relevant to your idea of science and how it should be carried out and implemented in society then you should be clearer about your own ideological position because i'm stumped
Whilst you think that my views "classify all science as bias toward the interest of the capitalist class" and that they entail "burning books", we're not going anywhere soon.If you do believe that, it's no wonder you want to stick with 'science', the non-political sort. The fact that this is a 19th century belief, a myth still propagated, and widely believed today, shows to me the power of ruling class ideas. ok what is this myth because this is new to me. Your saying that i'm being influenced by the 'ruling class' concerning my ideas of 'science'. Is science not in the interest of the 'exploited class' or do you identify multible kinds of 'science' based on the 'social class' of the scientist? Ex. one scientist owns stocks or a business so that discredits all of his work because of these facts, or another scientist lives on only wages so by this fact alone makes his 'science' worth looking at? and my view of science is just a collection of knowledge and the pursuit of a greater knowledge in a multitude of subjects in the physical world.
the outcomes of experiments can have a certain bias toward the interests of the investors of them, this is true, but I don't believe it would be productive to classify all science as bias toward the interest of the capitalist class because they were funded by its members. I think this would be like burning books simply because almost all science today and in the past was funded by the ruling class
LBird wrote:I'd like to start a new thread to discuss 'science' with those who already consider themselves Communists.By that, I mean those who already share similar ideas to me about society.I think that I take a broadly Marxist perspective, and so don't consider myself an 'individual', but a 'worker'. I think 'ideas' are socially-produced and class-based, so that 'ideas about science' will also be of class origin. I think, again broadly, that there are two competing 'ideas' about the world (social and natural), that is, 'ruling class' ideas and 'exploited class' ideas, and that these are relevent to a discussion about 'science'.If any comrades post, and don't appear to share my 'ideology', the first thing that I'll do is to ask them what ideology they are employing.Can those comrades, who already know that they don't share my ideological views, please ignore this thread, because I don't think that they'll benefit from participation. If what I write appears to be 'too much' for those comrades, could they start their own thread to explain their disagreements; perhaps they could title this alternative thread of theirs "Science for Scientists", or somesuch.Instead of having all people specialize in all branches of science, you are trying to itentify social(rulingclass) and natural(exploited class) ideas in 'science'. I believed all science was 'science' regardless of the social background of the scientist but apparently this is untrue?
LBird wrote:No offence, CP, but I've been through these issues on a number of threads, and if you want to believe, from what you've read so far by my 'interpreters', that I think that 'everyone can specialize in all branches of scientific study' and that I desire 'individual uniformity', then I'll have to let you continue to hold on dearly to those myths!If you want to know what I actually think, you'll have to read those threads, and take account of what I actually say, rather than what others tell you that I say.If you're interested in ontology and epistemology, and do some background reading (of which I've done decades' worth), then you might be able to ask some questions to tempt me into further discussion. I started these threads simply to help other comrades avoid that long toil, and hopefully, help myself to develop further. But, on the former, I've failed. On the latter, I've advanced by leaps and bounds, but under my own steam, rather than collectively, as I wished.But, if that's not your bag, and you don't really want to understand why I don't argue that 'everyone can specialize in all branches of scientific study' (and the answer involves ontology and epistemology), then just pass over this thread, too.I'm sure that you can think of far more interesting things to do with your time! I can!I havn't even heard of those ideologies so I can see how I could have misinterperated your views.metaphiysics dealing with the nature of being and epistemology which has to do I guess with the interperatation of solid beliefs and opinions. so this thread isn't actually about communist theory but epistemology and ontology?confused…
I don't think everyone can specialize in all branches of scientific study that would be required in your module of social organization Lbird, not humanly possible. Communists strive for social equality not individual uniformity. I do not understand the term 'truth production' either because in the scientific world there is no such thing as an absolute truth, such thinking would prove to be subjective and illogical.
