[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

I posted a link to an article from the Economist earlier on in this thread and it pointed out the problems in science coming from the pressures of capitalism, obviously it didn't lay blame on capitalism. What it highlighted was the distortion of many scientific findings due to economic pressure etc.So in reality the ideology of capitalism does have an effect on many scientific findings. If you "sex up" or fail to rigorously verify your findings because you are hunting for the next bit of funding or pandering to your corporate sponsor, then the ideology of money is playing its part in your scientific research. I expect that is applicable to every area of scientific enquiry in our money orientated society..

Yes I'm not denying that capitalism affects *how* science is carried out but that is not quite what I was trying to get at. How do we go about sorting out the "bad" science from "good"? What kind of methods and questions do we need to use? What is it that makes one thing "true" and another "false"? I think the answer is the same regardless of what type of society we live in.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Have you really nothing better to do? I know I have, and I'm beginning to resent this continued waste of my time, and my wasted efforts to encourage some discussion about science and Communism.

You're welcome to keep posting here but have you had better luck anywhere else? This isn't the only forum for communist types. There's libcom.org for a start…But if you keep getting the same result isn't that telling you something?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Why won't you reveal your ideology?

Because you're asking an impossible question.I think by "ideology" you mean something like "web of belief"If I where to tell you my ideology was "abracadabra-ism" this wouldn't magically transfer everything I know and think or think I know from my head and into yours. It would still be left to explain everything that we have been here….Yes I think humans are social animals and knowledge and language are social products. But never the less I still don't think the transition from capitalism to socialism will affect how we observe the laws of physics.. Was the transistion from fuedalism accompanied with such changes?

[DJP]

It's a very small site with some introductory articles on socialism, links to companion parties, some WSM journals and a page of videos – that's about it..

rodshaw wrote:

Presumably, http://www.worldsocialism.org is doing exactly what it's supposed to do – representing the WSM as a whole. There are links in there to our companion parties as well as to ourselves.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Why won't you declare your political position on science?Why not just say 'science is outside of politics', or 'rocks can be understood by individuals without employing an ideology', and we can start to locate your 'true' beliefs?

No I don't see how capitalist ideology affects the findings of geology or astronomy or any other science where the area of enquiry is not related to class power.If you could calmly and clearly explain why you think otherwise I might change my mind. But surely at some stage this will involve touching upon "truth" and other things…

[DJP]

Actually Bertrand Russell did also write some really succint and clear introductory books about philosophy, and they're now all in the public domain. I recomend a look, even if our censor of the proletariat disagrees…

LBird wrote:

SocialistPunk wrote:

So the use of convoluted words and phrases has it's roots firmly in elitism, not some notion about efficiency of discussion. What's easy about having to learn an outmoded language or a set of made up words to be able to engage in discussion?A socialist revolution would open up this elitist world and demand that experts be able to explain their ideas in less than 300 pages of waffle. Part of the democratisation of knowledge, that would expand learning among a global socialist community.

I couldn't agree more with SP, here.Of course, sometimes there is a need for words/terms/phrases which are very specific, but these should still be understandable, once clearly explained.The reason for their introduction must be 'specificity', not 'obfuscation'. In others words, to 'clarify', not to 'hide'.New 'terms' would have to be submitted to the 'New Science Terms' elected sub-committee of the world proletariat, for approval.And I'm afraid I'd vote for Russell to be put in the 'remedial explainers' class. Along with YMS!That's spelt 'schadenfreude', or 'base 0', just for you, YMS.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

No, you're just determined to derail a thread named 'Science for Communists' into one concerned with 'Truth for Liberals', along with YMS's concerted attempts to reduce the focus to 'Maths for Conservatives'.

Sorry I keep forgetting you're the only communist in the village.No true scotsman would come out with this kind of thing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[DJP]

This spam was bought to by David Dundale.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I think you're missing the point of 'science', DJP.That is, to tell us 'why', not merely 'what'.The listing of 'what' is around us is endless and, essentially, meaningless.

I thought, at this stage, we where talking about truth, and what it is that would show a theory to be true or false..Or have I just accidentally ended up in the argument clinic again!?

[DJP]

SocialistPunk wrote:

There are differing schools of thought within mathematics and I'm sure that what one school sees as a proven fact the others would probably disagree. That pesky bias again.

I'm not sure that is actually the case with mathematics, would be interesting if someone could find a real life example…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Yes, but is this your meaning of the term?

It depends in what context the word is being used. I am not humpty dumpty I cannot change the meaning of words at random. They are many things that "science" could mean it depends what aspect one is talking of. That is why it is necesarry to explain what you are talking about..

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

In this case it means since at least the time of the ancient greeks…

[my bold]So, by inference, it's possible that during the time of the Sumerians the events were different? What about during the Jurassic Period?

I don't know what that has to do with the above.I was describing what was in a book that is about the history and development of the concept "truth", it starts from the ancient greeks because they where the first people to write down philosophy…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

So, are 'the proletariat' engaged, or an 'elite'? Is 'those' a 'class' or a collection of 'special individuals'?

Science, on one meaning of the term, is just and activity anyone can do.Here's a famous bit of science done by a 9 year proletarian girl.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Rosa

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Every "truth" comes with it's own metric. So the "truth" and reliability of a tide table is determined not by the class background or political ideology of the person that composed the table but by it's reliability on it predicting the tide level into the future.

Yet another attempt to sidetrack from the discussion of the philosophical basis of science, and produce an unhistorical, unsocial, anecdotal account of 'eternal truth'.

Not at all, who's to say that the frequency and level of the tide will not alter in the future.

LBird wrote:

'Over millennia', eh? Sounds like 'Eternal Truth' to me.

In this case it means since at least the time of the ancient greeks…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

FFS, 'who' determines, and 'how', the human judgement of 'reliable'?

Who? Those engaged in the activity that the knowledge relates to.Every "truth" comes with it's own metric. So the "truth" and reliability of a tide table is determined not by the class background or political ideology of the person that composed the table but by it's reliability on it predicting the tide level into the future..I stole that example from Simon Blackburn's book "Truth" which describes the conflict between relativism and absolutism over the millennia and why, in the end, we do not have to worry about it. 

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Probably most science is actually abduction, look it up.

As usual, the sneering tone at the forefront, the method of 'big words to scare the uneducated unwashed', and the disdain to actually explain what you mean.

There's no sneering tone. As we are talking about science I thought people would be interested in it.FWIW "Abduction" means something like "infering to the best explanation when faced with incomplete data". Sherlock Holmes did not "deduce" but actually "abducted" to the most likely explanation.There's more here:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Science is NEITHER 'deductive' NOR 'inductive'.

The trouble is there is no singular "science" or "scientific method".Probably most science is actually abduction, look it up..

LBird wrote:

Criticism of existing 'truths', both physical and social, is the aim of science, not 'storing up' a library of 'Truth' which once discovered, remains on the shelf, until the shelf is full of all 'truth' and we become an all-knowing, all-seeing god. That was what 19th century philosophy thought science was, but we now know better. Or should do.

Well I agree with the first bit but what is "19th century philosophy"? There was as much a diversity of ideas then as they are now, for example Hume's radical sceptism dates back to the 18th century and lot of what you are saying has been drawn from that…

[Author]

Posts