[DJP]

admice wrote:

I assume you mean CLASS consciousness?

Yes that and more to. How people see themselves and their place in the world.

[DJP]

FWIW here's a short extract from an SPGB pamphlet on dialectical materialismhttp://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/dialectical-materialism-spgb-1974

[DJP]

Clearly we are all products of capitalist society, but from that it doesn't follow that we all end up thinking the same thing. Therefore what we think is not under the control of the property owning minority as LBird has tried to claim. If it where how would we be having this discussion in the first place?Consciousness is shaped by the contradictory and opaque nature of production relations it is through the dynamic interplay of these antagonistic relations that consciousness develops.

[DJP]

gnome wrote:

Your commitment and contribution are not in doubt.  What some of us can't understand is why you are the only one doing all of this when there are seven bods on the IC, some with seemingly impeccable credentials…

Because when it comes to Drupal configuration and problem shooting I'm the only one that knows how to do it. Some members may have in depth knowledge of other areas of computer science but not Drupal specifically.Other members do assist with the uploaded of new articles etc, as you do, but the mechanics part of it does require a certain amount of specialist knowledge, hence the decision to approach a professional developer…

[DJP]

gnome wrote:

What I do know is the succession of issues since the launch of the new website including Gateway Timeouts, failure of the online shop and now this latest problem has to be deterring visitors. No disrespect intended, but if the magnificient seven can't address these continuing problems then the EC needs to find someone who can even if they're from outside the party.

FWIW there's only one member that is involved with running and maintaining the machinery of the website and that's me. The webshop was fixed within one hour of me being made aware of the problem. I think I know what will remedy the glitch with the site search, but it will take a days work to sort out. In the meantime you can search the site using the google search option here:With regards to site performance we are currently liasing with a specialist in page caching and Drupal performance so there will be improvements very soon.I can easily set up a newsletter but it needs someone to volunteer to do it and it's not a high priority now, the last one was ditched because no-one was subscribed to it..As all of this has to be done in our spare time so please be patient.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

If science does not produce 'certain' knowledge (and science already tells us that it doesn't), this lets in the social aspect.Once this is done, it's as 'scientifically valid' to start from the Koran, which will 'explain and predict' from a 'Muslim science' perspective.That's our problem, in a nutshell. We have to find a social basis for 'Communist science'.There are no bald 'scientifically arrived at ones'. That is to posit a socially-neutral method of science. You (and ALB) seem to agree that this doesn't exist, without realising its implications.

But where are you getting your certainty from?How do you know that what you are claiming above is true?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

The litmus test of this, though, is my question about the 17th century sun/earth realtionship. To argue that it was 'untrue', because we now know the 'truth', is not possible.The only answer we can give is that "it was 'true' then', but it's 'untrue' now, and in the future we recognise the possibility that it could be 'true', yet again".

OK, we might be getting somewhere now.All you are saying here is that knowledge is that knowledge is uncertain, that's fine.The problem with your answer is that there is never a certain set of knowledge that is accepted by all people at all times. In the 17th century there where people who took either side of the sun / earth orbit. So when you say "it was true that the sun went round the earth in the 17th century" all you are really saying is that "in the 17th century more people thought that the sun went round the earth than thought the opposite", you are only referring to the relative truth.[In fact a poll taken in America in 1999 revealed that 18% of those asked thought that the sun revolved around the earth (3% had no opinion)]We need to have a critior to enable us to evaluate competing claims. This criteria will never give us 100% certainty. So whilst appreciating that we can (probably) never know the absolute truth when faced with two competing claims we should choose the one that offers the most explanatory and predictive power. Through the gradual accumulation of successes and failures the social venture that is science is gradually building up a body of knowledge that does for our practical purposes lead to a very high degree of certainty.BTW Classical physics is not wrong, it has just been shown to be a partial truth (so no surprise there). It still explains the movements of the celestial bodies, it's just that further interrogation of nature suggests that there is another granular level of existence going on..So "Science doesn't produce absolute truth therefore the Koran is equally valid" can be argued against because religious arguments do not hold the same predictive and explanatory power as scientifically arrived at ones.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

You apparently 'hold' that it's 'certain' that the earth goes round the sun. So, end your curiosity, look in the mirror, switch on, start reading more widely, pay attention to what I'm writing, and don't look for 'badly written science textbooks', but search closer to home with your 'badly written posts'.Enlightenment might follow.

Oh dear. Myself and others have repeated stated we do not hold this position yet you keep claiming we do…. If there was someone who is producing books that put forward a "naive realist" viewpoint I thought it would be good to know about it, and if there was you would know…

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

I must say, I don't like the tone of your post, and if you don't desist in taking the piss, and engage in a comradely and constructive fashion, things might well change.

OK apologies. Let me rephrase. Seeing as you've said that "science is ideology" and "science does not produce truth" on what basis do you hold your acceptance off communism as a possible practicle reality? I.e on what grounds do you justify your ideology. It's an honest question I mean no harm by it.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

But its philosophical importance is that this position undermines the notion of scientific 'certainty'.

I'm curious to know who you think actually holds this position? Some badly written science textbooks perhaps?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

If we believe that humans can collective control the economy, and there will be an end to private property, we must believe that humans have the capacity to collectively control their science.

But why do YOU believe those thing are possible? On what basis? Did Allah tell you? Or you just felt it to be true?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Rovelli wrote:

But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

But what is it about a theory that makes it the "best we have now"?

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

Rovelli wrote:

 Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong,

So what makes it false? The fact that people don't believe that it is true?

[DJP]

ALB wrote:

Brian, to help you understand the whole debate, have a look at this:http://voices.yahoo.com/7-steps-understanding-characteristics-postmodernism-3730670.html?cat=4

A lot of this debate is also covered in chapters 7 and 8 of Alan Sokal's "Beyond the Hoax". For what it is worth I'm all in favour of the kind of "modest realism" that is proposed here.

[DJP]

LBird wrote:

The 'truth' produced by our interaction, through conceiving, building and launching probes and satellites, with a really-existing external world is a 'social construct'.

If you are talking about what is "true for" people, i.e what they believe to be true i.e the partial or relative truth then I would agree.Note the difference in meaning from "relative" to "absolute" truth. What people believe to be true is always a partial and relative truth but what really is true is determined by how well the knowledge lines up with the absolute truth or nature and the cosmos. The trouble is we can't absolutely and forever fully grasp this truth, and if we could there would be no need to do science in the first place.

LBird wrote:

You identify object and knowledge as identical entities, and so you can't separate out that 'truth' relates to 'knowledge' and is therefore a 'social construct'. This social construct is produced by asking questions of the object, which really exists.

No, you think I think that. Truth, the absolute truth, which is the kind that we are interested in here since the question I posed to you was "how do you assess the truth of competing claims?"You still have not answered the question

LBird wrote:

What do you mean by 'reality': the 'object' or 'knowledge'?

Both, and more. 'Reality' is everything, including all the contradictory conceptions of it generated in peoples minds.

LBird wrote:

If you insist that we can 'know' reality without a social process of knowledge production, the ball is in your court to show how we can have this unmediated access to your 'reality' (my 'object').

I don't insist that, you're mistaking me for comrade strawman again.

LBird wrote:

So, you accept that it is not certain that the earth goes round the sun? Or are you 100% certain? How 'certain' was the 17th century, compared with 'certain' now? We must have a historical account of 'science', rather than a 'one-off discovery' viewpoint.

We cannot be absolutely certain about anything! Radical skepticism cannot be disproved. The world as it exists now, including all memories and indications of past events, could have been created in an instant 5 minutes ago. This is impossible to disprove. But on the other hand this is no reason for believing it to be true.Or what of the problem of induction? All our knowledge of the world is built upon by inferring from past events. But for all we know the rules of the game that we have inferred from up to this point might suddenly change in the next instant. We are like the chickens that each morning on seeing the farmer come out of the coop expecting to be fed. All well and good until one morning when the farmer appears but this time he is carrying the axe and not the grain bowl.So all I mean is that absolute certainty is something that cannot be gained but given the vast amount of interlocking pieces of evidence that now support the theory that the earth goes round the sun anyone who asserts otherwise is really talking out of their hat.

[Author]

Posts