[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

For just once try engaging with the arguments that are presented than continuously  try to misrepresent them to save face.

No, I'm not going to 'engage with the arguments' that you 'present'.I know I'm wasting my time, and yours, Vin's, YMS's, and anybody else's who isn't interested the the philosophical relationship between subject/object/knowledge.Stick with what you believe, robbo, and I can get back to some reading on other subjects.My 18 months posting here have developed, tremendously, my understanding of these issues of ontology, epistemology, science and truth. I've read dozens of books, from both the 19th and 20th centuries, which I probably wouldn't have, without the recommendations of others, including some by you.If my contributions have helped others, then I'm happy, because I aimed to try to do just that, but if they haven't, then I just have to reluctantly accept that I've failed in that social task.On a wider note, I think that I've discovered that the SPGB's politics are not mine. Politics emerge from philosophy, and I don't share that basis with those who post here. Perhaps there are some who don't post, who regard themselves as closer to my beliefs, but probably not.Given that I've had many similar discussions on LibCom and the ICC site, too, and had similar responses, perhaps it's time for me to admit to myself that the 'socialism/communism/Marxism', that I look to, doesn't really exist.Anyway, my disenchantment is not just with you, robbo, so no personal hard feelings – you build for socialism in the way that you see fit.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

 God, the bourgeoisie must be quaking in their boots, at the level of this conversation between workers, 130 years after Marx's death.

 Only since you came on the forum. lol

I know. I seem to be wasting everyone's time, mine included.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why is it, that every time I talk to you like a grown up, 

You never talk like a grown up.

God, the bourgeoisie must be quaking in their boots, at the level of this conversation between workers, 130 years after Marx's death.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

01042015 = data01/04/2015 = Information

You're pulling my leg now, surely?!God, say you are.

[LBird]

Why is it, that every time I talk to you like a grown up, you revert to childishness?Discussion with the 'big kids' doesn't come easily to you, does it?

[LBird]

Vin, grow up.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The information, which is, as you'll recall, distinct from data …

You'll have to remind me, YMS – which one is the one that is not 'theory-laden', the 'information', or 'data'.I keep getting mixed up, because all the 'scientists' who've read a modicum of philosophy of science quite happily regurgitate the modern mantra about 'the theory-ladenness of facts'.But then… they seem to just blithely return to their 'facts' (I know it's either 'information' or 'data', but my really poor memory struggles to remember which is which…).There's me, eh, a worker, thinking I can keep up with all this 'science' stuff!It's best left to the 'experts, eh, like you, YMS?So, tell me once again – have some thought for the thick workers, comrade! – which is the 'facts', the 'information' or 'data'?

YMS wrote:

If someone comes yup to you and says: "The Earth is flat", you can ask them what reliable process led them to that truth claim.  If you have a different rpocess, you can produce that, and the debate is on.  if neitehr side demonstrates a flaw in the validity of the other, a draw is declared, else one truth claim is declared invalid (or at least inferior).

But… this is not how science works… anyone who has read Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos… even Einstein, knows that science is a human activity, and involves faith, belief, trust, intuition, guesswork, violent disagreement, hatred, petty squabbles, professional jealousies, even religious certainty and god worship… it's enough to come to believe that 'scientists' are human, and, just like the rest of us, talk out of their arses most of the time.Indeed, some class conscious workers suspect that physicists talk out of their arses far more often than the average worker…

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

Whether you like it or not, Vin, your views do carry some weight with readers of this site, in forming their views of the SPGB.Unfortunately, for me at least, that is a negative view of the SPGB.

   You are coming to conclusions about a group of workers  by analysing the views of an individual member of that group. That is another very individualist and bourgeois approach.In the socialist movement the 'truth' is a democratic process. 

But this site isn't called "Vin's World", but is a site for political education and debate, set up by the SPGB, in an attempt to attract class conscious workers.I've got a class conscious view of science (including physics and maths, as much as sociology and politics), whereas you, robbo and YMS seem to think 'science' is not related to classes, and so don't call our science 'proletarian science', and don't think that 'truth' should be elected.So, I'm forced to take your contributions at face value as representing what the SPGB has told you, and think that your last statement, that "In the socialist movement the 'truth' is a democratic process", is not the case, because you won't allow a vote on 'scientific knowledge'.If you don't think that 'truth should be a democratic product', as a philosophical starting point, why would you build democratic science structures, and introduce the democratic principle into education, and teach critical thinking?You won't, because you'll see no need for these things. You believe 'science' has a non-political method which produces 'Truth', and so won't build for a democratic science which knows that it doesn't produce 'Truth', and all knowledge must be criticisable. We humans can never say 'We have 100% knowledge of matter/nature'. Unless this is taught from the beginning, we won't have a class conscious movement of workers.We'll continue to have a movement that defers to 'experts', who have a special ability/training/desire/consciousness, which isn't available/possible/practical/desirable to the masses.We'll reproduce that society we have now: educators and educated. I can read Marx, and I know he warned against this. I think we need to prepare structures and ideas to prevent this separation, because I think it is not only politically necessary, but, since Einstein, scientifically necessary.To you three, this is just incomprehensible jibberish, and a diversion from 'political practice'.To me, 'practice' is based upon 'theory', and I'd rather be open about the 'theory' that I think workers need, before they engage in 'practice'. Again, I thought that this attitude fitted with the SPGB's well-known (and often derided) approach to building a conscious mass movement of workers, through education, debate and democracy, which I politically agree with.But… I find a party that seems to be happy with 'experts', and doesn't think workers will run physics. Go figure.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…AFAICS your 'vote of truth' is an inessential frippery…

As I say, that's where we differ.

YMS wrote:

We're an oversite committee voting to validate, not verify.

You've never told us how 'verification' happens. The 'verification' must be a 'truth vote'. 'Truth' is a product of active consciousness, not a passive copy of 'matter'.

YMS wrote:

So, what we're both arguing for is for democratic control of resources, with the community setting research principles and priorities, upon which we will debate.

No, I'm arguing that 'truth' is a human product, and that it must be elected, if we have a democratic society.We disagree about this, and it's best to be frank, rather than pretend we have some essential agreement, and our differences are minor.In effect, my arguments are revolutionary, whereas yours are radical, at best.You want a "works' committee", who have a 'say' in production.I want "workers'power", that controls production. And 'truth' is a social product.If workers don't control 'truth', someone else will. Simples.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For both you and ourselves, LBird, perhapshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKSPOUEuqAE

LOL!!!Brilliant – just prefer it in French.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFtGfyruroU

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

For LBird, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjHSOzVU5j0

For the SPGB, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIHusZEIwio

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

I have to take your personal views as representing those of the SPGB 

Very individualist bourgeois phylosophy, LBird.   The position of the SPGB on this subject will be issued by the party not an individual. Having said that, I am sure there will be no statement forthcoming on the nonsense you come out with.

Yes, I think I have to accept, that in the absence of any 'official statement', that my views do constitute 'nonsense' in the opinion of the party members and fellow travellers.Whether you like it or not, Vin, your views do carry some weight with readers of this site, in forming their views of the SPGB.Unfortunately, for me at least, that is a negative view of the SPGB.

[LBird]

Vin wrote:

LBird wrote:

In fact, I'm no longer sure that there is anybody else involved in these threads who do have the same aims as me. The longer that I'm here, the easier it is to believe the views of the Anarchists, that the SPGB really is just a parliamentary political outfit, with 'revolutionary rhetoric' attached.Perhaps it is me on the wrong site.

 

You should congratulate yourself for the immense part you've played in bringing enlightenment to me, Vin.I'm not sure if robbo and YMS are party members, and so their undemocratic, elitist and individualist perspective perhaps can be explained and excused by me, but I know that you're the Real McCoy, and an active party member, if not a Branch official of some sort.I have to take your personal views as representing those of the SPGB in some sense at least, especially given the lack of any other 'official' response to these philosophical issues.Perhaps I should just leave the SPGB in the 19th century, where it seems happiest.Indeed,

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Any scientist worth his or her salt is not going to be swayed by the fact that a majority hold a view that is contrary to his or her own.

You still won't tell us how these 'scientists' get to a 'view' that that can't be got to by 'a majority'.You're positing an 'elite' in opposition to a 'mass', and suggesting that the 'elite' have a 'method' which is a better way of determining the truth of a 'view', than is a democratic method.This is simply bourgeois ideology, not an incontrovertible truth.It is a product of 'materialism', and is suited to Leninist political organisation.Put simply, robbo, you have a fear of democracy, and a faith in scientists. It is not a revolutionary view.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

He isn't saying, in practice, anything much different from the rest of us.

So, since enlightenment has dawned, YMS, why not just say it, openly, for all to see, just like me?'Truth' in socialism will be decided by a vote.There. Easy-peasy.None of that 19th century bourgeois science nonsense about 'neutral, non-political physics' and 'scientists' producing 'Truth' which is a copy of the 'Real World' and is true forever.Well?I'm waiting, YMS.

Because that's not true, nor necessary.  Voting can only reveal the desire of the voter, that's the only truth it reveals.  So it can reveal what lines of research society wants to pursue, it can pronounce research ethical or unethical, it can pronounce it valid or invalid, but it cannot make black white or day night.

So, why claim that we're not 'saying, in practice, anything much different'?You either still don't understand what I'm saying, or are falsely presenting to others that there is nothing really radical about what I'm saying.I'm inclined to think the former is correct.You won't enter a philosophical discussion about the relationship between subject, object and knowledge, and think this issue is merely one of 'practice'.This focus on 'practice', and the avoidance of 'theory', is essentially a conservative method of approaching any issue.It's like trying to get people to read Marx's Capital, as a prelude to a discussion about exploitative social relationships, and being met with 'practical' questions, like 'But, but… under socialism, will I still be able to buy beer and fags?'.In fact, this issue, about the social production of scientific knowledge, and my views about it, are not just radical, but unavoidably revolutionary.The bourgeois-inspired view that 'scientists' just do 'science', and it is essentially a non-political activity, best left to 'experts', is one that is dying hard in our society.It is, in fact, a ruling class idea.And, on the contrary, the notion of the democratic control of the production of scientific knowledge (ie. that 'truth' will be elected by humanity) is a revolutionary idea, and one suited to a class conscious proletariat attempting to build its confidence in the face of our bourgeois brainwashing.I know that you don't share these beliefs or aims, YMS, but why you just won't say that you're neither a revolutionary nor a democrat, baffles me.You think that 'science' is best left to 'an elite', who employ a 'scientific method' that is non-political, and that 'scientific knowledge' is a reflection of 'reality' (rather than a human construction, influenced by social and historical factors, and so changeable).You don't really think that 'workers' can take power of their production, and you don't believe that that production includes 'ideas'. At best, you'd allow workers to have a 'factory works' council', to advise those in charge on the best way to produce 'widgets'. You don't aim for 'workers' control', as I do, and you certainly won't have workers determining what 'scientific truth' is.In fact, I'm no longer sure that there is anybody else involved in these threads who do have the same aims as me. The longer that I'm here, the easier it is to believe the views of the Anarchists, that the SPGB really is just a parliamentary political outfit, with 'revolutionary rhetoric' attached.Perhaps it is me on the wrong site.

[Author]

Posts