LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
YMS wrote:If you meet anyone who talks about ideology, they are trying to put a ruling class policeman in your head.
Perfectly logical conclusion.From someone who starts from the premise that 'I am an individual, and outside of society and its ideas'.Of course, this, too, is an 'ideology'.From a Marxist/Communist ideological viewpoint, again, of course.The key mistake YMS made in his 'logic' is the premise that:
YMS wrote:The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class: so ideology mediates in the interests of class rule.YMS, as will be apparent to any socialists here, has made the fundamental error of equating 'ruling ideas' to 'all ideas'. Clearly, we socialists argue that there are both ruling ideas and critical ideas, the fomer produced by the ruling class, and the latter produced by the exploited class.Therefore, his statement…
YMS wrote:5) Therefore all statements about ideology are in the interests of the ruling class.[my bold]… is only logical for someone employing YMS's ideology. It is not logical for anyone employing Marxist/Communist ideology.We can conclude that:
Quote:Therefore some statements about ideology are in the interests of the exploited class.YMS, like robbo, is an individualist.This is the source of their rejection of 'democratic science'.They both believe they live in a world outside of ideology; and if they do, they presume 'scientists' can, too. I don't have that particular ideological belief.The difference between us is, I don't hide my ideological beliefs. They do; also to themselves, apparently.PS. I wouldn't take any lead from stuart on philosophy, YMS.
robbo, I know you're not going to read anything I write, and that's a shame, because I could help you to start to get to grips with some difficult philosophical isues that have dogged science throughout the 20th century, but why not have a read of someone else's views on these matters, like the McCarthy book I've recommended, above?The fact that you (and the others) can see that there is something to what I'm saying, even if you don't agree with where I think it takes us as socialists, means that you owe it to yourself to dig deeper into 'democratic science', especially given the time that you've spent arguing with me.Perhaps you can get beyond the personal debate with me, and look further into the ideas: after all, they're not my individual ideas, and many others have moved in this direction, too.If not, I think that you'll lose out. Don't let this intense disagreement here put you off examining the social ideas.
Any comrades who wish to get a better feel for the context of my positions, might find the following book useful. I've only just started reading it, but I know it covers many of the philosophical areas that I've tried to address.Dreams in Exile: Rediscovering Science and Ethics in Nineteenth-Century Social TheoryGeorge E. McCarthyhttp://www.amazon.com/Dreams-Exile-Rediscovering-Science-Nineteenth-Century/dp/1438425880£16.49, here:http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/1438425880?SubscriptionId=AKIAIWBZRQIIPF7IKQPA&tag=bookbutleruk-21&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=12734&creativeASIN=1438425880&condition=new
Brian wrote:LBird I see no point in continuing this discussion whilst your capacity for critical thinking is only concerned with distorting everything I've suggested. You appear to be the judge, the jury and the jailer on everything and everyone in order to feed your obsession for endless twaddle that a vote is necessary on all scientific theory.Not satisfied with having a vote by the whole of the global community in a socialist society to establish the scientific method preferred by such a society your insistence that a further vote is necessary on each and every scientific theory illustrates to me at least, that your obsession is dogmatic.You need to read what I'm writing, Brian, and stop following robbo's nonsense.Try reading the book I've just recommended. The only 'obsessive dogma' is your bourgeois one.
Brian wrote:Also by putting the theory through the scientific method and examined from all the angles necessary regarding its usefulness, it makes any vote on the actual theory irrelevant.Unfortunately, Brian, the scientific method is democratic. Thus, it makes a vote imperative.The lesson of the 20th century for socialists is that there is not an undemocratic method. That is a bourgeois myth. The myth of objectivity, of disinterested observers, of truth merely reflecting reality.Your view that there is a 'scientific method' outside of society, employed by experts, which 'impartially processes' a 'theory', is an ideological view.So, your ideological statement above should read:
Brian translated wrote:Also by putting the theory through the bourgeois scientific method and examined from all the angles necessary regarding its usefulness, it makes any vote on the actual theory irrelevant.There is no 'scientific method', unprefixed. That's why we need to be clear, and argue for a proletarian scientific method. That is, one which is a social process, controlled by humanity, not by an elite, who pretend to be 'impartial' about human concerns.
Brian wrote:So long has the (new?) scientific method is followed I would have no quarrel with the theory being examined for practical and useful purposes.The definition of 'practical and useful' can only be a democratic definition. Thus, once again, democracy is built into the 'new' scientific method. What's 'useful' to one class, isn't to another.
Brian wrote:The method itself should be the judge not the vote.Once again, I can only say, a 'method' doesn't exist outside of human concerns. You are still thinking that the bourgeois scientists have a neutral method, a myth which their own scientists have shattered.This is the point we are at now, in the 21st century. The 19th century beliefs, upon which the bourgeois myth of a 'method itself being the judge', should be long gone, especially for socialists.
robbo203 wrote:The only inference one can draw is that once a scientific theory has been determined by means of vote to be "true" by the global working class (7 billion people), then according to him, no criticism of the theory will be permitted.[my bold]I'm replying to this one allegation because it's a bare-faced lie, and robbo knows it.I've constantly argued that 'truth' is a social product, just like a 'policy', and must be voted upon.We scientists know that 'truth changes': what's 'true' one year, is often not true, the next. I've given lots of examples in the past of this.So, in fact, my position is the exact opposite of robbo's lie.Any 'theory' will always be criticisable, because so too will be any 'truth' based upon any theory.'Truth' will be like a paliamentary elected party, today: in power today, in opposition tomorrow, new parties formed, old parties collapsing.The real truth about robbo's elitist perspective is that it holds that 'truth', once 'known', can't be changed. That ideological belief is the basis of the power of elite experts.I ask other readers to consider: I argue for openness, plain language, democracy and continual criticism of 'social and historical' truths.robbo is opposed to democracy, hides his ideology, wants the 'language of maths' to be continued, doesn't want to make science and its explanations open to all, and won't have 'truth' examined and determined by humanity.robbo wants elite experts, who pretend to have a politically-neutral method (one not related to society or history) to tell us 'The Truth', in a language of heiroglyphs.And he's a liar. I said all this before, and he's read it probably dozens of times, so he knows it, and yet he tries to frighten others away from democratic ideas in science, by telling lies about my position.
I’ll try to tie together an answer to the two latter posts, by Brian and Hud955.
Brian wrote:LBird you have an obsession. However, your obsession is not with communism its with the search for truth in the field of science and the proposition that DPD is capable of providing it.I know you don’t understand this, yet, Brian, but the two are philosophically interlinked. Marx’s belief in the unity of science and his belief that humanity and nature will be united (I’ve provide the quotes for this many times, and I know that no-one bothers to engage on this level, so I won’t waste my time and yours) means that human science, attempting to understand natural humanity and humanised nature, and this implies that Democratic Communism and the human scientific method are also heavily interlinked.So, like anyone who considers themselves a democrat in economic production and also has learnt from physics that science does not provide ‘truths’ apart from the society that produced them, I am conscious enough to seek ways of reconciling humans and nature. If you want to define ‘consciousness’ as ‘obsession’, then that’s your choice.
Brian wrote:From a theoretical perspective its not necessary and from a practical perspective – logistically – its obviously impractical.I’ve covered the first ideological belief in my previous paragraph, and the latter ideological belief is entirely compatible with any supporter of capitalism and the market, who thinks socialism “from a practical perspective – logistically – it’s obviously impractical”. Of course it is, for bourgeois thought, because the very idea of those thick workers getting their mucky, ignorant hands upon the factories, offices, transport networks, distribution systems, nuclear industry, physics research laboratories, mathematics faculties and all university departments, is clearly unthinkable. Just think of the ‘practical logistics’!
Brian wrote:And even if it were practical you would be no nearer solving the problem because only a very small minority would actually vote on the thousands of different scientific theories. So you are back to the problem of elitism ruling the roost on truth.This displays a total lack of imagination about just how widespread scientific consciousness will be (and will have to be) amongst a class conscious revolutionary proletariat, which has developed enough (organisationally and intellectually)to challenge the rule of the bourgeoisie.I’ve said this before (and been ignored, as usual). Scientific theories at present are produced by an elite and in a form which is meant to hide them from mass participation. Just like medieval priests employing Latin to hide the meaning of ‘grace’ from the ignorant, uneducated peasantry, so bourgeois scientists continue the pretence. The class conscious proletariat will enforce a scientific method which is both democratic and comprehensible to the masses. So, rather than priests speaking Latin, or physicists speaking mathematics, we’ll have workers who can translate and explain ‘scientific theories’ in meaningful words in a language that is spoken daily by workers and which is thus open to the consideration of the mass of people on this planet. This would be the context of a science which is controlled by humanity, by democratic production methods. Our science will not be opaque and controlled by an expert elite. To allow this is to deny democratic humanity, to deny a naturalised humanity and a humanised nature.
Brian wrote:The question is about recognising that democracy can be a double edged instrument and can hold back social progress.Here we have the nub of the real philosophical issue. Brian doesn’t really believe in workers’ power, or democracy. If it was the case, who is to tell workers that ‘democracy’ is ‘holding back social progress’? If that were true, then it must be either an elite who recognises it, or the proletariat itself. If the workers recognise that a sub-committee of delegates must be appointed to deal with some arcane issue, and that group would later report back with recommendations, then it is still a democratic decision to recognise the problem, embark on the process, and deal with the problem ‘holding back social progress’.But, this is not what you mean, Brian. You mean that the very fact of democracy is the problem. This is the bourgeois mindset that leads to dictatorship, to expert knowledge, elite control in science, and thus in politics and production. You have an irrational ‘fear of the mob’, Brian, and you’ve picked it up from your society. Unless you question why you think like this, and how you came to think like this, then your fears will remain. Of course, it’s always open to you to proclaim that your personal experience of this society has lead you to this conclusion, that ‘democracy is a double edged instrument’, and that you’re just a ‘practical man’ who avoids mere ‘philosophical’ and ‘theoretical’ speculation, and just deals with ‘the real world’. This ‘pragmatic’ approach is possible, but it must be obvious to you that it’s no basis for revolutionary thinking, or provides a point of origin for class consciousness.
Brian wrote:Especially when the search for truth hampers and restricts the advancement of science in the way you are suggesting. For in practice all scientific theories will be on hold until its established by the vote whether or not they are in fact truth.Again, this just shows ignorance of the current state of scientific research. The ‘search for truth’ is being hampered, now, in this society. Aren’t you even aware of how much money and effort is spent, not on issues of benefit to the mass of humanity, but on weapons and other ways of killing, on drugs which can be sold on the market (rather than drugs that are needed in poor societies)? There is no ‘blue sky research’ in this society, because money is required, and scientists don’t control the money. The universities almost totally focus physics research on certain avenues. Read Lee Smolin’s The Trouble with Physics; he’s an American research physicist, not a Communist, and the book was recommended here by an SPGB comrade who doesn’t post, but was seeking to help me advance. Of course, I bought the book and read it, unlike anybody else who is engaged on all these threads about science and democracy.And your simplistic view that ‘in practice all scientific theories will be on hold’ until their ‘truth is established’ – that’s precisely what happens now. Have you never read anything about the problems with the results from CERN and the search for Higgs Boson? I take it you haven’t. Only someone who holds a ‘copy theory of knowledge’ (that ‘knowledge’ is a ‘mirror’ of reality) and a ‘correspondence theory of truth’ (that ‘knowledge’ corresponds to ‘reality’) can even begin to think that there is not a time lag (and sometimes one of years, as for Einstein’s theory about Mercury) between the production of ‘scientific knowledge’ and its establishment as ‘true’.But, you’re concerned with the ‘delays caused by democracy’. Be truthful to yourself, Brain; it’s not ‘delays’ (a mere excuse by anti-democrats) but democracy itself that you won’t have in science.
Brian wrote:The search for truth will go on whether we vote on it or not and a vote on truth is not the end of the matter.Mere lip-service, like your lip-service to democracy, Brian.The search for truth by humans requires the participation of the whole of humanity. Only those who have an ideological belief that ‘matter talks to some humans’ and that that small minority of elite experts have a neutral method that allows them, and them alone, to produce ‘truth’.It doesn’t, they haven’t, and they don’t.The ideological belief that it does, they have and they can, is ‘materialism’.I’m a Marxist, my ideological beliefs about humans, nature, science, and the production of knowledge and truth are perfectly open and exposed to all, for critical comment by anyone.Brian, Hud, stuart, YMS, robbo, DJP, et al – your ideological beliefs about humans, nature, science, knowledge and truth are hidden, at least to yourselves.You hold ruling class views on those issues, hence, unsurprisingly, your nervousness about democracy in every sphere and the potential of all humans to develop.
Hud955 wrote:Where on earth did you get the idea I was an academic, by the way?You displayed the same concern for 'facts' and 'details', which you clearly have read about, and can remember and recite, without any understanding whatsoever about the relationships between them, and others that you haven't looked for. This inability to rise above what's in front of one's face is a common trait in academia. Some of them still believe in induction from evidence.
Hud955 wrote:That's a laugh!Yes, it's become very obvious that even 'academic' status was setting the bar too high, for you.
Hud955 wrote:These are interesting questions you are rasing.This is the real shame – you show potential, but then shy away at where your questioning might take you.
Hud955 wrote:It is just a shame that you are unable to respond to the views and challenges of others except in a dogmatic and abstract way.Yes, always the response from the ignorant, to things they don't understand. You, of course, are undogmatic and deal with the real world, just like all conservatives. Not like those 'head in the clouds' revolutionaries, eh?
Hud 955 wrote:I've had some very fruitful discussions about these issues with other people.With this, you're showing a remarkable ability to deceive yourself. Other than being vaguely aware that 'something is going on', you are completely at a loss.
Hud955 wrote:You are no more or less a worker than anyone else who has been posting on this forum.That's odd, because when I ask whether other posters identify as a 'worker' or as an 'individual', they always plump for the latter. Mind you, you wouldn't understand the ideological difference, between identifying oneself as holding a structural position in a society, and one's biological existence. For you and them, it's just a descriptive term, not an analytical category. Ohhh… I'm being dogmatic and abstract, again! Big words and difficult concepts, Hud, a bit scary, eh?
Hud955 wrote:I'm about to lose connectivity for a while, and will not be able to continue with this for much longer. I'll just make one observation, for now, though – it's a quote in fact, from someone whose opinion I know you hold in the highest regard.I'm touched, Hud! Quoting me, as an authority.All you have to do now is to digest my advice, and then follow it. But I think you lost 'connectivity' with critical thinking a long time ago, if you ever were connected to it.On a biological level, have a nice time.
stuartw2112 wrote:OK, LB, this is my final word. You didn't answer my question, despite your claim, as anyone could see from reading the question, then the answer. What you did was try to steer the discussion from what it was about, back to your pet subject of the philosophy of science. In other words, as a previous post of mine claimed, you saw a bus coming and once again took it as an excuse to pedal your pet theories. There's a name for this: it's called monomania. There's also a name for what I'm doing: feeding the troll. I'll now stop.I've just explained the philosophical difficulties with your claim for 'truth', and you've ignored it. You don't want an answer you have to think about, you merely want 'The Truth'.And I see, despite my best efforts, you've descended, once again, like the others, into abuse.So, I'm a 'troll'? Ah well, back to the playground, where you and your ilk seem happiest.You're an uneducated gobshite.
stuartw2112 wrote:I'll be happy to try to answer your questions, LB, when you can give a straight answer to the one question I have asked you over and over again, and got no reply to. I'll try just one more time.What is the point of a discussion if one doesn't try to evaluate truth-claims by reference to the real world (a practice that made Einstein's name, by the way)?My prediction, as before, is that we'll get another message, much the same as the one above, with no answer to the question.[my bold]I've said this before, stuart.The ideological belief that 'truth-claims reference the real world' is called the 'correspondence theory of truth'.There are other theories of truth.We can discuss the contending 'theories of truth', but if you insist on regarding your ideological claim as the only possible one, and won't discuss the others, then we can't go forward.On Einstein, he changed his position on the philosophy of science and epistemology during his career. Even then, it doesn't follow that where he ended up, in the 1920s, is still to be regarded as correct today, after nearly another century's human thought on the matter.So, we can discuss 'truth' and Einstein, but you have to be open-minded, and support your arguments with evidence. I, of course, will do the same, because I've got several books next to me which discuss both of these issues.BTW, your 'predictions' have turned out wrong, again. Ever thought of changing your method, because it doesn't seem to work?
stuartw2112 wrote:To test your claims, LB, we'd have to do a cross-cultural comparison. But as you say this is pointless and throughly ideological, why discuss it?I'm not sure why you constantly feel the need to have a dig.When I make posts that are thoroughly decent and comradely, why is the response of you and others here always to be less-than-comradely? And then all complain when I give it back, but better?Why not just ask yourself why you think 'ideology' equals 'pointlessness'?I've never said 'ideology equals pointlessness', so where have you got this idea from? Not from me, and I doubt that you've thought it all up 'as an individual'. No, someone has told you, in the past, that if ideology is allowed to intrude into 'science', that civilisation as we know it will collapse.You have a 'faith' that scientists know what they are doing, are good at it, and successful.The problem is, they themselves tell us that this isn't true.So, our problem is, who is teaching you and most others that 'ideology equals pointlessness', that discussion of ideology leads to 'relativism' (a bogey word, for the 'objective' scientists), and, more importantly, why are they doing this?Now, I've been entirely polite in this response to you, stuart, and I've taken time to explain the problem, so I expect a suitable answer.That answer can be 'I'm not interested in ideology, LBird', and that's fine by me.I'll simply point out that science is ideological, and that if one aspires to be a scientist, one has to engage in the development of science since Einstein.If you then answer that 'I'm not interested in modern science, LBird, and want to stick with 19th century thinking', then I'll leave the issue alone.For the consideration of everyone else, who're unsure of where our respective positions lead.
stuartw2112 wrote:Genes "for violence" have indeed been identified…The problem, stuart, is 'what is meant by 'violence'?'.And the notion of genes being switched on or off by environmental triggers is meaningless in any socio-historical context.For example, could it really be argued that it was 'genes plus environment' that caused the Wehrmacht to invade Poland in 1939?Surely the proper answer lies in understanding German society (learned anti-semitism and anti-slavism), German history (the wish to regain East Prussia, the unfair WW1 reparations), German economics (the collapse of the mark, inflation, Wall St. Crash, mass unemployment) and German politics (the rise of the Nazis and the destruction of the very socio-political forces that could have argued for internationalism, the Socialists and Communists).The issue of 'genes' doesn't get much beyond discussing individuals.It's irrelevant to any issues that Communists are concerned with.As I've said before, whether one wishes to discuss 'biological human nature' or 'socially-produced behaviour' is an ideological choice.If one wants to account for individuals and their propensity to use pointy sticks, one will look to 'genes' (and add 'environmental factors' simply because the case for 'genes' alone has been long destroyed).The 'violence' that affects most people the most, on this planet, has nothing to do with 'genes', either 'on' or 'off', but is a product of politics (ie. power, whether domestic, socio-economic, national or international, like IMF/World Bank).
robbo, when I wrote:
LBird wrote:As a method, it's laughable that educated people should still think that it's a legitimate method.…I was reflecting scientific opinion.The fact that you and the others apparently know nothing whatsoever about scientific method, and refuse to read up on it, also proves your ignorance.So, calling me 'pathologically dishonest' and a 'hypocrite' says more about your educational level than my morality.In fact, I think I'll add 'childish' to my estimation.
ALB wrote:This has prompted me to dig out some articles he sent me in 2003. Besides the one Alan mentions, there another on "Post-modernism, the Return to Ethics, and the Crisis of Socialist Values" which has since been published on the internet here:http://www.democracynature.org/vol8/ojeili_ethics.htm It's heavy going but you can see where he's coming from (and going to).Thanks for the link, ALB.I've quickly read (rather than studied) the article, and I can't see too much to disagree with. He doesn't specifically discuss 'science and democracy' (unless I've missed it and you can point me to it), but I think that that's where he's pointing towards (as you say, 'going to').I especially think that robbo and YMS would benefit from the passages about Castoriadis and his criticisms of individualism and the need for democracy. I hope that they take this recommendation in the comradely spirit that is intended.Finally, I should say that, if I had read the article even as recently as 18 months ago, I don't think I would have really understood it. I think that that gain in my ability to understand has been achieved due to my battles here, where I have been compelled, by the disagreements of comrades, to delve ever deeper into the philosophical issues surrounding science and democracy.So, my thanks are due to you, ALB, and my other opponents.The downside, though, is that I think I've failed to help in the development of other comrades in their thinking about these issues. It pains me to say it, but I think most here still think in exactly the same way as the day that I first started to ask for critical discussion about Schaff and the relationship between subject, object and knowledge.Crucially, my personal advancement in understanding is simply not enough, either for me or my class.
Hud955 wrote:LBird wrote:Hud955 wrote:Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question! Either that, or tell us you can't.Sorry, I'm playing those 'kind of games', yet again, aren't I? Y'know, the grown-up ones, which you, robbo and DJP seem to abhor so much.
Yes you are, LB. I don't know whether they are 'grown up' or not but I doubt that they are honest.
This tells us everything about your (and your sympathisers') attitude to learning.I would never accuse any of you of being 'dishonest'; I'd accuse you of ignorance, but I have no fear of you being 'dishonest'. You're all entirely honest, according to the lights of your ideology.Your problem is that you refuse to listen, learn and critically assess what you're being told.You can't do this, because your ideology of science is going unexamined, and my criticisms are thus 'dishonest'.So much for all the talk of 'free thought' from you lot.It's much easier to label the unknown as 'trolling' or 'dishonesty', rather than question some of your own dearly-held ruling class ideas, like the issue of science, truth, academics and democracy.Ah well, Hud, back to good, old fashioned, 19th century, academic and scientific 'honesty' for you.Quite frankly, mate, you're just like most other academics that I've met: they shit themselves when confronted by self-confident workers who are Communists, and who insist upon undermining their 'authority' in the eyes of the other students.But, but… I'm a professor! I know things you don't! I can't accept that I've spent my whole career following the wrong method in my search for 'Truth'! I've written PAPERS! Who are you, anyway, you working class guttersnipe?!KMA.
