[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Given the choice between a 'nationalism', which gives room to human input, or a 'materialism' which tells us that the rocks speak to us, I know which any thinking human will go for.

But Nationalism doesn't give room to human input…

'Nationalism' is a human idea, YMS.The sooner we acknowledge that 'Socialism' is a human idea, and try to develop that, and stop pretending that 'material conditions' produce ideas, that, in effect, 'rocks talk to us' (which physics and mathematics tell us is not true), then the sooner we can make a start.The choice is: do we want 'national science' or 'socialist science'?There is no 'science' which has a method which avoids politics.Whilst socialists claim to be 'materialists', the nationalists will make hay.If I were a worker ignorant of social and historical development, I too would sooner listen to nationalists, who stress my humanity and community, than listen to materialists, who stress that I should listen to the rocks.I'd know that I can't hear rocks, and would have to listen to some 'special humans' who can hear the rocks. These are the very people who are telling me that 'rocks talk'. It wouldn't take long to figure out that, in reality, rocks do not talk, and the 'special humans' are bluffers, who can't hear rocks either, but just want to bulshit me, and take control for themselves.Cadre-priests, using Latin-maths, and denouncing democracy.At least the nationalists emphasise the vernacular and the need for unity between all of the nation.As liars, the nationalists' lies work; as liars, the materialists' lies don't.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

All of which brings into sharp focus the role of ideas, beliefs and values in changing society

[my bold]So, workers are confronted with only the choice of either regarding 'ideas, beliefs and values' as part of 'changing' things (like society and its knowledge) or of regarding 'materialism', which tells them that 'material conditions' (not 'ideas, beliefs and values') 'changes' society?Given the choice between a 'nationalism', which gives room to human input, or a 'materialism' which tells us that the rocks speak to us, I know which any thinking human will go for.And it's not 'materialism'….[the mod can delete this, too, and hide another criticism of the simplistic two-answer choice of 'idealism' or 'materialism'. Because that's exactly what the 'materialists' reduce 'nationalism' to, to a mere form of 'idealism', and so the 'materialists' are baffled as to why workers would choose an 'idealism' which goes against what the rocks are saying… 'why won't they listen to their 'material conditions'? They must be stupid…']Whatever happened to 21st century science, which can provide humans with social and historical answers?

[LBird]

twc wrote:

Science is the most subversive practice that humans engage in.In the long run, nature exacts her cruel vengeance on all mere human injunctions upon scientific enquiry, and defeats all vain attempts to gag scientific thought.

This is very confused, twc.'Science practice', as 'subversive' as it is, is a human, and therefore a social and historical 'practice'.Your contrasting of a 'cruel, vengeful, nature', as the active element in the interaction, with the passivity of the 'merely human', is a throwback to 19th century thought about 'science' and its supposedly neutral method, which trumps humanity and its democratic political arrangements.In any 'long run', of course humans can gag scientific thought (by thermo-nuclear war, for example, and the destruction of, never mind scientific thought, but all human thought).That's why it is necessary to stress the fragility of 'science' and defend it to the hilt as human 'theory  and practice', and move away from the religious belief in 'science' as 'nature', as the 'reflection' of 'nature as it is', of human passivity in the production of 'scientific knowledge'.Without humans, there is no 'nature to be explored'.Marx sought the humanising of nature and the naturalising of humanity, not a 'natural god', as for the positivists, like you.No subject, no object. Both are required to produce knowledge. And the subject is the active element, as Marx said in his Theses on Feuerbach.The only truly subversive science is human democratic science.

[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

The basic credo is that all scientific knowledge is tentative. Nothing is so firmly known that it cannot, in principle, be overthrown by new evidence.

Yeah, I tried explaining that the notion of 'the earth going round the sun' fits your argument, but it wasn't well received.Of course, we're talking philosophy, here, but many prefer 'hard science' which supposedly produces 'truth'.The things that you've said are more obvious when we look at other sciences, like sociology or history, but we're always met by the 'materialists/physicalists' who think that the only 'real' science is physics, and so I always aim my arguments at physics, because I know from experience that that's where we'll end up, when we argue that 'all scientific knowledge is tentative'.As for 'maths', that's a human creation, and doesn't have to have any relationship to 'external reality', and so 'proofs' of maths are much like insisting fairies exist, and that constitutes their 'proof'.

[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

I think the reputation when it comes to the pure sciences like chemistry and physics is much better.

Not according to physicists like Einstein, Rovelli and Smolin, Dave!Never mind philosophers of science like Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos.Or even, indeed, Marx.Still, it keeps the workers docile, to believe that the 'academics' (especially those in the 'hard sciences' [sic]) actually know what they are doing……just like those clever economists and mathematicians, eh?

[LBird]

Dave B wrote:

There may also be some grist for our L bird ideology of science in this.Around 1979 an Australian scientist produced the ‘first epigenetic’ work.He was dragged before the neo-Darwinist papacy excommunicated for ‘Lamarkism’ and eventually sacked from his academic position.

What!!!'Scientists' and 'academics' not following their very own 'neutral scientific method', of 'openness', of 'merely following the data', of  'bluesky research', of refusing 'theory and ideology'…This can't be true, Dave, and the "materialists", physicists, physicalists and positivists just won't believe you!You're questioning the honour of science, of academics everywhere, who ceaselessly and impartially struggle to 'reveal The Truth', to merely detail 'the empirical facts', and to save science itself from the anti-scientists of Marx, who want workers to run the world, and want 'democratic science'.That is, those who proclaim the necessity for the proletariat to criticise what exists, to think creatively in new ways, organise themselves and produce class consciousness, and finally defeat the bourgeoisie, on every level, both philosophically and politically. Science is an ideological strut for capitalism, just like 'individualism' and 'the market'."No, No, No!", say the materialists. "We must stick with 19th century thought. We must trust and listen to bourgeois academics, who don't use ideology. Physics does not involve ideology, and the rocks talk to us! We can't hand human thinking over to the workers."That's what passes for the 'role of the party in relationship to the proletariat', here, Dave.It comes down to giving the advice to workers to 'Trust the Bourgeoisie and their academics'. Have a look at the 'Hunter Gatherer' thread, and the arse-kissing to 'academics', "who surely, must know what they are doing, and we must employ their categories!"Whatever happened to the notion of 'revolution', of 'The World Turned Upside Down'?

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

Anyway, I hope my admiting that I like Ayn Rand will help LBird see that actually I'm even worse philosophically than he suspected!

LOL!Touche, stuart!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Quote:

The difference between us is, I don't hide my ideological beliefs.

But the point is Lbird, you do hide them.  Everything you say about your ideology contains hidden ideological elements.  You cannot expose your ideology, because that would be an non-ideological truth claim about the world.  Nor can you know whether your ideas are working class ideas, or ruling class ideas.

Hmmmm… perhaps stuart is actually more advanced, and can provide you with a philosophical lead, YMS…

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[Author]

Posts