LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
ALB wrote:Although sympathetic to postmodernism (as reflected in his views on science) he is another example of how we have more influence than we sometimes realise..I'm not so sure about this, ALB.His views, as expressed in the selections I quoted, are far closer to mine (with the emphasis on ideology in theory and science) than that of those opposed to my views on this site (your 'we').I'm not sure about po-mo, either. One of the key tenets of that is individualism, whereas I think he was arguing for democracy. No po-mo that I've heard of has argued for 'truth being decided by a vote', they all seem to think it's all to do with individual minds and experience.Perhaps your characterisation of 'po-mo' is more to do with your views about science, rather than his?After all, Marx was a relativist, as was Einstein, but neither would be characterised as 'po-mo', if they were alive today.I think po-mo has more to do with the belief by academics that workers can't take democratic control of the means of production, and thus can't take control of science. And since everybody knows that science doesn't produce 'The Truth' (including many physicists), it thus seems a small step to locate 'truth' in individual minds (especially in the minds of 'academics', like the po-mo crowd).
stuartw2112 wrote:I predict that you won't answer this question but will merely reiterate your position. Either way, my question will be answered.Got you, stuart. An answer which doesn't re-iterate, but leaves you unanswered.The third option, unforeseen by you.Bit like idealism-materialism, for the Engelsists.I'll leave you to your sarcasm and irony. Or mine.
That's a shame, stuart.I thought for once I'd been able to have a reasoned discussion with one of the positivists, who argue that science is non-political, without any nastiness.I haven't 'put words in your mouth', simply teased out the implications of arguing for non-political science, presided over by an unelected elite, who produce 'knowledge' without democratic controls. And 'free individuals' is what most bourgeois ideologists keep stressing, not socialists who think workers can run both their own lives as individuals and their society as a collective. The former in fact depends upon the latter.Well, you haven't actually called me any nasty names, so I'll just bid you a reluctant farewell.
stuartw2112 wrote:Actually, yes, I do believe that rational thought, Enlightenment values and science should be independent of political control – that it should be pursued by independent, critically aware, free individuals, who combine for the pursuit of common interests, and not be placed under the control of or be subservient to any collective ideology.Thanks for your very clear statement here, stuart.You're arguing that science is non-political, should be controlled by an elite of special individuals, 'free' from society, who themselves define 'common interests', and that they shouldn't be under democratic control.This is the antithesis of any idea of socialism, which argues for political self-control by the whole of society of all of society's doings.I can only asume that your version of socialism would be similar to your view of science: control by an independent elite of experts, following an individualist ideology.
stuartw2112 wrote:That's Lysenkoism.I'm afraid that's the Soviet Union, stuart, and nothing to do with 'workers' democracy', but control by a party separate from workers' democratic control. In fact, a party 'independent of political control' by workers, a cadre of 'individuals' who were 'free' of workers' power, and not 'under the control of or subservient to a collective ideology', like democracy.Leninism and positivism are closely aligned.
stuartw2112 wrote:…rational thought, Enlightenment values and science…It's possible to read this as meaning 'positivism', stuart.For me, the only way to realise the ideals of rationality, values and science is through democratic control of the means of production; and this clearly includes scientific knowledge and truth.Science is a social activity, an activity which has changed through history, and must be under the democratic control of society.Unless one identifies "rational thought, Enlightenment values and science" with academic experts and an elite, who are out of the control of workers.
stuartw2112 wrote:"Chomsky and Kropotkin, for example, both display an immense faith in rational thought, Enlightenment values, and science."What's the alternative to such "faith"? Surely not all that continental theory twaddle?"Faith" in the proletariat, organised democratically, stuart?And by 'continental theory twaddle', do you mean Marx's ideas?
