[LBird]

Chamsy Ojeili wrote:

This second tendency posits Marxism as a hard science in line with the natural sciences ― complete, objective, and able to unproblematically guarantee the truth of its theoretical propositions. This science is developed and expounded by the communists, “the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country”. And, because these communists “have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole”, because “they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement”,[12] they appear to have an independent authority over the working class.

This 'second tendency' is the one followed by those who are arguing with me, here, alan. That is, the 'materialists'.On the contrary, I've argued for reorienting 'hard science' as a 'social science' (and so achieving Marx's aim of methodological unity, not on the basis of 'physics' (as for positivism), but of sociology and history; that is, seeing 'physics', as did Einstein, as not dealing with 'hard truth', but with the social and historical production of a series of 'relativistic truths': this fits with Marx's schema of modes of production).And, rather than 'Communists' being 'over the mass', and having 'an independent authority' of elite experts, like scientists and academics, I've stressed the necessity for the proletariat to take democratic control over the means of production, including scientific knowledge and truth.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Yes, I have tried, and I know that, with you at least, I've failed. That makes me unhappy.

This observation from a non-member of this forum should make you even more unhappy:

Quote:

I am a loyal reader of the forum. Sometimes I recommend threads on it to friends — such as the thread on hunter-gatherers. (But then I have to warn them to not read any postings from or back to the tiresome maniac LBird.)

 

Another individualist, materialist, who deosn't do critical thought or philosophy, I presume?Just wants 'The Truth', eh?Let them not read my tiresome posts, then. Diddums.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB: Have you considered that it is your very ideology and your insistence on the importance of it that makes discussion with you so fruitless?

Of course it's 'my very ideology' and my 'insistence on its importance'!I keep saying this, and exposing what my ideology is, because that is the scientific method.The 'fruitlessness of discussion' doesn't stem from that, though, but from the avoidance of the issue by you and the others.

stuartw2112 wrote:

After all, if you've got your ideology and I've got mine, and this rules our perceptions, and there's no such thing as individual opinion or any objective reason why we should believe one thing rather than another, what purpose conversation?

Talk about 'from the horse's mouth'!What ideology, stuart, tells you that we've all got our own individual opinions?I haven't 'got my ideology', I've 'got a socially-produced ideology', which has a social origin and a historical development.You've got one, too, but it tells you that you haven't, and that you're an individual, and that your opinion is yours.So, it will be 'fruitless' trying to discuss with someone who insists that 'they have their very own ideology'. People who insist that haven't lived in society, apparently. Yeah, right.That's why it's 'fruitless' discussing with you, stuart. Wake up and smell the coffee.  Pehaps a nice American chain brand, which no doubt you believe is 'individually' produced just for you. And bollocks to the notion that it's a commodity, eh?

stuartw2112 wrote:

And what could "workers power" based on such unthinking ideology be other than a grotesque tyranny – one indeed that the world has only in living memory seen the back of?

Bingo! What a rich seam we're hitting today!So, you think (individually of course, with no social input from the bourgeoisie) that the Soviet Union et al were examples of 'workers' power'?This just gets better and better!'Fruitless'? I get more sensible political discussion, and experience of the world we live in, from the family dog!Yeah, stuart, you're totally correct – it's fruitless discussing with an ideological Democratic Communist like me. Especially with you being so untainted by the world and its dirty social ideologies.In fact, I should defer to you as St. Stuart, since you have such insight into politics, economics, philosophy, history…Amen.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I know you have tried, LBird, and have done so on several occasions to simplify and explain the debate but yet the more topics it has encompassed, the more i feel distanced from the discussions…an outcome i think you most definitely would not wish to happen

Yes, I have tried, and I know that, with you at least, I've failed. That makes me unhappy.

ajj wrote:

And i see little evidence of any political action stemming from all these exchanges we have been having…Not even suggestions or proposals of how to communicate these ideas to the people that count…working people.

But I'm not likely to join a group, and again engage in 'political action', if I think that the group argues that it listens to the rocks, am I? That's precisely what the 'materialists/physicalists' are doing.As for 'communicating to working people', I know that my explanations do work with some people at least, because I've been praised many times in the past for my explanations of difficult issues, by relatives, friends, workmates, and even strangers in pubs.As I've said many times, I'm baffled why members and fellow-travellers of the SPGB don't seem to want to learn about a subject which, it's now clear to me, most have never read anything about whatsoever, and yet continue to argue an outdated 19th century view of science and knowledge production.It's very like dealing with a religious sect, unfortunately, alan. Perhaps that is a better explanation as to why workers like me aren't joining, and moving back into political action alongside you.That is, the real problem is an institutional one, not a failure of workers to act. You seem to be one of a tiny number that I can imagine acting alongside. That should be a worry for you, and the company you keep.

[LBird]

Review of Harari wrote:

The most likely scenario, he thinks, is that some human societies before agriculture were violent, and some were not, and that even the issue of which societies were violent varied over time rising and falling in respect to circumstances…

alan, this scenario fits well with my earlier suggestion of the concepts of 'peace-band' and 'war-band', and the view that their origins, and any inter-changing between them, is due to various environmental, social and historical factors, rather than genetic human disposition to violence.As I've said before, there are no anthropologists simply 'following the evidence', and the issue of 'concept formation' which allows anthropologists to selectively examine the evidence, is of fundamental importance, because the concepts used determine what one 'sees'.Of course, 'concepts' are always formed based on ideologies, because they are human constructs, not things that emerge from evidence.If you want to understand hunter gatherer society, you need to first understand the process of 'concept formation' by the anthropologist that you're reading. All anthropology is ideological, just like all science.If you choose to agree with an anthropologist who argues that 'violence is not natural', then you'll 'find' non-violent hunter gatherers. And equally, the opposite.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

LBird wrote:

Hud955 wrote:

I'm very happy to discuss the matter with you, but I am not playing these kind of games.

What? The 'kind of games' that involve philosophical discussion?I had higher hopes of you, Hud, but I'm to be disappointed, once again.

Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question!  Either that, or tell us you can't.

Your one-sided condemnation of me, and ignoring of robbo's avoiding answering why he is contradicting himself, just shows me that I'm going to have the same problems with you as with the others.If you seriously were interested in discussing, you would have either been even-handed asking us both to 'answer the question', or you could have simply ignored robbo's confused views, and concentrated on our discussion.But no, you have to join the ignorant gang, who don't like philosophical 'kind of games'.Perhaps you should just stick to your simplistic world of 'evidence', and let it take you where it merely goes.As a method, it's laughable that educated people should still think that it's a legitimate method. Science shows us that humans are inescapably and actively involved in producing knowledge. You'll be telling us next that the police 'simply follow the evidence'.BTW, Marx didn't simply follow the evidence of the goverment books, as you seem to think. He used them to back up his 'theory', and that theory is heavily impregnated with ideological and ethical concerns.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.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps Ladybird do a 'Janet and John' book on the philosophy of science?

Having tried to follow and understand several threads for many months now and failing miserably, i hope they do have such a book. Alternatively, there might be something in the series "Ideology for Dummies" i can read…

I've tried to play my part in explaining some very difficult issues, alan, but there doesn't appear to be any taste for taking the discussion forward, here. I think that there's a fear that if the logic of scientific thought is taken to its conclusion, that it'll be the 'end of science'.I've given some analogies and metaphors to try to help. Remember my characterisation of three notions about the interaction between humans and the world:Idealism: reality is a blank sheet of paper, upon which humans anything freely write;Materialism: reality is a sheet of paper with numbered dots, which humans merely 'join up';Marx's idealism-materialism: reality is a sheet of paper with unnumbered dots, which humans must number themselves before 'joining the dots'.It might not be good, and surely can be improved, but it's as 'Janet and John' as I can get.I, at least, have tried.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Last year you and ALB maintained that the 'earth going round the sun' is an absolute truth.

Well no, that's not what we where saying. You just read people so that they say what you want them to. I have no more time to waste with you.Ciao.

Why did I even imagine that you might have started to think.All the evidence shows that you haven't before, but I was prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt.My mistake.Ciao.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

robbo wrote:

…a self-critical open-minded undogmatic  approach that is supposed to be the hall mark of scientific endeavour where "the truth" is something that is never absolute but only provisional.

That's interesting, robbo, So, you oppose ALB and DJP's view on science?

I can't see anything to disagree with in the quote from Robbo above….What do you think "ALB's and DJP's" view on science is?

I was referring to a discussion we had last year, which touched on the 'sun and earth' issue.If you agree with robbo about the 'provisional' nature of scientific truth, do you agree about the provisional nature of our knowledge of the 'sun/earth' relationship? Last year you and ALB maintained that the 'earth going round the sun' is an absolute truth. If you've had further thoughts, we could discuss this important philosophical issue.

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

LB: You used my post as yet another excuse to drivel on about ideology again! Was it satire? Was the joke on me? If so, very good!

Yeah, I really should use smaller words and simpler concepts when discussing with you, because the big and complex ones are obviously 'drivel' to you.Perhaps Ladybird do a 'Janet and John' book on the philosophy of science? No? Ah well, ignorance it is, for you, stuart.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

Wel,l LBird's position is that science can never really be "value free" and that the data that the scientist gathers to support his or her theory or hypothesis necessarily involves selection which in turn involves ideology – our particular set of basic assumptions we make about the world around us.  Ideology is the prism through which we inescapably view the world, in other words. Although LBird seems to think he is the only one here promoting this particular view of science and society in general he is not.  His constantly going on about it is only a cover to hide from scrutiny the much more questionable aspect of what he is saying – which is that because science is ideologically informed, so to speak, that the "workers" by which he means everyone – not "workers" in the class sense – should have a say in determining what is  "scientifically correct" or "scientifically true"

This is all entirely true, Capitalist Pig. But I take it seriously, unlike robbo.

robbo203 wrote:

I think that this is a ridiculous idea, not because I take an "elitist view" of science – to the contrary I believe that if anyone wants to become, say, an astrophysicist  that there should be absolutely no barriers placed in the way of him or her becoming an astrophysicist. It is ridiculous, rather, because it is totally impractical to expect everyone to know everything in science in order to vote on whether each and every scientific theory is true of not.  How can you possibly vote on something when you you don't know what it you voting about? (This is to say nothing of the logistics of organising many thousands of separate  worldwide votes for the many thouisands of scientific theories that appear each year). I know myself next to nothing about astrophysics, for instance. I would not dare to presume that a certain theory in astrophysics was true or false.  But LBird expects everyone to know everything that there is to know so that everything in science can be voted on by the entire global population to determine the truth of each theory.. Its nuts frankly.

CP, if you replace robbo's 'science' with 'means of production', you'll start to appreciate the dangers of robbo's stance, for anyone who seeks democratic control of the means of production, ie. socialism.The elitists, like robbo, will simply use the same arguments about us controlling production: they'll say that 'it is totally impracticable in order to vote', when we 'don't know what we are voting about'. And 'the LOGISTICS'! Heaven, however will the "dirty, thick one's" manage that! How can they PRESUME to know?Yes, the 'democratic control of production': "It's nuts, frankly!"

robbo203 wrote:

That apart , I don't see the need to vote on a scientific theory at all.  The popularity of a theory among the voters doesn't necessarily make it true in some absolutist sense and, more to the point, it is not going to convince those who think it is not true from continuing to believe it is not true. So what exactly is the point of the vote in the first place?

The clincher, from the elitist perspective. 'So, what exactly is the point of the vote in the first place?' Why give it to workers? Or blacks? Or, god forbid, women!No, they all did without the vote in the 19th century, when science really worked, and we 'scientists' and 'academics' weren't expected to account for our 'theory and practice' to the Hoi Polloi.CP, robbo blames Einstein. Me? I think we should take account of modern physics, and seek to educate and organise ourselves, and to undermine bourgeois elitist theories of 'science' (which even they know can't be sustained, but keep pretending about, because then they retain their authority).

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

I'm very happy to discuss the matter with you, but I am not playing these kind of games.

What? The 'kind of games' that involve philosophical discussion?I had higher hopes of you, Hud, but I'm to be disappointed, once again.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Not fingding evidence of a universal grammar does not disprove the theory…

You'll know from your reading of the philosophy of science, YMS, that even supporters of capitalism like Karl Popper have argued that 'absence of evidence' can't disprove a theory.And that 'evidence absent' for one perspective, is 'evidence present' for another.Science, eh? Who'd've thought it?Bring back 19th century certainty, eh? And listen to the academics, who claim to have a neutral method, and ignore that trouble-maker Einstein?

[LBird]

robbo wrote:

…a self-critical open-minded undogmatic  approach that is supposed to be the hall mark of scientific endeavour where "the truth" is something that is never absolute but only provisional.

That's interesting, robbo, So, you oppose ALB and DJP's view on science?Remember, when I maintained that whether 'the sun goes round the earth' or 'the earth goes round the sun' is a 'provisional truth', and is related to the society that produces that 'provisional truth', they argued that "No, it's The Truth that 'the earth goes round the sun', and will be forever more. It's an 'absolute truth', and only a ignorant relativist would maintain otherwise".Not a direct quote, but you get the gist.Here, I think that the solution of the problem of knowledge production in science is a vote. I think that, because as you say, science tells us that it produces only provisional truths, that the 'truths' produced by science should be widely discussed and voted upon.Those who disagree have the problem of telling me the method that science uses, that can produce non-provisional Truths, eternal and absolute, when science itself actually tells us, as you are aware, that only "a self-critical open-minded undogmatic approach that is supposed to be the hall mark of scientific endeavour where "the truth" is something that is never absolute but only provisional".Well, I'm critical, open minded and undogmatic about the relationship between the sun and earth, robbo. How about you?

[LBird]

You're going to have to read, and think critically about what's being said, on the rest of this thread, robbo.We already know what your ideology tells you, because you keep repeating it, whereas you haven't a clue about mine.This is obvious, because I can give an account of yours that you can agree with.That is, I can say 'robbo is opposed to democracy in truth production', and you'll agree with this as an accurate account of your position on 'truth production'.But, you can't give an accurate of my position 'LBird is in favour of democracy in truth production', because you can't imagine that this is possible, whereas I agree that your position is, not only entirely possible, but the one taken by the bourgeoisie and academics.For me, locating our opposing positions within a class society, and looking at those positions historically in their emergence, and tying them to wider ideas about society and power, and ideology and politics, is the answer to trying to identify which is better suited for the proletariat, as it goes forward and builds for socialism, as it becomes ever more self-conscious of its power, legitimacy and authority, and as it challenges the power of the bourgeoisie, in every sphere of society, including academia.Which is the position that will suit a society within which the majority control the means of production?A. 'Democracy in truth production'; orB. 'Elitism in truth production'.

[Author]

Posts