[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'.

[LBird]

robbo203 wrote:

I think LB's basic problem is that he has fallen into the trap of holistic thinking…

You'd do well to read what I write, robbo, and try to recognise your own ideological perspective.To an individualist, like you (or YMS), any attempt whatsoever to move the focus away from 'individuals' will be regarded as 'holistic thinking'.There is a mid point between the two, perhaps best represented by Margaret Archer in her book Realist social theory: the morphogenetic approach.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Realist-Social-Theory-Morphogenetic-Approach/dp/0521484421Perhaps you could have a read of it?You probably won't, because, from what I can tell from 18 months discussions, no-one here actually reads anything to do with the subjects we discuss, but simply give knee-jerk reactions, based upon their own existing and unacknowledged ideologies.I'm the opposite: I've bought many books recommended by comrades, not least Pannekoek, Dietzgen and Untermann.The other ones that I've bought, based upon my own development, run into dozens. At least I'm learning.This thread would probably be better served by letting Hud criticise what I say, because I've had lots of discussions with you, and we all know already where it will lead.You'll 'pooh-pooh' democracy in social production. You won't have 'truth' elected. You want elite control of science. Oh yeah, and you want 'free association', not 'workers' power'.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

To save you any further hassle from the moderator LB, I've transferred my last reply to you in the Chomsky forum to this new thread.

Thanks for that Hud.This discussion here will also be relevant to the 'anthropology' discussion, too.Your post was a very long one, but I think it can be reduced, in essence, to this question, and your answer to it:

Hud955 wrote:

LBird wrote:

I'm beginning to think that you regard political philosophy as not being at the root of science.

You would be correct.     

Are you happy with my attempt to focus on this core issue, which I think will get to the heart of our disagreements on this site?I think once this issue is clarified, every other issue in your post will be seen in the light of our respective answers to this core philosophical issue.

[LBird]

I refer you to my post #67 about method, Hud, for which I received a warning.But I can't help commenting on the confusion of your last post.

Hud955 wrote:

The methodological individualism that lies at the root of his linguistics is a different beast.  This is an analytical tool, not a social or political statement.

[my bold]So, 'methodological individualism' is not political?

Hud955 wrote:

What is interesting about this is that methodological individualism is often at the root of theories proposed by those with pro-capitalist sympathies (often but not always).  And it is not difficult to see why that should be so.  It can certainly be linked with the political ideology of bourgeois individualism.  But while it has political implications…

[my bold]So, 'methodological individualism' is political?

Hud955 wrote:

…methodological individualim itself makes no value judgements and  has no political content.

That's an astonishing statement, Hud.No value judgements or political content? You don't think the theory is related to social classes and their historical development, and their ethics? Simply astonishing.

Hud955 wrote:

…you will need to explain how someone with a commitment to working class politics…

Chomsky has a commitment to Communism, to workers' power, to the end of private property, the market and money, and to the democratic control of world production (including production of scientific knowledge and truth)?I don't think so. Chomsky's 'methodological individualism' is the philosophical basis of his 'biological determinism' and his individualist, 'free-thinker', 'free association' Anarchism.His research, his selection parameters, which he employs to select his 'facts' (see my post 67 about your incorrect method), and his 'evidence' and 'proof' about individuals having biological mechanisms which determine their ahistoric and asocial language abilities, are all totally at odds with anything whatsoever to do with our Communist politics, philosophy or method.I'm beginning to think that you regard political philosophy as not being at the root of science.Y'know, that human and social activity, that the bourgeoisie pretend is an objective, neutral method to get at 'The Truth', and are supported in this myth by academics, who can see the threat, too, to their power, legitimacy and authority, when confronted with claims for democratic controls.Many physicists since Einstein have been aware that science is based upon 'theory and practice', as Marx argued, and not 'theory alone' or 'practice alone' or 'practice and theory'.Roll on my next warning.Thanks, Hud.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

His methodological individualism, his Cartesianism and his biological determinism are the intellectual foundations on which his linguistic theories rest.  These are intellectual positions usually associated with capitalist or propertarian ideologies, political viewpoints very different from Chomsky's own.

[my bold]I'm just going to have to be happy with what you've publicly said here, Hud, and leave it at that, because I'm going to get banned (yet again) for asking questions about our proletarian method. My warnings from the moderator are stacking up.Hopefully, either you or another poster will deepen these insights into Chomsky's ideological foundations, upon which are built his parameters of selection for 'evidence'.Our selection parameters will be very different, because we have different 'foundations/positions/ideologies/viewpoints' , as you call them, from Chomsky's 'capitalist/propertarian' ones.Put simply, he's a bourgeois academic, and workers should be aware of this, when reading his necessarily biased work.

[LBird]

Hud955 wrote:

You have to start with evidence … and then , applying a general theoretical understanding to it, see where that takes you.

This is not the scientific method, Hud.One does not start with 'evidence'.What counts as evidence is tied to one's theory.Even bourgeois philosophers of science have got that far – so why are we here ignoring the scientific method, as pointed out by Marx, of 'theory and practice'?You are employing a method of 'practice and theory'.Even you will admit that 'facts' are 'theory-laden', so how can you argue that one 'starts with the evidence'? The 'evidence' is tainted by theory from the start.Why not be open about our theories, which point to 'evidence'?Chomsky's theories point to 'evidence' that we wouldn't accept; the sooner we examine Chomsky's ideology, the sooner we'll understand why his 'evidence' is flawed, from our socialist perspective.There is no simple evidence. You are making a methodological error. It's not science.First warning: 1. The general topic of each forum is given by the posted forum description. Do not start a thread in a forum unless it matches the given topic, and do not derail existing threads with off-topic posts. 6. Do not make repeated postings of the same or similar messages to the same thread, or to multiple threads or forums (‘cross-posting’). Do not make multiple postings within a thread that could be consolidated into a single post (‘serial posting’). Do not post an excessive number of threads, posts, or private messages within a limited period of time (‘flooding’).

[LBird]

stuartw2112 wrote:

…your half sensible/half looney claims about "ideology"…

The usual response, stuart.You know there's something to it (as do the academics in their prefaces, as do all who pay lip-service to the fruits of 20th century philosophy of science), but you don't like where it takes us, in practice (so talk of 'fanaticism', 'diatribe' and 'looney').I'd ask you which ideology you use, but I'll bet you'll protest 'But, I'm an individual, with my own opinions, and I merely weight the objective evidence', without any recognition that those are precisely the ideas that the ruling class expounds.It must be pure co-incidence, that a Communist who argues for democracy in truth production is deemed a 'looney'.It certainly scares the academics, who populate bourgeois academia, whose elite expert role would come under question by the class conscious proletariat.I ask a proper question, stuart: if workers are to democratically control the means of production, doesn't that include scientific knowledge and the social production of 'truth'?If not, who is to control science and truth?Or do you believe the bourgeois mythology about 'disinterested academics' employing a 'neutral method', only concerned to reveal 'The Truth' by dispassionate examination of 'The Facts'?Unfortunately, the 'looney claims' are as true as the sensible ones, about ideology.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

But there you go – a site which claims to be giving a lead to workers

We don't claim that.

You certainly don't, YMS.The whole concept of 'workers', never mind 'democracy', or, god forbid, 'workers' power' are anathema to your individualism.But don't worry about the substance of my earlier post to Hud, and just concentrate on your own ideology.

[Author]

Posts