[LBird]

YMS wrote:

This means socialism is an ongoing dialogue between flesh and blood human beings, not abstractions like 'society'.So, only the Tory party can deliver the abolition fo the wages system and real socialism. Hail David Cameron.

Yes, Tories always denigrate talk of 'society' as an 'abstraction', and alternatively stress the individualist ideology of 'flesh and blood human beings'.The Tories emphasise the biological, at the expense of the social.

YMS wrote:

Sorry. That slipped out.

No, it didn't 'slip out'. It's entirely consistent with your ideological views, YMS.I don't think that you are conscious of your 'Thatcherite' view of the world. That's not meant as an insult, but a plea for you to re-examine your views, and try to locate their origin outside of yourself as an individual, in the society within which you've grown up, saturated by its ideas.As we all have, of course. That's the point of discussing these issues, to help each other develop a consistent Communist/Socialist outlook of our world.We're not individuals, we're workers; and that structural category is a social category, not an 'abstraction'

[LBird]

A little more on Einstein’s epistemological development, for those interested. Although he seemed to move beyond the 19th century empiricism of his youth (he left Mach’s empiricism behind him after the publication of his general theory of relativity in 1915), and was able to point towards Marx’s anti-inductive position, with his later view about the impossibility of moving from ‘observation to theory’ (see my post #928 for Einstein’s quote in van Dongen), he seems to have failed to make the jump to the social construction of theories, and for him this construction remained an individual one.Einstein wrote of “intuitive selection”, “the intuitive grasp” and “the intuitive view of the researcher” (see van Dongen, pp. 42, 43 and 45).If we employ Schaff’s trichotomous model of object, subject and knowledge (which I detailed on the thread dedicated to Schaff), this shows that, although Einstein got beyond the 19th century ‘objectivist/positivist’ view that ‘knowledge’ reflects the ‘object’ (where the ‘subject’ is absent), he still didn’t get to Marx’s position that the interaction (through practice) of ‘object’ and ‘subject’ produces ‘knowledge’.Einstein stalled at the subjectivist position that the ‘subject’ creates ‘knowledge’, through individual ‘intuition’, which later led him to stress ‘subject’ alone (without any need for ‘object’), which led him to move away from conducting experiments, and to rely almost entirely on his ‘individual intuition’. Einstein defined the ‘subject’ as ‘an individual’, whereas Marx’s theories mean that we have to define the ‘subject’ as ‘a society’. Marx constantly stressed the social production of knowledge.To summarise, Einstein rejected ‘objectivist’ (19th century positivist/empiricist/inductivist) theories of scientific method, but only got as far as did many others, in the social reaction of the early 20th century which moved to ‘subjectivist’ theories (Carr in What is History? describes this social process that “…after the First World War, the facts seemed to smile on us less propitiously than in the years before 1914…”, p. 21). Einstein did not develop to the position Marx had outlined in the 1840s.As Communists, we must adopt the method that holds that ‘knowledge’ is something actively produced by a ‘social subject’, a society in its historical and social interaction with the ‘object’ of a really existing world of ideas and materiality. That is, ‘theory and practice’, both of which are always social, not individual, upon our physical and social world.

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

Is it permitted in this forum to call another person an ignorant ?  if It is permitted , I can call him a mother fucker

Well, since I often admit to being ignorant myself about all sorts of things, and try to learn, I've got no problem pointing out when others, like you, are clearly ignorant about particular issues.You might be a lawyer, doctor, or whatever, but that in itself gives you no insight into these epistemological and political issues, as you have shown.Why can't you engage with the arguments, rather than attacking me personally, and then throwing your dummy out of the pram when I point out your problem?

[LBird]

mcolome1 wrote:

You should create your own personal discussion forum. I think this forum is taking a wrong route

That's a rather uncomradely thing to say, mcolome, especially given that I've been entirely accommodating to your less than clear previous posts on these questions.If you are too ignorant to follow the discussion, why not ask, and I'll try to help you understand.Or do you secretly prefer the Leninist method, but don't like me pointing out that what you believe about science is Leninist in its political implications?Are you opposed to my ideology of Democratic Communism? If so, why not outline your ideology?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Same thing.

I'm afraid it isn't the same thing, YMS.Right, I've had enough of you and your non-Communist and non-democratic ideology.I'm interested in discussing the issue of democracy within scientific method, because of the social demands of epistemology, with comrades who share my ideology of Democratic Communism.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

The only way for me to be free…

[my bold]Wrong ideology for this site, YMS.The correct formulation is "The only way for us to be free… "'Freedom' is a social state, not an individual state.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Certainly not all members.  Some members will be unable, as you indicate, to take part.  Some will be babies, some will be senile or have some other mental illness or disability.  So that's "all" knocked into a cocked hat.From each according to their abilities (and who knows better than myself what I can and cannot do?) to each according to their needs (and again, who knows better?) in a society in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

So, you're not a democratic Communist, then?I particularly like the twist about babies and the senile not being able to participate, and that undoubted fact being used to undermine arguments for democratic controls. You should be in the Tory party. They use that type of political argument.And you've clearly said that you alone, and not you and your comrades in a collective, democratic decision, will decide on your abilities and needs.Why not just say that you're not a democratic Communist, YMS?And we can move on.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

In a communist society, knowledge will be produced by members of that society, and there will be equal access to the resources of society to produce that knowledge, and people will contribute according to their abilities. Since those resources will be commonly owned, the only way they can be administered is democratically.

You should go into bourgeois politics, YMS, because your evasiveness in answering a direct question is quite fitted to parliament.So, you say 'knowledge will be produced by members of that society'.Note, not 'all members', and no mention of 'democratic production'.So this can be read as 'some expert members doing the producing'.And again, 'and there will be equal access to the resources of society to produce that knowledge, and people will contribute according to their abilities. Since those resources will be commonly owned, the only way they can be administered is democratically', where you neatly move from 'production' to 'administration'.The only acceptable formulation for a Communist/Socialist who starts from the political axiom of "democratic control of the means of production by the proletariat" is that all aspects of the production of scientific knowledge will be by democratic means.So, no 'elites' or 'experts' producing, who then put their results in front of 'non-experts' or a 'non-elite', but the active participation by the proletariat (and post-rev., society) in the democratic production of scientific knowledge.You won't agree to this, because it will undermine your touching faith in 'experts', and your determination to prevent democratic controls on your individual activity.You're an individualist and an elitist, YMS, as shown by numerous posts on this thread, and by your formulation of questions, and your profferred answers.Your emphasis on 'free association' (a phrase latched onto by individualists and Anarchists who are not Communists, but dislike how bourgeois society works for them), rather than 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs' (which means that 'abilities' and 'needs' are democratically defined, not by isolated individuals for themselves) is illustrative of the problem.Science has to be under the control of society, not 'scientists'. This is a political and epistemological issue.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I think we're both asking the same question here.  Who produces the scientific knowledge (science = reliable organised knowledge)?  We can't all do the same experiment, can we?Anyway, my answer is society.  Your turn.

[my bold]No, you haven't quite got the hang of this 'politics' and 'power' thing, yet, have you?I'm asking if your answer is 'democracy'.The answer 'society' would be acceptable to elitists, like Leninists.I'm asking what is your political view of the social production of knowledge by a Communist society (and, in the work up to that, by a class conscious proletariat).

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

And no answer to my basic point, we ca't all perform experiments/research, and so will have to sit in judgement of the work of others…

And no answer to the epistemological question at the heart of this thread:Who produces scientific knowledge, a society or an elite?Once that is answered, the discussion about how our society will organise its democratic control of the production of scientific knowledge can begin.I don't think that you're either a Communist/Socialist or a democrat, YMS.From what I can tell, you're an individualist and an elitist. All your thinking, assumptions, questions and answers start from those premises: society is a collection of individuals, and most of those individuals can't be expected to educate themselves.In fact, YMS, I'd say that you merely repeat ruling class ideas, which I find surprising on a Communist site, as I've already said.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

TBH, I am more concerned with interest than power, not being an anarchist and all.

I think you would be more accurate to say 'not being a democratic Communist and all'.You 'rely', we'll 'participate'.Nothing you say, YMS, strikes me as the least bit revolutionary, or even critical of what exists, now.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…the fact that if presented with honest evidence of technical experts a democratic body would agree with the proposition put before them.

[my bold]This sounds like the Leninist Method of Science to me, YMS.The passivity of having something 'presented' to (or 'put before') one, the lack of questioning of who determines 'honest', the simple acceptance of 'evidence' rather than critical examination of sources and their selection, the reduction of the creation of human knowledge to a 'technical' issue, and an elite of 'experts' who are the 'active side'…Any Cadre Party's Central Committee would say it simply presents honest evidence from their political experts for the 'rubber stamping' by the "People's Assembly" about 'truth' in both science and politics.'They' know best.No, YMS, this isn't my vision of a creative, active, well-educated, confident, critical proletariat coming to consciousness of its own abilities and powers, and building towards the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, and the institution of democracy within the means of production, including the social production of scientific knowledge of nature and society, employing a unified democratic method.Once again, YMS, I'm forced to conclude that issues of 'power' don't figure highly on your agenda, which I find strange for someone posting on a Communist/Socialist site.It's as if you think politics is something done in a parliament, by a few, rather than a way of life for active humanity, in its entirety.A society does 'theory and practice', not an elite.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Put another way, if the consensus gentium trolled up to a beech and voted for the tide to halt, would they end up looking like a bunch of Cnuts?

The main objection I can think of to a Communist democratic scientific method is the ideological argument that 'most workers are too thick'.But anyone who uses this axiom can't be a Communist/Socialist, of the sort that the SPGB claims to be, and who believes in democratic control of production by the proletariat.Of course, those who look to 'reality' to tell us the 'truth' of itself, like those who look to Engels, 'materialism', 'DiaMat', positivism, empiricism, induction or physicalism, or any individualist or elitist who distrusts the abilities of 'the mob', can employ that objection to consensus gentium (the agreement of the people) as a method of determining 'truth' within human knowledge.I'm not sure where you stand, YMS, given some of your earlier posts; perhaps you've thought a bit deeper about the issue?

[LBird]

Some more textual support for my argument that Einstein eventually stumbled upon Marx’s method of ‘theory and practice’. That is, one’s ‘theory’ determines the ‘facts’ that one can ‘observe’, rather than the empiricist/positivist/physicalist dogma that ‘facts’ precede ‘theory’, and that ‘theories emerge from empirical research’ by induction (ie. ‘practice and theory’). This also backs up Carr’s famous ‘fish/fisher’ analogy of the necessity for selection, which is a method that emphasises the need for pre-existing ‘selection parameters’ (which emerge from ‘theory’, and not from ‘practice’), to enable humans to understand their real world.

Albert Einstein wrote:

I have learned […] from the theory of gravitation: no collection of empirical facts however comprehensive can ever lead to the formulation of such complicated equations. A theory can be tested by experience, but there is no way from experience to the construction of a theory.

[my bold][quoted in: Jeroen van Dongen (2011) Einstein’s Unification Cambridge University Press, p. 32]http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/physics/history-philosophy-and-foundations-physics/einsteins-unification

[LBird]

Hopefully, this description of this particular scientific episode will provide us with some insights into the form the 'scientific method' will take under Communism:

Guardian Article wrote:

That has been the standard model of science ever since the media first acknowledged it. A hundred years ago, headlines in the New York Times had all the gravitas of a papal edict: “Men of science convene” and so forth. They were authoritative, decorous and totally contrived.That image started to unravel after James Watson published The Double Helix, his racy behind-the-scenes account of the pursuit of the structure of DNA. But even now, some scientists would prefer the mask to remain, insisting that results are announced only after they have passed peer review, ie been checked by experts and published in a reputable journal.There are many reasons why this will no longer wash. Those days of deference to patrician authority are over, and probably for the better. We no longer take on trust what we are told by politicians, experts and authorities. There are hazards to such scepticism, but good motivations too. Few regret that the old spoonfeeding of facts to the ignorant masses has been replaced with attempts to engage and include the public.But science itself has changed too. Information and communications technologies mean that not only is it all but impossible to keep hot findings under wraps, but few even try. In physics in particular, researchers put their papers on publicly accessible pre-print servers before formal publication so that they can be seen and discussed, while specialist bloggers give new claims an informal but often penetrating analysis. This enriches the scientific process and means that problems that peer reviewers for journals might not notice can be spotted and debated. Peer review is imperfect anyway – a valuable check but far from infallible, and notoriously conservative.Because of these new models of dissemination, we were all able to enjoy the debate in 2011 about particles called neutrinos that were alleged to travel faster than light, in defiance of the theory of special relativity. Those findings were announced, disputed and finally rejected, all without any papers being formally published. The arguments were heated but never bitter, and the public got a glimpse of science at its most vibrant: astonishing claims mixed with careful deliberation, leading ultimately to a clear consensus. How much more informative it was than the tidy fictions that published papers often become.

[my bold]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/26/scientists-gravitational-waves-scienceJust needs an added dose of workers' democracy, eh?

[Author]

Posts