LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:There is a third alternative: Socially-objective Truth.LBird wrote:The study of science since Copernicus shows us that science is often mistaken. Einstein showed that Newton was mistaken.
That's a turn-up for the books. What's all the fuss been about? But just as a matter of interest what is the current "Socially-objective Truth" (not need for a capital T if you don't want) about, say, the solar system or in astronomy generally?
[my bold]'The fuss has been all about' your refusal to acknowledge that, if the 'earth-sun relationship' is about 'knowledge', and not the 'object', then the relationship for humans can change, because 'truth' is related to 'knowledge' and not simply 'object'.So, I can say both that "in the 21st century, the earth goes round the sun" and that "in the 15th century, the sun went round the earth".One can only say this if one subscribes to the ideology of 'socially-objective truth' (no need for a capital T or S, if we don't want).This allows us to give a social and historical account of 'truth': what society produced its 'truth' and what period (start and finish dates) when this 'truth' was 'true'.This is a million miles away from 'discovery science' (as Pannekoek dismissively described it) and 'Truth' not related to humans.Of course, Leninists will dispute this, because they must (for their own ideological reasons) hang onto 'special knowledge' (party consciousness) which is denied to the masses.I don't. I follow Marx, and his ideology about workers taking control of their society by democratic means.But this is not 'objective truth' (with capitals or without). Communist society will be of its time and place, and we can't, like a ruling class must do, project ourselves both into the future and into the past as the eternal rulers.Put simply, we know we don't know. And what we do know, we know we've produced it. Nature doesn't talk to us whilst we passively listen, or to an elite.The elite lie to us. A suitably proletarian attitude.
ALB wrote:I don't think it's me that's playing with words. I just used the word "bad" to mean "mistaken", actually in relation to ideology/false consciousness but it could be applied more widely. I know you'll come back and say that this implies the opposite — that there can be a non-mistaken understanding. But surely there's a sense in which this must be the case, without having to be committed to Knowledge as Absolute Truth?You're asking the right questions anyway, ALB!But, in fact, I've given the answer to this several times, especially on our thread discussing Schaff's ideas, and the various "Object/Subject/Knowledge" relationships.To recap simply:1. Knowledge=Object (objectivism, naive realism, 'materialism/physicalism', Leninism)=Absolute Truth;2. Knowledge=Subject (subjectivism, anti-realism, 'idealism/individualism', PoMo)=Truth is all in One's Mind;3. Knowledge=product of interaction between Subject (NB. a society, not an individual) and Object (Social Objectivism, Critical Realism, 'the practice of idealism-materialism', Marxism)=Truth as a social and historical Product.The denial of 'Absolute Truth' does not compel one to believe in 'Anything Goes'.There is a third alternative: Socially-objective Truth.If one adopts the third position, however, and one is also a Communist/Socialist, then I don't know how the issue of 'democracy' can be ignored.'Socially-objective Truth' can also be said to be derived from an elitist practice (that is, rejection of Absolute Truth but retention of 'priests' to interpret), but I don't accept elitism, due to my ideology.
ALB wrote:So, tell us, can anyone ever be mistaken?Humanity can always be 'mistaken'. The study of science since Copernicus shows us that science is often mistaken. Einstein showed that Newton was mistaken.Democracy, however, demands 'Plan B' (and C, D…), an oppositional position, in both politics and science, so a 'mistaken' position defeated can provide a 'true' position for a future vote. We must have a pluralistic view (ie. similar to Lakatos' competing 'research programmes', rather than Kuhn's single dominant 'paradigm').We must teach critical thinking, not respect for authority, especially not unelected authority, like 'elite scientists' and academics. Critical thinking helps to identify the 'mistakes' which we now know that any 'scientific method' must produce. We're human.
ALB wrote:LBird wrote:I still think you're trying to preserve big T 'true knowledge from science'.No I'm not. Why on Earth would I want to do that.
I don't know, ALB, why on earth you'd want to do that. But using the human judgement 'bad', for its opposite, does just 'that'.
ALB, post #643, wrote:I don't like the word "distorted" either as it gives the impression of something bad rather than natural and normal.Selection means distortion, which you define as 'bad'.So, that implies there is a 'good'.If 'selection/distortion' is 'bad', it implies the 'good' is 'clarity/truth'.If that is your 'good', we're back to naive realism, positivism, materialism, physicalism… and big 'T' 'true knowledge'.You have to stop playing with words, ALB, in a forlorn attempt to protect an outdated viewpoint, and accept the implications of both 'selection' and your quote from Dietzgen about 'material and ideal having the same status'.Both of these assumptions imply 'distortion by humans', not 'mirror image of reality'. 'Distortion' is entirely 'natural and normal'.
ALB wrote:To be fair, since his definition and use of the word "ideology" differs so much from that of Marx and the Marxist tradition, LBird has given us permission to use another term to express his idea. I opt for "selective" and "selection". In which case what he is saying on this point that all science (all knowledge of anything, in fact) is necessarily "selected". So a non-selective science is not possible. But whoever said it was? I don't like the word "distorted" either as it gives the impression of something bad rather than natural and normal.You're right, ALB, I have said that, for the purposes of progressing the thread, if someone wants to use 'selection' instead of 'ideology', then go right ahead.But this is just playing with words, as the same problem results.You might not like 'distorted', but that is your problem about 'bad'. Distortion is entirely 'natural and normal'.To believe otherwise, is to revert to 'naive realism'. What is 'natural and normal'? 'The Truth' or 'social truth with a history'?I still think you're trying to preserve big T 'true knowledge from science'.If you 'select' a 'blue smartie' from a bag of smarties, and draw the conclusion that 'bags of smarties' are 'blue', you're holding a 'distorted' view. This isn't 'bad', but 'natural and normal'.If your answer is to 'empty the entire bag', then you're a naive realist. 'Bags' can't be 'emptied', because that wouldn't be 'selection', would it?
ALB wrote:The faux pas you made in discussing science in a socialist/communist society with YMS was mportant and maybe revealing because it raised the question of the possibility of a class=free (if not selection-free) science. Obviously in a classless society there cannot be any "proletarian" or "bourgeois" science, only human (or, if you like, "democratic") science.So do you accept that, at least in classless socialist/communist society, science can be class-free?How many times can you ask the same question, ALB, be given an answer, ignore it, and ask the same questions again?For example (and there are others):
LBird, post #372, wrote:ALB wrote:It is not as if you completely rule out a "class-free" physics, etc since you take the view that this will be the case in socialism/communism.But I do rule out 'ideology-free' physics, as I keep saying, because, according to bourgeois science, it's part of the human condition. All societies employ ideas to understand the world. Science employs ideas to understand the world. Humans employ ideas to understand the world. THERE IS NO IDEOLOGY-FREE HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.
So, I "completely rule out a 'class-free' physics", because, as I've said before on this very thread, if there are no classes there can't be any 'class physics'.But humanity can't get away from 'ideology'. All human knowledge is distorted. To seek is to hide.And comrades wonder why I get fed up.
Brian wrote:…when we apply critical thinking and requests for explanations to your posts your frustration seems to get the better of you and your style of response is off putting and conflict ridden.Naturally, I see this differently!For example, I made a relatively long post about some outlines of Critical Realism. I thought that this would generate some 'critical thinking and requests for explanations' about what I had written, because there is a long way to go with that explanation.But no, DJP posted a link to Bhaskar (someone who's recently turned to mysticism) whose video much of it I don't understand! Plus, Bhaskar's books make Marx look like 'Janet and John'. DJP did this because he dosn't want to discuss, but to sneer, at the 'long-haired hippy' who is the 'real brains behind LBird's thinking'.This happens constantly: DJP wants to understand Critical Realism through the lens of Physicalism, rather than in its own terms; (just as YMS wants to understand 'proletarian democracy' through the lens of 'individualism'). If DJP wants to do this, that's fine, but then we must divert away for the moment from CR and its explanations, to a discussion of the relevent ideologies behind CR and Physicalism, to help comrades understand the deeper political issues. DJP, of course, won't do this, because he thinks science (or his version of it, physicalism) is not ideological. So, we hit an impasse. CR can't be understood through the lens of Physicalism. Just like Capital can't be understood through the lens of Liberalism.So, when I ask DJP to tell me his 'science' ideology, or YMS his 'democracy' ideology, they both refuse, because they don't think that their views are ideological. On the contrary, I constantly detail my ideology, and gives quotes from the ideologists that have influenced me, in both science and politics: Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Schaff, Einstein, Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Bhaskar, Archer, etc. That doesn't mean I agree with everything all of these said (indeed, they often conflict with each other on some issues), but that I wish to expose my sources. DJP, YMS and others, like ALB, won't tell me who the ideologists are who they are influenced by. DJP seems to think posting links to heavily ideological sites without critical comment is acceptable. As if he's 'giving the Truth', rather than engaging in politics (which is what science is).
Brian wrote:In this battle for ideas its essential we tackle this particular issue of selection, classification, terms and meanings by seemingly posing the negative when in actual fact we are reaching out in a comradely fashion for a positive response and further clarification so that any ambiguity or misunderstanding can be explained and put in a language which the majority of us can understand.[my bold]This is completely untrue. I've had almost nothing but sneering and ignorance, and a complete refusal to engage in discussion. I suspect there are posters here who haven't read even one book by all of those writers I've listed above, and yet think that they have a more profound understanding than me about these issues. In fact, one of the reasons I've posted here is to learn, because I'm aware of how little I know, and I have read many of those authors' books from end to end!
Brian wrote:The truth of the matter is if you are unable to convince socialists you are unlikely to convince other members of the working class that your theory merits consideration for the present and the future.And if other 'socialists' are unable to think critically about unusual ideas, new to them, they can't expect to be regarded as having anything to say to other members of the working class.And it's not 'my' theory. It's the theories of Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Schafff…I'm not afraid to declare my ideological influences.I regard that as part of the 'scientific method'. Clearly, most here don't, and wish to continue with bourgeois science's elitism and mystification by mathematics.Unless science is under our democratic control, and that means that its products are understandable to the majority, then we will remain under the power of an unelected elite.Of course, if one regards science as non-ideological, then I'm talking bollocks, should be ignored, and something so powerful should be left to our betters.
Brian wrote:LBird wrote:What's worse, you two seem to be the best minds on offer, from the SPGB.It depends on how you personally select and classify "the best minds on offer". Not that it matters in this discussion for its not about individualism or personality, but the selection and classification of terms and their meaning so that a theory of Science for Communists becomes the accepted democratic tool for the workers of today and the citizens of tomorrow.
[my bold]I couldn't put it better myself, Brian.I might be missing something out, or I might be able to express myself better, and I'm sure what I'm saying is only food-for-thought to stimulate a debate between workers who say they aim to build for Communism, but at least I'm trying to contribute to what you've said, above. You'd think that more comrades would be at least intrigued by a suggestion for democracy in science, and that they'd think that there might be something to Marx's aim to 'unify science', that's worth discussing.As to 'the best minds on offer', I can only judge by those who post on this thread, and, quite frankly, DJP and ALB have been, at least recently, the only ones who are contributing, and even that has been mostly negative in tone. Some others have asked some relevent questions, but then not returned to the discussion when I've given answers.
DJP wrote:No there wont be workers control in communism because there will be no workers."Workers control" is not a description of communism.Oh no, not that old chestnut! Time and time again.The children come out to play, at every opportunity.If I happen to mention 'humanity', the kids shout "You're ignoring 'classes', LBird! Call yourself a Communist?!".If I happen to mention 'workers', the kids howl "You're perpetuating 'classes', LBird! Call yourself a Communist?!".I'm surprised you're still playing this old game, ALB, I thought you more advanced in your criticisms than DJP, but I've been sadly proved wrong.Why can't you two make some valuable addition to the discussion?This is getting tiring.What's worse, you two seem to be the best minds on offer, from the SPGB.
So that's a 'No', then, to "workers' control"?You mention 'everyone', 'people', 'authorities', 'association', and 'community', but no mention of 'workers'.What sort of 'Communism' do you stand for, YMS?It doesn't seem to have much to do with Marx, production, class, exploitation, democracy, history or, indeed, workers.Just some vague mutterings about 'free' and 'rational', 'not abiding by rules' and 'the right of a minority'.Sounds like some sort of liberalism to me, YMS. Ahistorical, asocial, individualism.Oh yes, and an as yet only implied and unspoken fear of 'the masses'.
I think you should be open with us, YMS.Who will 'control' science, in your opinion?Since it must be logically a minority (otherwise, you would be happy with democratic controls), who are this 'minority' who will insist to workers that those workers will have no collective say in a fundamentally important aspect of society's production processes.Does your fear of workers extent to other areas of production?If the universities are under our democratic controls, surely the universities will teach democratic methods within all disciplines, and your minority will be compelled to adopt these university-sanctioned approaches.Or are you opposed to our democratic control of the education system, too?Are the universities also to be left in the hands of an 'academic elite'?Just what parts of society will be under the control of the Communist majority?None, perhaps?You don't trust 'workers', do you, Young Master Smeet?
YMS wrote:I continue to counterpose my democratic methods to your nose counting.So, 'workers' who think that they should have a say in the conduct of science in their society are 'noses' now.Interesting.And your 'democratic' methods – did you learn them in 'Democratic Kampuchea'?
YMS wrote:here I'm actually arguing against you, in favour of democracy.Of course you are. The fact that you've constantly stressed your opposition to 'democratic methods' throughout this thread must be a figment of my imagination.For example:
YMS wrote:I've already stated my probhlem with voting: it's pointless.Right, I'll leave you to your own definition of democracy, YMS, and await any other posters' comments about 'science' and its method.If you want to discuss the meaning of 'democracy' further, YMS, please do so on the new thread started for that purpose.
ALB wrote:We in the Socialist Party have tended to steer a middle course with decisions concerning a community as a whole to be taken democratically by them, either directly in a general meeting or a referendum or by elected committees. A vast extension of democratic control compared to today, particularly with regard to the use of means of production, but not embracing every single decision.This is a statement of 'democracy' that I can agree with.That is, "decisions concerning a community", in which I would characterise 'concerns' as those relating to 'power', 'authority' and 'legitimacy'.So, if any issue involves those 'concerns', I think it should be 'decided by the community', collectively and democratically.This, clearly, doesn't involve 'what people consume, wear, or how they lay out their front gardens'.But, since, for example, 'science' has a "power, authority and legitimacy" within our society, I think that that, too, should be classed as an issue "concerning a community". In fact, the 'world community'.
ALB wrote:In the end of course, the exact form that democratic control will take will depend on preference of what people living in socialism want and decide. There is no reason why this should be the same everywhere.Quite right! Those communities who 'want and decide' that Mengele should be allowed to practice on live humans, should be allowed to get on with it!Who are we to impose our collective humanity upon those who don't share it? [/sarcasm]No, I don't think so. I'd argue that some decisions are 'world decisions', for the democratic decision by humanity. After all, we're a 'community', too.
YMS wrote:I've already stated my probhlem with voting: it's pointless.Yes, it's been evident for a long time that that's your opinion of 'democracy'.I don't share that assumption, YMS.I'm a Communist, and want to see the democratic control of production, distribution and consumption.If you have a different conception of Communism, start another thread, and we can all discuss that.As far as this thread goes, we can't advance any further whilst you argue against democracy, because that is the key to all my arguments.If other comrades are not democrats, too, and the SPGB pronounces against democracy to settle this debate, I'll leave the site, knowning that I don't share this site's conception of Communism/Socialism.
YMS wrote:Anyway, to selection. We inhabit a roughly similar planet to each other. Our brains are constructed in roughly the same way, and our sense organs operate in roughly the same fashion (there are degrees of variation but I think we can average them away). We inhabit a similar culture. So, it's far to say that our selections will be roughly similar, and we can average them away. Selections and biases can be accounted for (and minimised).So, if "The Truth" is unobtainable, then it doesn't matter. What mattersw is that we mutually inhabit a world where according to our best ability to sense and to reason we can say that certain claims about the world can be true to our observations.Sounds like a perfect basis for a democratic theory of truth, YMS!
YMS wrote:Members of our community, who are similar to us, can go forth and collect knowledge, that we will believe because we have confdence in their method.Err.. surely 'members of our community' can be selected by us, and 'we will believe' their results 'because we have confidence in our method'? Which will be, of course, to vote on the results which they obtain and will have to explain properly to society.If 'experts' are to be simply 'believed' because of 'their method', why shouldn't this process work in politics and economics, too?What have you got against democratic controls, YMS?
YMS wrote:Personally, I have no experience or proof that India exists, but I have no good reason to doubt the evidence therefore presented to me by otehr people. That's what it means to be a social being.So, why shouldn't you have a vote, then, if you're convinced by other people? And the rest of us, too, have a vote?Or are you saying that as long as you're convinced, that's good enough for everybody else, in every situation?Sounds like the 'guru' method to me. You proclaim 'the truth', and we meekly accept the 'word' of both you and your 'experts'.No, YMS, I'm a Communist, and that means I argue for the democratic control of production, distribution and consumption.That, necessarily, includes 'science' as a productive force.
