LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Brian wrote:And there lies the problem of confusion with you and Bhaskar…
But my tag is not Bhaskar, but LBird, so why not engage with what the self-proclaimed Communist and admirer of the SPGB's commitment to democracy, who has been attempting to discuss this for a year, LBird, has to say, and forget Bhaskar, for now?Why the obsession with people I quote, in support of some things I say, rather than engaging with me, and what I say?I'm trying to help (god knows, I've tried) comrades to avoid most of the complexity, and get a hook into what I think would benefit workers in their relationship with science.Believe me, buying Bhaskar's A Realist Theory of Science is not the easiest route. Some discussion first would be immeasurably helpful, for those new to philosophy of science.Plus, most of what Bhaskar writes is similar to Marx: not in its politics, but in its opaqueness, so I don't understand most of what either of them say. That's why I want to discuss, and not merely regurgitate "the words of the Masters".[edit] Plus, DJP has form with the diversionary method. He's used it before (the issues of 'physicalism' and 'mind' spring to mind), so it's not limited to 'Bhaskar'.
The real issue thrown up by this thread is not my banning (which is indeed a cause for concern, but I don’t wish my personal disagreements to become the focus), but the complete failure of anyone, either SPGB party member or fellow traveller, to actually engage in a discussion, about ‘Communism and science’.DJP’s constantly used diversionary tactic of posting ‘links and videos’ without comment, either of the political content of the ‘links and videos’ themselves or of my original posts to which the ‘links and videos’ are an obfuscating response, is well known. This particular diversionary tactic is in addition to those that I listed at post #442.There have been some perfunctory comments about the Bhaskar video, but no attempts whatsoever to discuss my outline of CR, given in post #398. Not least, because I have serious disagreements with Bhaskar, but DJP seems to think an uncommented link is sufficient response to my extended attempt to explain some aspects of CR.There are merely constant attempts to ask the same questions, again and again, no matter what my responses to those questions (object, subject, knowledge, matter, idealism, materialism, etc., etc.). It’s like a merry-go-round, where twenty questions are asked, and answered, and at the end, question 1 is asked again, as if everything has been forgotten, and off we go again. No progress, just Groundhog Day.And then we have from ALB:
ALB, post #455, wrote:I must confess that at one point I thought that the term "critical realism" might be a useful alternative to "dialectical materialism" to describe the theory of understanding/knowledge/science held by Marx, Dietzgen and Pannekoek and said so in one of the numerous threads we've had on this. It suggests that there is a "real" world that exists outside our minds, with the word "critical" bringing out that the mind places an active role in understanding this outside reality. But now I see it comes associated with a baggage which none of these would accept. So we'll have to stick to "dialectical materialism".ALB, post #457, wrote:I was responding to DJP's post immediately before and also to the clip he posted by the guru. It seems that "critical realism" is the name adopted by some philosophy lecturers to mean something different to what its name suggests. In fact, worrying, as they seem to, about whether the table behind you exists when you're not looking at it is the typical pre-occupation of the isolated individual(ist) armchair philosopher.[my bolds]So, ALB ‘sees’ DJP’s ‘guru clip’ and, miraculously, suddenly ‘comes to consciousness’ on this issue of ‘Communism and Science’, ditches a year’s worth of discussion by me, completely ignores my post about CR, and simply takes DJP’s uncommented video at face value, and responds to that, not me.Now, he’s a self-declared ‘dialectical materialist’, again, who seems to think that I’m arguing for ‘tables disappear when not looked at’ and ‘individualist armchair philosophy’.No matter that I’ve answered his (and others) constant questions about ‘realism’, ‘theory and practice’ and ‘social subject’. That is, I’ve constantly said that ‘the world pre-exists human consciousness’ (so I’m not arguing that it disappears ‘when you’re not looking at it’), that ‘practice’ is an essential part of Marx’s method (so I’m not arguing for ‘armchair philosophy’) and that the social, historical and ideological dimensions of science are vitally important (so I’m not arguing for ‘isolated individuals’).Finally, the closest that anyone has come to ‘exposing’ their ideology, is Vin, for which he is to be admired. But unfortunately, it’s as bad as I feared. Vin has admitted that he thinks that ‘physics and sociology’ are of a different methodological order (no matter Marx’s thinking about ‘unity of science’), and that ‘physics’ provides a model for ‘sociology’ to follow. He also thinks that ‘physics’ leads to ‘Truth’ and that there is a method for getting at this ‘Truth’ of nature, if not of sociology. Vin also follows the ideology of Kuhn, who is a conservative for ‘one paradigm’, as I’ve already explained, as compared with Lakatos, who is a radical for ‘multiple research programmes’. These views have political implications for democracy, which must have multiple choices by its very nature.The reason I say ‘unfortunate’, rather than ‘conscious’, is that I don’t think that Vin (or the others who agree with him, but won’t openly say so, and hide their views) realise the tremendous, fundamental, political implications which flow from holding to this view of ‘science’. I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again, for anyone reading who hasn’t read this before.To believe the bourgeois myth of a ‘neutral method in physics which gives humans The Eternal Truth’ (and since Einstein we’ve know that it’s a myth, hence the disturbances within 20th century philosophy of science, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos, the most prominent critical thinkers), is to sow the seeds of Leninism within proletarian thought. If there is a ‘neutral method’ in physics, which can be learned by an educated elite, to the omission of the mass, and that this ‘neutral method’ can lay the basis of a ‘neutral method’ in all science (and if it can’t, and social issues are not open to ‘scientific’ approaches, where does that leave us Communists and our analysis of society?), then a small part of our class can claim to be able to employ this ‘neutral method’ which gives The Truth in politics, too.Here we have the ideological basis of ‘special cadre consciousness’, a consciousness not open to the mass of the proletariat. The Party will tell the class the fixed Truth, rather than the other way around, where the class decides its own changeable truths.Both Newton and Lenin are dead, comrades, and resurrecting either is a bad idea.The name of this quack science to fool the proletariat is Dialectical Materialism, and its progenitor was Engels’ mistaken take on positivist 19th century science.Marx’s views were different to Engels’, and, in my opinion, some form of Critical Realism can form the basis of realising Marx’s ideas about the ‘unity of science’ and ‘humanising nature’.If no-one is interested in discussing these issues, and merely wants to hold on to their outdated bourgeois ideology, why participate in a thread with this title? Why not just say ‘science has nothing to do with Communism’, and have done with it?
Brian wrote:Vin Maratty wrote:As this thread was started by LBird , am I the only on who feels uncomfortable about discussing it when he is unable to respond.Perhaps it is only my own personal experience but I can feel his frustration.LBird is on moderation, not suspended, which means he can if he so wishes post here but all his posts are filtered by the moderator.
[my bold]This was untrue.I was banned for a period, and when I tried a dozen times to login and respond, I was confronted with a message that my name was blocked.A special thanks to Vin, for his comradely and openly expressed concern.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:Well, I certainly seem to be the 'the only communist on this site',And any other site, for that matter.
Well, your rather limited range of experience of 'communist' (Leninist 'truth', the single interpretation) would lead you to suppose that, wouldn't it, Vin?User placed under moderation for 3 days for breaching Rule 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
gnome wrote:So, not only are you the only 'communist' in the village…Well, I certainly seem to be the 'the only communist on this site', because whenever I raise the question of 'democratic class control' (of party, 'science', 'matter', etc.), everybody else seems to pull a face.'Communism' (or 'socialism') here seems to mean only economic control.As if everything else can be reduced to 'the economic' – ideas, ethics, morality, beliefs, culture.Only the simplest Engelsian thinks that there is a one-way relationship between economics (or production) and the rest of human activity.So, 'GB' has no bearing upon the issue of class consciousness.
gnome wrote:To the best of my knowledge the SPGB has never taken advice from non-members and hopefully never will.oooo! Never taken advice from the class, eh?The more I dig, on all threads, the more I find Leninist-like certainty!God forbid the 'Party' would have the attitude that it can learn from the class, eh?Nah, as usual, it's a one-way transmission belt…
DJP wrote:The idea of "supervenience" is actually not that disimular from those "emergent properties"…It's totally different. 'Supervenience' focuses upon the 'component', whereas 'emergence' focuses on the 'real' (ie. non-physical causal powers, like Marx's 'value').
DJP wrote:…and levels of explanation that you where talking about in your description of CR.But I didn't finish that, because you didn't ask me to. So, you don't know what my 'explanation' is. Instead, you were content to post a video, which satisfied you, but didn't engage with me.
DJP wrote:I don't see what i t has to do with individualism at all.Evidently. That's because of your bourgeois assumptions, like 'physicalism' and 'supervenience'. You don't seem to realise that science is ideological, even though I keep telling you so. You have a mystical belief in 'matter'.
Quote:But there is little point in engaging with you further, your only wish seems to be to hurl insults at all and sundry.Oh, goody! Don't 'engage with' me – whatever you've been doing up to now, it's not 'engaging', if by that one means critical discussion and debate. You just uncritically provide links and videos, which you yourself don't understand. I've pointed this out to you, before.You stick to 'physical individualism', which means you can sense yourself all by yourself, and ignore 'value', which is neither physical nor individually to be touched. 'Value' requires social theory to understand, and thus is unavoidably 'ideological', rather than 'material' and 'the same for all observers'.'Value' is a class-based concept, and depends upon the observer's frame of reference.
By the way, DJP, I've been doing some reading around your favourite buzzword of 'supervenience', and it seems to be a codeword within bourgeois science for 'individualism', to help hide the reductionism which is at its heart. Related to this is your other ideological belief in 'physicalism'.These bolded are not concepts which should be employed within Communist science, but come from bourgeois science and its ideological defence of individualism and its detestation of society, if any other comrades are still intrigued by these debates.I already know DJP isn't.
1904 SPGB1905 Einstein’s Special Relativity1907 Picasso’s Les Demoiselles d'Avignon1914 World War One1915 Einstein’s General Relativity1917 Duchamp’s FountainetcYou’re still living on the wrong side of ‘history’, comrades.My advice? Ditch the 'GB'.
D'y'know, the hired prize-fighters of the bourgeoisie in academia couldn't put up as good a rearguard action, against any radical, critical thought about 'science', as this site has done!Sidetracking, 'misunderstanding', personal abuse, acting 'stupid', pretended agreement to lull me into unawareness and then renewed attack, forgetfulness, tag-team constant barrage in taking turns, 'could you just explain again, LBird' obsequiousness……it's a lesson to us all in delaying tactics. Fabius Cunctator would've been proud of you, legionnaries of Rome, against the blandishments of the Hannibalistic barbarian LBird!"He aims to burn Rome, lads!"
YMS wrote:What are Lakatos' "multiple research programmes"?I've already pointed out the relevance of this, twice, I think.Vin follows Kuhn's 'paradigms' and 'normal-revolution-normal' sequence. This means a single 'paradigm' is usually dominant, and dissent and disagreement are played down. Thus, I argued that this ideology is the more conservative and accepting of the status quo.I look to Lakatos' 'research programmes' which are multiple (as you say) and competing, all of the time. There isn't a period of 'normal, dominant, singular paradigm'. This means a pluralistic approach of competing theories. Thus, I argued that this ideology is the more radical and critical.If you wanted me to outline what Lakatos meant by a 'reseach programme', why didn't you ask that question when I was discussing 'hard cores', etc.? And in fact, I'm pretty certain that I've talked about 'protective belts', positive and negative heuristic, etc. on another thread, to which you were party.To me, for the purposes of this thread, the discusion of CR is far more important. I've only been diverted into R.P.s in response to Vin's reference to Kuhn's paradigms, which he seems to accept as 'true' (as opposed to ideological).'Side-tracking' appears to be a general method, within the SPGB.
YMS, Vin, it seems that I don't share your assumptions, and, as I've said, I've already explained why I don't.Perhaps it's time for you to ignore my further thoughts about 'unity of method' and CR?I don't think it will be fruitful for any of us.
OK, I'll move on soon, if there are no more questions about CR.I can't stress enough to comrades that if:a) one subscribes to an ideology that assumes a methodological separation of physical from social science; orb) one subscribes to Kuhn's ideology of 'normal' science usually following a single 'paradigm'; orc) one doesn't subscribe to Lakatos view of multiple 'research programmes'; ord) one doesn't think that Critical Realism is even worth discussing and taking forward; ore) one doesn't broadly follow Marx's ideas on science; orf) one's tag is DJP;then I don't think that you'll get anything further from this thread. I intend to take it forward on that basis. So, put simply, comrades, unless you subscribe to a-f above, and ask questions based upon those assumptions, I'll be ignoring your posts. I think that I've answered all the relevant questions about a-f, and so I'm not prepared to continue to go round in circles.But, I'll only post on CR if at least one comrade asks for me to do so.If not, we can finish here.
Vin Maratty wrote:To solve social ills the working class needs to adopt the marxist paradigm of the MCH and C and rejecect the bourgeois method of competing theoretical perspectives.Two problems here, Vin.How does the MCH&C explain 'rocks' to us? If you say it doesn't, then you must logically be saying that physical and social science are methodologically different. This conclusion goes against Marx's belief in the unity of science, which is the ideology that I use.If there are no 'competing theoretical perspectives', there must be one 'theoretical perspective' which tells us 'The Truth'. Can you tell me what this is, because to me it sounds like the political ideology of Leninism, that 'The Party is always Right'? [to clarify, if there is claimed to be 'one true perspective', the Party will claim to have it. This is a political issue, Vin]
VM wrote:As Kuhn and others have suggested this leads to the paradigm with the most powerful supporters being adopted and used by scientists.But I've already said that I think that Lakatos supecedes Kuhn, and explained why I think that. You haven't explained why you still employ Kuhn's ideology, in light of what I've said, about it being the more conservative theory of the two.
VM wrote:LBird you only quoted part of my post. I also suggested that the natural sciences could move forward but the answer is not to apply the demonstrably failed methods of economics, history etc.But, Vin, according to philosophers and physicists, it's the 'natural sciences' which have 'demonstrably failed methods'.I'd argue that Marx's method of 'economics, history, etc.' has been proved the more successful. And thus, his method (which I'm arguing is similar to CR) is the one to be applied to both social and physical science.
