[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

You won't believe this, but when I said that whether 'the sun goes round the earth' or 'the earth goes round the sun' is a 'truth' that depends upon which society is saying it, some, employing bourgeois ideology, denied it!

To continue the banter, how, then, can it be said that Newton was wrong, as somebody wrote last night?

ALB, post #399 wrote:

I should perhaps clarify that I agree with your point that the mind plays an active role in understanding nature and that the categories into which it classifies nature are in the mind not in nature.

[my bold]Unless you argue that Newton's 'mind' (which I think you agree is the source of the social and historical belief that 'the earth goes round the sun') is infallible, then it must be possible that he was wrong.All I'm doing, ALB, is pointing out the inconsistency when people accept the 'theory-ladenness of facts', but then insist that there are 'theory unladen facts' which do not depend upon social and historical 'mind'.I'm also assuming that you accept that Newton's mind was also a social and historical creation by his society.If we Communists are going to hold to the bourgeois belief in 'individual genius' and 'True Knowledge' as the basis of the scientific method, 'eternally uncriticisable', fair enough, but it should be openly declared by any who hold to this ideology, that they are following the bourgeoisie regarding 'science'.And the person who said Newton was wrong was the working physicist, Rovelli.I'm merely the humble messenger (who always reveals his sources), for Rovelli, Pannekoek and Marx – don't shoot me, ALB![PS, comrade, how about moving on to discussing Critical Realism, and its usefulness (or otherwise) for the proletariat when discussing scientific method?]

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Not meaning to be funny, but who are the bourgeoisie who have been saying this "for centuries"? Until a hundred years or so ago I would have thought that most of the bourgeoisie would have thought that "the Truth" was to be found in the bible — the Protestant ethic and all that. In any event, as you point out, whoever has been saying this is wrong, as is now widely recognised in bourgeois as well as socialist/communist circles.

Oh, it is 'funny', ALB!You won't believe this, but when I said that whether 'the sun goes round the earth' or 'the earth goes round the sun' is a 'truth' that depends upon which society is saying it, some, employing bourgeois ideology, denied it!Actually, 'truth' sits within 'knowledge of an object' and not within 'the object' itself.Of course, whereas the religious found 'Truth' in the bible, the bourgeoisie find 'Truth' in nature.For the former, truth is revealed in the bible, and can't be criticised; for the latter, truth is revealed in nature, and can't be criticised.Both hold to ahistoric, asocial 'Truth'.However, Marx argued that 'truth' is a social and historical product by humans, not something revealed to us (whether by the book or by neutral method), and, like Pannekoek, thought that even the 'laws of nature' are a social and historical product by humanity, not a reflection of 'reality as it is'.I'm glad we're sharing jokes now, ALB. It's so much more comradely.

[LBird]

I thought I’d begin today by trying to outline the basics of Critical Realism, for any comrades who are unfamiliar with CR. As usual, there is no substitute for actually reading deeper into these necessarily skimpy outlines, but I always think that it is a central role for Communists to try to explain, to other workers, complex ideas in far simpler terms than academics do. Much of what bourgeois academics write is intended, not to explain, but to hide, as part of their elitist ideology. I do think that Communists have a didactic role within the class, but this is a two-way relationship. If the class shout “Piss off, and come back when you’ve thought of a way to explain it better, in a way that we can understand!”, I would recommended this as the scientific method in action for the proletariat, when dealing with professors (or, indeed, with Communists). Science, in every discipline, must be explained and be accessible. This attitude must be at the forefront of any movement which claims to be the forerunner of the organised revolutionary proletariat, whose final aim is the democratisation of the means of production. Democracy, by its very nature, demands widespread understanding of all issues, whether these issues are classed as political, economic or scientific.The four key concepts in CR are: components, structures, levels, and emergent properties.A component is a building block of a structure.A structure is a set of components organised in a specific way, that is, a set of components in particular relationships to each other.A level is a certain set of structures which are themselves related to each other. The key points here are: a) that structures can themselves as act as components for higher level structures; and b) that components can be examined as structures formed from lower level components.Emergent properties are properties, attributes, powers, etc. that only emerge at a certain structural level. This means that the ‘emergent’ does not exist at the component level of that structure. One can’t break up the structure in search of the origin of the property, because it isn’t there. It exists as part of relationships. This applies at all levels, too. Higher and higher levels of structures have properties emerging at each level, which can’t be reduced to a lower level structure or component, and certainly can’t be reduced to some notional ‘lowest’ level component, because, according to our concepts, any so-called ‘lowest’ level component is always a structure, too.Some example would obviously help here, for those comrades entirely unfamiliar with CR, and for whom the above outline is a bit ‘dry’.Perhaps an example of a structure is a car. Notice, that I have chosen this as at a structural level for my explanation. This structure is made up of components, like engine, wheels, seats, etc. But these components are themselves structures, too, and I could have chosen to use any of them as a structure, rather than as a component, within my explanation. An emergent property of a car is speed. But this only exists at the car structural level, and examining the seats, wheels or engine for speed won’t reveal it. If these components are laid out, unstructured and unrelated, on a garage floor, they do not contain ‘speed’. Similarly, if cars are brought together in a specific structural relationship called traffic (that is, the structure ‘car’ is now acting as a ‘component’ for a higher structure), other properties emerge which don’t exist at the car level, like a ‘jam’. A hundred cars spread out over a city do not constitute a ‘traffic jam’ (with its lack of speed); it’s only a jam if the cars are brought together in the same street at the same time, in a certain relationship. A ‘jam’ does not exist at the car level, nor at the seat level.Four points: I think that CR can help explain scientific issues in both physical and social science; CR is the imposition of human theory upon the world (not 'induction' nor 'practice and theory') and thus follows the slogan 'theory and practice'; CR is essentially ‘relational’; CR is bound up with ideology, and it is anathaema to ‘individualist’ or ‘reductionist’ thought. In all these ways, I think CR is compatible with Marx’s views on science and nature.Science necessarily focuses upon a certain level: this is a human choice, not something that a structure forces upon the human. Perhaps the next stage is to show how this theory can be applied to help us to understand both rocks and value (ie. both physical and social phenomena), as I’ve already insisted that a ‘unified method’ must be able to do.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

The question I was raising was not incompatible with your view that there is no such thing as an ideology-free science. I was just questioning whether the ideology had always to be a class ideology. You yourself say (I think) that in socialism/communism this will not be the case.

I glad that you seem to be agreeing with me, that ‘there is no such thing as an ideology-free science’. I think that this is an important step for all Communists to recognise, on the road to undermining bourgeois authority within science. We can’t criticise something which produces The Truth. The bourgeoisie don’t have a value-free, neutral method which allows them to simply ‘discover’ the world. Humans are an essential part of creating our knowledge of the world, of ‘humanising nature’, as Marx put it. I think we should start from the assumption that all science, in this society, has class ideology, and examine it on that basis. Clearly, within a non-class  society, this can't be the case.

ALB wrote:

I was just asking whether, for some things, this could not be the case under capitalism too. (Incidentally, I prefer to think that the physical science biology is also class-ideology based).You haven't answered this

I thought I had. Whether any ‘science’ is ‘class-based’ is to be examined, rather than assumed.

LBird, post #385 wrote:

I prefer a scientific method that openly examines 'theory' first, and then puts it into practice, and then votes on the results to see whether they are considered 'socially true' or not.Using this unified method, it is up to the proletariat to decide, after scientific investigation, whether any 'science' produced by the bourgeoisie is 'true' for us, too. Perhaps it will be, in some areas of science, perhaps it won't be, in other areas of science.

I’m interested in the issue of method, rather than trying to imagine what objections the proletariat might come up against bourgeois ideas within any particular scientific discipline, from physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, politics, to history, and every other discipline in between. Why treat physics any differently from sociology? Unless one has already assumed that physics and sociology are sciences of a different methodological order?Is physics a 'special' science? The bourgeoisie have been saying it is, for centuries, and that its method alone produces Truth. We know since Einstein that this isn't the case, as Rovelli admits, that 'Newton was wrong'.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

You haven't acknowledged yet, Vin, that you're employing Kuhn's ideology of 'paradigms'.I've already explained to you that I don't use this ideology; I openly say that I use Lakatos' 'research programmes'. And I've already said that 'research programmes' compete with each other.

I outlined my position and my ideological assumptions  in posts #374 and #378 aboveI do not use Lakatos I use a socialist/communist ideology so therefore I do not accept 'research programmes' as valid.  Nor do I use Kuhn's paradigm. In my search for a unified science I have adopted a form of 'paradigm', inspired by Kuhn, which I apply to distinguish bourgoeis social science from marxist social science. Once I have isolated the marxist paradigm, I can work within in it to outline and understand a unified marxist scientific method.I do believe I have stated clearly that the MCH is my ideological starting point in understanding scienceOnly a starting point I know. 

Two problems, Vin.On the issue of 'frameworks', if you employ Kuhn's ideas, there is a usual period of 'normal' science, and 'revolutionary' science is the infrequent occurrence. Thus is it a theory of stability and consensus. Surely the similarity to conservative thinking is obvious?On the contrary, the usual status of science employing Lakatos' ideas is 'competing' and thus 'disagreement'. Thus it is a theory of change and argument. Surely the similarity to Marx's thinking is obvious?This, I think, makes Lakatos the superior theory, for Communists, for understanding how the history of science has happened.Secondly, the MCoH does not provide a basis for understanding both 'rocks' and 'value', which I said earlier must be the case for a unified method, in Marx's sense. Your claim only works if you, like ALB, subscribe to the bourgeois theory of the separation of 'science' and 'arts' (physical and social sciences). I do not follow this theory, and think we should try to find a methodological basis to science which is unified.I think that Critical Realism can provide this unified method. I see the MCoH as an instance of CR. In other words, the Marx's MCoH is based upon CR, and that Marx was a Critical Realist, and this is what he means by 'historical materialism'.I'll outline the basics of CR, if there is some acceptance of the need to find something which unifies physical and social science.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Lbird Why is ALB 'individualist' and boureois when he is 'personally' convinced but you aren't when you personally 'prefer'I emphasise this is a serious question of clarification.

No problem, Vin, I take it as 'serious question'.To be 'convinced' is not to be 'open', and ALB's belief in the separation of 'science' from 'sociology' is an ideological belief, which he's learnt from our society. But he doesn't declare where he 'learnt' this, and so leaves us with the impression that it's his individual opinion.When I 'prefer' something, I'm recommending it to the proletariat for a vote, and I openly tell the proletariat where I've got my ideas from (Marx, Pannekoek, Schaff, Lakatos, etc.).So, my scientific method is 'democratic' and 'exposed', whereas ALB's is 'personal' and 'hidden'. The latter is a bourgeois method.

VM wrote:

Also, would a proletarian scientific method be an uncontestable paradigm, once established. and will all alternative methods be rejected as 'boureois'Again this is a serious request for clarification.I ask out of genuin confusion at the way you present your position.

You haven't acknowledged yet, Vin, that you're employing Kuhn's ideology of 'paradigms'.I've already explained to you that I don't use this ideology; I openly say that I use Lakatos' 'research programmes'. And I've already said that 'research programmes' compete with each other.So, from my ideological point of view, your ideological question about 'uncontestable' is meaningless, because my ideology, similar to Marx's, sees 'contestability' as at the heart of science.From this point of view, there can never be an 'uncontestable paradigm'. It is a meaningless question, because 'paradigms' don't exist, and 'contestability' is eternal.Lakatosian 'research programmes' are multiple and competitive. This means that any given 'r. p.' can always be criticised, and the proletarian method demands 'criticism', not 'Truth'.This is similar to 'democracy', which demands disagreement, debate and voting, to achieve a temporary position. But any vote can always be overturned. 'Decisions' are never final, but can always be revisited, when a new policy is proposed, especially in changed circumstances.Our political and scientific methods be be unified.[PS. please state which scientific ideology you are following, Vin. If it's Kuhn's, we can discuss it, if you want.]

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

ALB wrote:

Anyway, my main point is that you are unfair and in fact insulting (hence some of the acrimony shown to you)

Here we go, the Stalinist-like rewriting of history. Just like any other so-called "workers' party".I keep explaining things, in great detail, in as simple terms as possible, trying to help others with very complex issues, and keep getting personally attacked for it.So, having BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY AND INSULTINGLY, I proceed to THEN SHOW ACRIMONY.

You've gor me wrong again. It wasn't you I was saying was being acrimonious but some of your critics.  Read what I wrote again. And  you've just done it again — unfairly insulting us (and me) by calling us Stalinists. A change, I agree from your usual insult of Leninist but still not very helpful.

[my bolds]I can read 'what you wrote'.You wrote 'you are unfair'.Then I wrote 'I was treated unfairly first'.But your 'main point', implying 'unfairness' originated with me, wasn't the truth, was it?In fact, I if may ask you to follow your own advice 'and read what you wrote', you'll see that you order the events as 'my unfairness, followed by SPGB arcrimony', whereas the true order of events was 'SPGB unfairness, followed by my acrimony'.Perhaps 'Leninism and Stalinism' are incorrect: perhaps it's just simple illiteracy.I though that we might have moved on from 'tit-for-tat', and simply deal with the meat of this discussion, but I thought wrong, eh?After all, I'm not demanding that the SPGB confess their sins and repent, before I engage with it, so why should I have to listen to its attempt to wriggle out of its misdemeanours, by blaming me  for 'unfairness'?Either get on with discussing what I'm writing about the philosophy of science, or just leave the thread to die. I'll soon get the message if there are no replies after a few posts.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

So I was talking not about an "ideology free physics' but about a 'class ideology free physics'. In other words, assuming agreeiment with you that there is such a thing as bourgeois and proletarian economics, history, sociology, etc bur raising the possibility of at least some "class-free" science. You might not agree with this position (you probably won't) but at least it would shift the argument away from being over the basic premises to their application.Personally, I'm convinced (in fact I already held this view) that there is a bourgeois and a proletarian economics, but not that there is a bourgeois and proletarian astronomy. Try to convince me that there is but showing me where the two types of astronomy differ.

ALB, you're jumping the gun, just a little bit.This thread is about 'science and Communism', as a part of which I want to try to establish whether Marx is right to argue for a 'unified scientific method', ie. a method that applies to all science, not just the bourgeois belief in 'physics as model method', which all other sciences must follow.So, your 'method' here is to ignore, and not openly examine, the ideological basis of 'astronomy', and assume, up front, that 'astronomy' from the perspective of the proletariat is identical to 'astronomy' from the perspective of the bourgeoisie. Note: no scientific examination, just assumption.So, if this is your attempt to discuss 'scientific method', and offer yours as a model for all sciences, it follows that when we move to economics or sociology or politics, we must start with the assumption that, if the bourgeoisie have already done it, it must be correct, because they are sciences, too, and the bourgeoisie have a neutral method for determining truth.Thus, your method leads to us following the bourgeoisie,rather than criticising it.I prefer a scientific method that openly examines 'theory' first, and then puts it into practice, and then votes on the results to see whether they are considered 'socially true' or not.Using this unified method, it is up to the proletariat to decide, after scientific investigation, whether any 'science' produced by the bourgeoisie is 'true' for us, too. Perhaps it will be, in some areas of science, perhaps it won't be, in other areas of science.But, we will have employed a 'unified method', which Marx thought possible, and I do, too.You, in contrast, as I've already pointed out, follow the bourgeois ideology of the separation of science (eg. physics) and arts (eg. sociology), and assume the former is 'proper science and eternally true', and don't apply this assumption to 'functionalist sociology'. Thus, your method is not unified.Furthermore, 'personally' you're 'convinced'. Since when has individual opinion been the basis of science?

[LBird]

Both Kuhn and Lakatos argue that science works within frameworks of ideas, and that the results of scientific investigation only make sense when related to those ideas. They both base their theories upon what scientists actually do, rather than what scientists say that they do. This is one of the fundamental fruits of scientific investigation, that is, the  study of ‘human scientific activity in a society’, by philosophers during the 20th century: we now know that scientists are the last people to ask, and listen to, when we want to know ‘what science is’ and ‘how does science work’. In effect, physicists had been fooling both us and themselves, since Newton. Rovelli’s quote about this realisation dawning on some physicists, like himself, backs this up. This is the historical context of why 19th century thinkers, who slavishly followed ‘science’ as a model for gaining ‘true’ knowledge, have lead us up the garden path: this includes, unfortunately, Engels, and those worshippers of ‘elite, expert’ science, today.One of the concepts that Lakatos introduced, and which contrasts with Kuhn, is the notion of a ‘hard core’ within any ‘research programme’. By this, he meant a ‘central core’ of ideas which are not falsifiable by experience. This, of course, goes entirely against the grain of the ideology of bourgeois science, which insists that ‘individual sense experience’ is at the core of science.For us, this means that some vague notion of the ‘material’ world telling us what it is, and that the ‘material’ precedes human ideas, is shown to be methodological wrong. The most advanced bourgeois philosophers of science have, since the 1960s/70s, finally let the cat out of the ‘scientific methodology’ bag: ideas precede practice, and practice can’t necessarily falsify ideas (it can some, but not others). This is merely a restatement of the position of Marx from the 1840s: that ‘theory and practice’ is the basis of the scientific method, not simple ‘practice’ (or passive observation), or ‘theory emerging from practice’ (by induction from the ‘objective facts’), but  a method of ‘theory (first) and practice (second)'. This is not ‘practice and theory’, which I’ve heard some comrades argue, that neither theory nor practice have priority, but can be mixed and matched. That is methodologically incorrect.I intend to go on to discuss what our ‘hard core’ should consist of, that is, what ‘ideas’ should precede our scientific investigations of the physical and social world. I’ll proceed if no-one objects to what I’ve argued so far; but if comrades are still unsure, I’ll provide some quotes to back up my assertions. I’m aware I’m making some big jumps, but given the context (internet discussion with limited post size), I’m presuming some familiarity with some of these ideas about bourgeois philosophy of science. If anyone isn’t familiar at all, and want some further explanation of what I’ve said in this post, or simply want to challenge it, please go ahead. Of course, if challenged about my ideology of science, I’ll ask for the ideological basis of the challenge, in turn. Please accept that my efforts are directed to giving comrades some familiarity with these issues, and that there is no substitute, eventually, for reading more widely and at length. I want to generate some enthusiasm and curiosity about ‘science’ and its political dimensions, rather than dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’. I think that this discussion is of fundamental importance for every Communist, given the tremendous (unchallengable?) authority of ‘science’ in helping to legitimatise bourgeois rule.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

How natural science and social science can have a unified method? I can only think of Kuhn's analysis.

Yes, I know you employ Kuhn's theories, but even so these do not cover the 'unity of science' issue, anyway, but only 'paradigms' within physics. His whole thesis rests on the transformation from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics. For Kuhn, there is successive periods of normal-revolution-normal.I think Lakatos' theory of 'research programmes' is better on this issue. In effect, where Kuhn sees a dominant paradigm emerging and the settling down of physics into a new routine, Lakatos argues that this is not what happens in science. He argues that 'research programmes' work in parallel, together, and compete all the time, whereas Kuhn's paradigms work in series, one after the other, and one triumphs.So, I prefer Lakatos' 'competitve programmes', which seem to me to be far closer to Marx's theories about eternal 'clashes' of ideas, as opposed to Kuhn's conservative theory of eventual single paradigm, and long period of stability.So, I don't look to Kuhn for a lead, on these issues, but Lakatos.But, this still does not address my question about a suitable method for understanding both rocks and value.I'll have to return to this, perhaps tomorrow, if you (and anybody else) are interested in developing further an approach to a 'unified scientific method', that Marx believed possible.

[LBird]

Well, you haven't really answered my question, Vin.

LBird wrote:

So, I ask, how does 'the Materialist Conception of History and Capital' explain how we go about, for example, 'understanding a rock'?

Much, if not all, of your post I probably agree with.But, it still does not cover the issue of the scientific method concerned with the physical world, which is what I'm asking about. I'm asking this question because I seek to give a grounding to Marx's notion of a 'unified scientific method', and thus that method must be able to cope with both 'rocks' and 'value', for examples.I can't stress enough that this is a genuine question. I don't think that you can answer it, which I don't blame on you, but on the Communist movement (of the last 130 since Marx died) not preparing workers to answer such questions.That is, I regard this 'lack of answer' as a failing, a socio-political failing, of a movement, not the failing of any individual, especially you.I've put some thought into this, to try to wrestle with the issue and to try to come up with a suitable answer. I definitely haven't got a definitive answer, perhaps only the barest outlines of a very tentative one, but I'd like to take everybody forward on this, perhaps only to hear some fatal objection to Marx's notion of a 'unified scientific method', but perhaps to help develop one collectively.To me, Communism is much more than a mere 'economic-political' theory, but is the basis of a whole new way of life for humans on this planet, and so must have answers ready regarding the 'material' world, as much as the 'social' world.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

So, I thought it might be interesting to set up a thread inviting party members and non party members alike, to share their experience of what brought them into contact with the party.

I came into contact with the SPGB through reading ALB's and alanjjohnstone's contributions to 'economics' discussions on the LibCom site. I was impressed with their arguments against various brands of 'market socialism' and 'money economy', and arguments for 'free access' socialism.On further delving, I was also impressed by the commitment by the SPGB to democracy within the workers' movement, and opposition to Leninism/Troskyism and 'democratic centralist/cadre' parties. This was because of my entirely negative experience in the SWP.I was banned by LibCom, not least because of my fundamental disagreements with 'individualist anarchism', so here I am.To be truthful, I'd never even heard of the SPGB (I don't recall, anyway, so if it was mentioned in passing in conversation over the years, it made no impression upon me – just another 'sect' amongst the thousands one hears about, I suppose).So, my contact was entirely due to the internet. But, I was already a convinced Communist, so I was already open to persuasion.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Surely the Matarialist Conception of History and Capital are the basis for a working class science? We have a non- bourgeois historical analysis and a non-bourgeois economic analysis of capitalism.

OK, reasonable starting position, Vin.So, I ask, how does 'the Materialist Conception of History and Capital' explain how we go about, for example, 'understanding a rock'?I want to reassure you, Vin, that I'm not being 'funny' here, I'm asking a serious question, and I think that you'll be unable to answer it. It would be a reasonable response to say "But the MCoH&C are not meant to 'explain rocks'!", and you'd be right.But that means that the MCoH&C can't provide the basis for a 'unified science' (at least, not in the form most people think of it).I'd argue that the MCoH&C are an example of a deeper theory and method. But, I'll wait for your reply, in case you surprise me.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

For god's sake, what bit of 'all science is ideological' don't you all understand?

In socialism is it likely that there will there still be bourgoeis and proletarian ideologies?If not, what type of ideologies can we expect in a classless society? 

Isn't it enough, Vin, on this thread, to get agreement that 'all science is ideological', and discuss how that affects our class's view now of 'science', rather than divert into the perhaps long-off future?For example, if 'science is ideological', doesn't that give us a basis for the idea of a 'unified scientific method', as Marx thought possible? That is, physics and sociology can be both 'scientific'. Think what a boost that will give to the status of our sociological analysis of today's society, that is, class analysis, if it can be shown to have equivalent validity to physics, and claim the status that physics enjoys as 'truth' in the eyes of wider society. Because that is what I think is at stake, and I think that bourgeois philosophers of science have opened up this possibility for us, with their own criticisms of 'physics as Truth'.At the moment, most people regard physics with the same authority and certainty as it had in the 19th century, that it produces 'truth', whilst social science is just 'mere opinion'. This is 'common sense' at the moment, even though it goes against the findings of science. Surely an attack on the certainty of 'science' will also undermind all those other disciplines that claim to be aiming for 'objective truth', like neo-classical economics?We have to find a basis for science which is acceptable to our class, because the basis, built up over 300 hundred years by the bourgeoisie, has dissolved, as even the religious are aware.Your question is a reasonable one, but for another thread.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I can see that there can be, and is, bourgeois economics, sociology,. history, psychology but don't see why there has to be, or is, bourgeois physics, chemistry, biology.

I've already dealt with this, ad nauseum. You are following BOURGEOIS IDEOLOGY in separating 'arts' (or 'social science') from 'science' (or 'physics'). You haven't dreamt this all up by your INDIVIDUAL self. You are mindlessly repeating 'RULING CLASS IDEAS'.Marx argued in favour of a UNIFIED SCIENCE, of both physical and social science, into one human science. I, at least, if no-one else does on this site, FOLLOW MARX on this. That is, because I'm a Communist, not a Liberal.

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.

ALB wrote:

Anyway, my main point is that you are unfair and in fact insulting (hence some of the acrimony shown to you)…

Here we go, the Stalinist-like rewriting of history. Just like any other so-called "workers' party".I keep explaining things, in great detail, in as simple terms as possible, trying to help others with very complex issues, and keep getting personally attacked for it.So, having BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY AND INSULTINGLY, I proceed to THEN SHOW ACRIMONY.Not only that, I try, time and again, to reset the clock, and try to resume some 'comradely' discussions. And every time IT GETS THROWN BACK IN MY FACE.Finally, the 7th cavalry arrives! ALB and alanjjohnstone! I celebrate, and assume, now, at last, we can have a grown-up conversation!But… no, it's just more of the same. Same asking of questions, same answers from me, same ignoring of those answers.Me: all science is ideological.DJP: what forever? YesVin: what, if I wear blue? YesYMS: what, if I use logs? YesDJP: what, if I eat strawberries? YesVin: what, if I'm alone? YesYMS: what, if I get a degree? YesDJP: what, if I know a professor who does physics? YesVin: what, if the bourgeoisie are defeated? YesYMS: what, if I go to the moon to do science? YesFor god's sake, what bit of 'all science is ideological' don't you all understand?

[Author]

Posts