LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:I'm saying that 'knowledge production' is social.
That is not new.
Neither is your refusal to accept it.If you accepted it, you'd tell me which 'social knowledge' you employ to understand a rock.You mouth the words, you repeat the formula, but it's an empty phrase to you.
Vin Maratty wrote:Your aunt sallies or straw men are wearing thin.But not your ignorance, eh?
SocialistPunk wrote:Vin,I know it isn't what LBird is saying, although it does have some bearing.No, it isn't what I'm saying.I'm saying that 'knowledge production' is social. That means, to oversimplify for effect, that how a 'rock' is understood depends upon the society doing the understanding.Rocks do not tell us 'what they are'. Physics employs socially-produced theories to try to understand 'rocks'.Those who think that them touching a rock exhausts our scientific knowledge of rocks are employing an individualist, empirical, method. This was, indeed, thought to be the basis of science, but Einstein's ideas on relativity blew that myth apart.Individuals and their (supposed) 'individual sense' are not, and can't be, the basis of the scientific method. That pretense is part of bourgeois ideology, and goes hand-in-hand with neo-classical notions of 'value as individual opinion', rather than 'value as social relationship'.
northern light wrote:Damn you L Bird, don't you dare give up now ! I/We ( I assume I'm not the only one ) have stuck it out for 27 pages, in the hope of learning something new.I'm close to getting banned, I'm sure, but I really am finding it difficult to get the discussion back on stream.This can only happen when comrades are at least willing to give a hearing to a case. If minds are already 'made-up', then nothing I say will have any effect.There are some posters who 'know' that 'class analysis' only applies to 'social' issues, and not 'science'. I've tried my best to explain that this isn't just an 'individual opinion' that they hold, but a core 'ruling class idea', an ideological belief.They've picked up this 'opinion' from society, not from 'passive study of rocks', but they seem to think it's a totally uncontroversial, non-political, sensible position to take, and that they thought it up all by themselves, individually, entirely by coincidence.If I ask who told them that 'physics is non-political' (a central tenet of 19th century science, which thinkers like von Ranke tried to translate to historiography), they look baffled at the very question. They regard me as a lunatic, just for suggesting that 'ideas' of 'reality' just might be 'social'.When I ask them to tell me the method they use to get this uncontroversial, neutral, 'scientific' knowledge, they, once again, seem baffled by the question. 'Method?' 'In physics?' They just 'do science', in the old, unproblematic, 19th century, way. The 20th century has passed them by.I'm drifting now, and tempted to tell them all to 'Fuck Off'. Childish, I know, northern light, but it will be strangely satisfying when I do it. I don't think I've got another 27, pointless, pages in me.It will need the entry of other comrades, beside SocialistPunk, into the discussion to revitalise my enthusiasm. I don't mind explaining to comrades who genuinely what to know 'how' ruling class ideas influence science, but I'm not going to continue to joust with those who think ruling class ideas end with 'economics'. They even think that they're 'individuals', for god's sake!
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Why won't you declare your political position on science?Why not just say 'science is outside of politics', or 'rocks can be understood by individuals without employing an ideology', and we can start to locate your 'true' beliefs?No I don't see how capitalist ideology affects the findings of geology or astronomy or any other science where the area of enquiry is not related to class power.
So, which ideology states that 'knowledge' is not 'social'?Or, if 'knowledge is social', which ideology states that 'social' has nothing to do with classes?Or, if 'knowledge is social, and it is related to classes', which ideology separates out 'knowledge of the physical from knowledge of the social', and insists that 'social class knowledge only applies to the social'?Why won't you reveal your ideology?
DJP wrote:If you could calmly and clearly explain why you think otherwise I might change my mind. But surely at some stage this will involve touching upon "truth" and other things…This is an outright lie.You're not open to changing your mind. It's as closed as the day you first read my first contribution about 'science' over twelve months ago.I've tried academic methods, of quotes and links to everything that I said (Marx, Pannekoek, Lakatos, Schaff, to name but a few); I've tried simple non-academic explanation (chessboards and their unknown number of squares); and I've tried contempt and personal abuse, in an attempt to wake you up. But nothing at all, no method whatsoever, has had the slightest effect.I really have no idea at all what your motivation is for your continued destruction of this thread (and others) is.Have you really nothing better to do? I know I have, and I'm beginning to resent this continued waste of my time, and my wasted efforts to encourage some discussion about science and Communism.I blame SocialistPunk; perhaps they are a 'tethered goat' to keep my interest, in some perverse joke that I'm not party to.
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:This is becoming a very public disgrace.It certainly is! What, with you being the only communist and 'proletarian scientist' in the world. LOLI don't suppose you come across any in the last party you left?
The shakespearean monkeys are on fire today, Vin.Do you copy them in their gait?
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:Why not start a thread of your own, titled 'Science for Socialists', where you can discuss individuals and their truth, and forget all this nonsense I keep blathering on about, regarding classes, social knowledge, social subject, critical realism?Yes socialists are scientists, yes there are classes in society and yes knowledge is social and yes we are social beings. You add nothing to that.Why accuse me of not accepting that there are classes, that knowledge is social and human beings are social beings.?Your tactic is to attribute a belief to a forum user then shoot it down.
So, you do use class analysis to understand the rock in front of your face, do you?Or do you use 'your' eyes?If you really do agree that there are classes in society, knowledge is social, humans are social beings, then you'll agree that understanding the rock in front of your eyes requires society and social knowledge, and you'll reject the 'individualism' of the 'I can see the rock with my own eyes' method.Well?If you agree, I'll ask you to outline your scientific social understanding of the rock in front of your eyes, or at least the method to be employed in this process of gaining 'knowledge'.If you don't agree, I'll accuse you of paying 'lip service' to 'classes, social knowledge and humans as social beings'.
DJP wrote:Actually Bertrand Russell did also write some really succint and clear introductory books about philosophy, and they're now all in the public domain. I recomend a look, even if our censor of the proletariat disagrees…And still you continue to avoid 'Science for Communists'.Be my guest, anyone. Go and read Betrand Russell.DJP can't answer my questions about his views of politics and science, the title of this thread, and so slanders me as a 'censor'.Derailer. Ignorant derailer. Slanderous, ignorant derailer. Secretive, slanderous, ignorant derailer.Is DJP really the best that the SPGB can offer a thread with this title? Don't you have anyone in the party who can engage?This is becoming a very public disgrace.The only comrade who seems to be really interested is SocialistPunk, who I believe has left the party? It's beginning to seem a wise decision.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:No, you're just determined to derail a thread named 'Science for Communists' into one concerned with 'Truth for Liberals', along with YMS's concerted attempts to reduce the focus to 'Maths for Conservatives'.Sorry I keep forgetting you're the only communist in the village.No true scotsman would come out with this kind of thing.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Well, if you're that put out by my 'hijacking' of 'communist', why participate?Why not start a thread of your own, titled 'Science for Socialists', where you can discuss individuals and their truth, and forget all this nonsense I keep blathering on about, regarding classes, social knowledge, social subject, critical realism?Or is this part of a concerted attempt by the SPGB, involving you, YMS, Vin, and others sporadically, to prevent discussion about 'Communism and Science'?I'm beginning to wonder – is it your mission to keep 'Engelsian Positivist' science safe from contamination?Why won't you declare your political position on science?Why not just say 'science is outside of politics', or 'rocks can be understood by individuals without employing an ideology', and we can start to locate your 'true' beliefs?I've been open about my 'beliefs' from the start; indeed, the thread title says it all.You, YMS, Vin, et al, have refused to state your political position on science.What are youse all hiding?I suspect ignorance, rather than anything positive to your mission.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:I think you're missing the point of 'science', DJP.That is, to tell us 'why', not merely 'what'.The listing of 'what' is around us is endless and, essentially, meaningless.I thought, at this stage, we where talking about truth, and what it is that would show a theory to be true or false..Or have I just accidentally ended up in the argument clinic again!?
No, you're just determined to derail a thread named 'Science for Communists' into one concerned with 'Truth for Liberals', along with YMS's concerted attempts to reduce the focus to 'Maths for Conservatives'.
SocialistPunk wrote:So the use of convoluted words and phrases has it's roots firmly in elitism, not some notion about efficiency of discussion. What's easy about having to learn an outmoded language or a set of made up words to be able to engage in discussion?A socialist revolution would open up this elitist world and demand that experts be able to explain their ideas in less than 300 pages of waffle. Part of the democratisation of knowledge, that would expand learning among a global socialist community.I couldn't agree more with SP, here.Of course, sometimes there is a need for words/terms/phrases which are very specific, but these should still be understandable, once clearly explained.The reason for their introduction must be 'specificity', not 'obfuscation'. In others words, to 'clarify', not to 'hide'.New 'terms' would have to be submitted to the 'New Science Terms' elected sub-committee of the world proletariat, for approval.And I'm afraid I'd vote for Russell to be put in the 'remedial explainers' class. Along with YMS!That's spelt 'schadenfreude', or 'base 0', just for you, YMS.
DJP wrote:Science, on one meaning of the term, is just and activity anyone can do.Yes, but is this your meaning of the term?
DJP wrote:Not at all, who's to say that the frequency and level of the tide will not alter in the future.I think you're missing the point of 'science', DJP.That is, to tell us 'why', not merely 'what'.The listing of 'what' is around us is endless and, essentially, meaningless.
DJP wrote:In this case it means since at least the time of the ancient greeks…[my bold]So, by inference, it's possible that during the time of the Sumerians the events were different? What about during the Jurassic Period?Or are you extrapolating without any evidence? Why would you do this? What assumptions are you making? Who told you this was acceptable?This is all before we get to 'why' do the events happen, which is the real meat of science.'Whys' are always human answers.
Vin Maratty wrote:MY DAD IS BIGGER THAN YOUR DAD!!My dad's been dead decades, but I'd wager that he'd still make a better fist of this discussion than you seem able to do.
Vin Maratty wrote:My ideology is strummerdox. If you don't know that ideology you must be a conservaitive and on the wrong forum. All real communists know the strummerdox ideology simply by instinct , I don't have to define it. You really are dumb if you don't know what it isI could explain what I mean by 'ideology' and 'strummerdox' but that wouldn't be much fun and my argument would fall flat on its face. So much better to keep you guessing.It means I can talk a load of crap and look like I know something you don'tThe shakespearean monkey seems to be hitting a few wrong keys this time, Vin.My comradely advice is to ditch the monkey, and engage with the discussion.Mind you, I already know you won't. At least the pretence of YMS and DJP has some illusion of discussion.Your method just seems to be naked ignorance. Why not ask, and I'll try to explain? But it requires a willingness to engage, on your part.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Unless you define which of the six or seven meanings of ideology you mean, I can't answer your question. In your statements above you use it in ways which could imply two distinct meanings(a system of ideas or a weltangschauung). All I can say is that all Yorkshiremen are liars.That's a big shock, YMS.Y'mean 'mathematics' hasn't told you what 'ideology' is?Are you sure you're a 'mathematician'?Perhaps you should go, on bended knee, to someone, some special individual, who does understand 'mathematics', the 'Scientific Oracle for Our Age', from which all 'Truths' issue.I think your ideology is likely to be "5*5-6(A+B+C), all divided by Pi", but I'm afraid I might be out by 3 decimal places.I'm sooooo impressed with 'weltangschauung', too. That'll baffle the workers, won't it! Mind you, you don't even need to take them into account, do you, YMS, on a socialist site trying to attract workers.Not just 'big words', but 'big German words'.Wow! A discussion about 'science', conducted in 'mathese and German'.I doff my flat cap to you, Guvnor, and no mistake! Please tell me how to do 'sums'. By the way, what's a "welt 'n' shun' ", boss?
Young Master Smeet wrote:My peers depend on who and where and when I am. They are the people I can communicate with directly and indirectly. By co-operation I mean co-operation, and its conditions will differ based on the mode of production and the exigencies of the society I inhabit.I don't know what you mean by ideology, I suspect we disagree in our definition of it, and thus I cannot answer that question.[my bold]'I', eh, YMS?I could take you for an 'individualist'.Why can't you say 'we'?And by 'we', mean our class?Your refusal to expose your ideology, YMS, is the conservative method.Conservatives pretend to deal with 'the real world' that 'exists' now. It is a fixed world, which can't be changed.Our 'knowledge' can be changed. 'Truth' is a social product and can be changed. Criticism of 'what exists' is our method.But I've said this all before, haven't I?Continue to act stupid, and maintain the pained, baffled expression of 'I don't know what you mean', which is always adopted by conservatives when you point out to them that they have an ideology.
