[LBird]

Normal service resumes.

DJP wrote:

Who? Those engaged in the activity that the knowledge relates to.

[my bold]So, are 'the proletariat' engaged, or an 'elite'? Is 'those' a 'class' or a collection of 'special individuals'?Or does your ideology of science have a different answer? What is your ideology of science?

DJP wrote:

Every "truth" comes with it's own metric. So the "truth" and reliability of a tide table is determined not by the class background or political ideology of the person that composed the table but by it's reliability on it predicting the tide level into the future.

Yet another attempt to sidetrack from the discussion of the philosophical basis of science, and produce an unhistorical, unsocial, anecdotal account of 'eternal truth'.

DJP wrote:

I stole that example from Simon Blackburn's book "Truth" which describes the conflict between relativism and absolutism over the millennia and why, in the end, we do not have to worry about it.

So, you didn't read the book critically then?'Over millennia', eh? Sounds like 'Eternal Truth' to me.Why not just come out into the open with your ideology of science, DJP?It's nothing to do with Communism, Marx or the democratic control of the means of production by the class conscious proletariat. Y'know, the SPGB's supposed aim.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

As we are talking about science I thought people would be interested in it.FWIW "Abduction" means something like "infering to the best explanation when faced with incomplete data". Sherlock Holmes did not "deduce" but actually "abducted" to the most likely explanation.

To treat your post with seriousness for a moment (which I already know is optimistic shortsightedness on my part), I think that when Marx uses the term 'abduction' the better modern translation is 'selection'.This allows us to interpret Marx's intended meaning in the light of Carr's discussion about 'selection', and his analogy of 'fish/fishers/tackle/location/intent'.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

I don't recall seeing that question before.

I think that the method that you're searching for, YMS is 'open your eyes'.

YMS wrote:

We all have to make up our own minds, in co-operation with our peers.

Who are 'peers'?The entire proletariat are my 'peers', according to my ideology of science.Who are your 'peers', according to your ideology of science? And what is your ideology of science?By 'co-operation' do you mean 'voting' or 'Leninist co-operation'? Y'know, the persuasive gulag method of the elitists.My ideology of science defines 'co-operation' as 'voting'.According to your ideology of science, what is 'co-operation'? And what is your ideology of science?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

Why not have a democratic vote, and ban me? I'll accept the decision, and leave you all to your ignorant wallowing.

 Your most irritating attribute is your tendency to put words into people's  mouthsA lot of confusion on this thread is caused by members having to explain to you what they did not say rather than saying what they want to say. I would not vote to ban anyone from the forum. I am talking about using your scientific method on deciding what is TRUTH.A vote!

And your 'most irritating attribute is your tendency' not to read the words that others write.Perhaps the most comradely assumption is to assume that you really can't read, and you're employing a shakespearean monkey to type your random replies.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

Probably most science is actually abduction, look it up.

As usual, the sneering tone at the forefront, the method of 'big words to scare the uneducated unwashed', and the disdain to actually explain what you mean.

There's no sneering tone. As we are talking about science I thought people would be interested in it.FWIW "Abduction" means something like "infering to the best explanation when faced with incomplete data". Sherlock Holmes did not "deduce" but actually "abducted" to the most likely explanation.There's more here:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abduction/

Simple question.'Who' are the 'abductors'?An 'elite', 'special individuals' or the 'proletariat'?My ideology of science tells me that it is the 'proletariat'.What does yours tell you? And what actually is your ideology of science?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx claims that science lies in the interaction between 'data' and 'discourse'.

Unclipped sentence wrote:

Science doesn't lie in the data, but in the discourse between scientists, as they try and extend their sense perceptions (and their understanding of these perceptions).

the two above sentences are identical.  Once again, we see Marx agrees with me.  We bring scince back to sensuous human behaviour, real people in action, because their knowledge exists for me, and my knwoledge exists for them as well.

This is meaningless woffle, YMS.And you wouldn't know Marx's ideas if they bit you on the arse.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

DJP wrote:

The trouble is there is no singular "science" or "scientific method".

Exactly, there is whatever works to produce and corroborate knowledge, reliable knowledge.

FFS, 'who' determines, and 'how', the human judgement of 'reliable'?What's the matter with your ability to read, YMS? I've been asking this for a year now, and you won't answer.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Why don't we face it,  LBird is the only true 'communist' and the SPGB has wasted its time wollowing in ignorance.Either there is something wrong with our ability to think and grasp his complex arguments or there is a problem with what he is saying. Or to use his own technical jaron, he is talking 'bullshit'I know what I think. Perhaps a democratic vote by all 'proletarian scientists' can decide  the Truth of the situation

You seem to be right, Vin, given the contributions by you, DJP and YMS.I'm the only true Communist between the four of us, you're all wallowing in ignorance, and you have an inability to think and grasp my (simple) arguments.And, no you don't 'know what you think'. You're merely repeating ruling class ideas which you've been brainwashed with.Why not have a democratic vote, and ban me? I'll accept the decision, and leave you all to your ignorant wallowing.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

The trouble is there is no singular "science" or "scientific method".

That's a handy philosophy, DJP.So now, the Catholics can employ your 'pluralistic' individualistic bourgeois method to claim that they, too, are doing 'science' when they teach about angels and devils.Is it any wonder the bloody religious are currently ahead of Communists in this battle over 'science'?

DJP wrote:

Probably most science is actually abduction, look it up.

As usual, the sneering tone at the forefront, the method of 'big words to scare the uneducated unwashed', and the disdain to actually explain what you mean.I've got the measure of you and YMS, DJP.

DJP wrote:

Well I agree with the first bit but what is "19th century philosophy"?

And the feigned 'mateyness' and 'innocent' question.Do me a favour. Try READING what I've written dozens of times, over dozens of threads, and open your mind to critical thought.And try reading Marx, and forget, for now, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Bertrand Russell, and the rest of the diversionary 'red herrings', which you and YMS keep introducing, which is the method of those who will not discuss the matter in hand.L o o k  a t  t h e  t h r e a d  t i t l e .There, I've spelt out the instructions in small bites, for you and YMS.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

If I were to be entirely uncomradely, I'd say that you're a 'prime' bullshitter. You love jargon, and your 'register' is to hide knowledge from workers, so that you remain in a sneering pseudo-Leninist elite cadre.And you despise democracy.

So no ad hominem arguments then?

That's a laughable comment from a leader of the 'ad hominem brigade'!I've decided contempt and derision is the only 'scientific' method allowed on this site, so I'm plunging in, comrades!Until you, YMS and Vin actually try 'discussion', then here we go!If youse don't like it, don't post.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

DJP correctly spotted my naughtiness in introducing truth in a deductive sense when what we're talking about natural sciences we're talking about inductive proof, which is prone to Hume's Black Swan.

I can't resist commenting upon this pure tripe, for the benefit of other comrades who might be impressed by YMS's 'big talk' and thus mislead about Marx's views.Science is NEITHER 'deductive' NOR 'inductive'.It's 'theory and practice', in that order.'Deductive proof' is mere 'theory', which is isolated from social practice.'Inductive proof' is 'practice and theory', the erroneous 19th century method of positivist science. Science applies human social theory to a pre-existing 'real' world of 'material and ideas', and if the social practice seems to confirm the theory, then it is temporarily adopted as 'true scientific knowledge'.This 'truth' is neither deductive, inductive nor 'True' in the 'Eternal' sense.Criticism of existing 'truths', both physical and social, is the aim of science, not 'storing up' a library of 'Truth' which once discovered, remains on the shelf, until the shelf is full of all 'truth' and we become an all-knowing, all-seeing god. That was what 19th century philosophy thought science was, but we now know better. Or should do.'Critical Thinking' abhors 'Eternal Truth', whether physical, social – or even mathematical.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Admittedly, it took Russell & Whitehead over 300 pages to prove thet 1+1=2http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/pageviewer-idx?c=umhistmath&cc=umhistmath&idno=aat3201.0001.001&frm=frameset&view=image&seq=401(Note, though, that they hadn't yet defined what + meant).

Please don't follow the link, SocialistPunk.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Science doesn't lie in the data, but in the discourse between scientists…

This is not what Marx claims.Marx claims that science lies in the interaction between 'data' and 'discourse'.Or, 'theory and practice'. The interaction of 'subject and object'. Critical Realism.The rest of your post is just nonsense, YMS, but I'm going to leave it to someone else to detail its errors, because you seem to have cloth ears to my attempts to discuss with you.If I were to be entirely uncomradely, I'd say that you're a 'prime' bullshitter. You love jargon, and your 'register' is to hide knowledge from workers, so that you remain in a sneering pseudo-Leninist elite cadre.And you despise democracy.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Any of these agree with you about a 'proletarian science'.

No. They are not Communists.

VM wrote:

My own opinion is that these 'bourgeois' scientists had a lot of interesting things to say.

That's my opinion, too.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I think I know what you think the problem is, but I don't know if what  I think you think is what you think, I know only you know what you think, and I can only know what I think you are saying you think, but only if you think of saying it.  So I say you should say what you think, then I'll have my say.  Whaddaya say?

You're going to have to read what I've already said numerous times, on this thread and many others, YMS.If those continuous statements have made no impression on you up to now, then I don't think that me merely repeating myself again now will get us anywhere.

[Author]

Posts