[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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'.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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.

[LBird]

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't 

The 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.

[LBird]

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?

[LBird]

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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts