[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

What do you think the problem is?

I'm going to drop out, now, YMS.If you can't tell me what you think the problem is, there is no 'point of reference' between us.Thanks anyway.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

There must be some point of reference we can find that clarifies the matter at hand.

OK. Do you think there is a problem with 'science'?I do.Rovelli the physicist does.Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos do.Einstein did.If you don't share this 'point of reference', YMS, then there's nothing to 'clarify'.I want to discuss how Marx's belief that the scientific method can be unified can help to solve the widely perceived problems with science.So, it's only worth continuing to discuss with me, IF you want to solve science's problems from a Communist perspective.If you can't see a problem, or you can but you don't think Marx has anything useful to say, or if you're not even a Communist that thinks revolution will involve a revolution in science too, then I don't think we have any common 'point of reference'.I can't say it any more comradely than that.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

And any others who wish to continue the charade that science has a solid philosophical basis with 'materialism'.

 That is what Sheldrake states, too, but I see no scientific evidence to support such an assertion. 

If you think I'm arguing the same as Sheldrake, even when I've specifically warned against Sheldrake and his ilk, and proposed an alternative to Sheldrake, then you'll have to stick with your argument that 'LBird states the same as Sheldrake'. That's fine by me.Is there anyone out their who thinks that what I'm saying is different to, and critical of, Sheldrake? If not, fine, don't respond, and the thread will die a natural death.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But he didn't undermine the method, or the philosophy, he simply disproved the existing model. I see you're back to arguing by authority.

YMS, I can merely repeat what I've said to DJP.If you're happy, why not leave me and this thread to the 'loonies', and go and do something else, more productive for yourself?

 Did you know you can send a PM if you wish to speak directly and only to one forum member? 

It's not for one forum member, Vin. It's for you, too. And any others who wish to continue the charade that science has a solid philosophical basis with 'materialism'.Why do you all continue to post, when none of you are really interested in discussing the problem?If there is no 'problem', why waste your time?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

But he didn't undermine the method, or the philosophy, he simply disproved the existing model. I see you're back to arguing by authority.

YMS, I can merely repeat what I've said to DJP.If you're happy, why not leave me and this thread to the 'loonies', and go and do something else, more productive for yourself?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

So what exactly do you mean here?

Are you genuinely asking for an explanation, are do you already know I'm wrong?If it's the latter, nothing whatsoever I present as evidence to support my explanation will satisfy you.I'm afraid one has to have already come to the realisation that 'science' is in trouble from the godbotherers, to want an answer.It's a bit like if someone already 'knows' that the 'market is the only way', then reading Marx's Capital will not change their minds.If you have no doubts, and are convinced that 'science' is safe, then there's nothing I can do to shake that particular belief.This is a thread, as I've said from the start, for Communists who wish to revolutionise the world.If you think 'science' is outside of the scope of a 'revolution', that's a belief I don't share. To me, it's like arguing that the 'economy' is outside the scope of a revolution, as some 'market socialists' and reformists argue. For them, it's merely a matter of 'political' action, rather than the overturning of the structures of society, economic, political, social and ideological.IMO, 'science' has already 'overturned' itself. We have to construct anew. If you don't share that aim, then you're wasting your time, comrade, with this thread.Hope this helps.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

How has Einstein exploded materialist science?  Other than disproving Newton?

I'm not gobsmacked that often, YMS, but this has achieved it!Y'mean, 'other than undermining the entire basis of science, as it was believed for 300 hundred years'?If that's not enough of an 'explosion' for you, I think you might miss the revolution, too.Rovelli refers, comrade.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Sheldrake is a pseudoscientist  who propounds something called Morphic resonance (also he may be one of those misusing quantum physics for mystic purposes).  He is also an anti-materialist.  Read the wikipedia article, it's quite instructive.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake

Thanks for that confirmation of my suspicions, YMS.As I've argued, this leaves us with the problem of constructing a solid philosophical basis for 'science', after it had itself destroyed its earlier, erroneous, basis, with the works of Einstein.In effect, 'materialism' is dead. That means Engels provides no solace, because he erroneously followed 19th century postivist science, which is precisely what has been destroyed.Luckily, Marx was not a 19th century materialist OF THE SORT WHICH DESTROYED ITSELF. He has already laid some of the ground for a new, unified, scientific method, based upon human enquiry and practical social activity.This, of course, is Communism, the ideology of the revolutionary, democratic, proletariat.We know (and the religious know) that ideology is the basis of science. That knowledge was the outcome of science, and we have to go forward, burdened with that scientific knowledge.The religious will provide an elitist basis (that of god and 'his' helpers here on earth).We must provide a democratic basis, which firmly bases the production of knowledge within human democratic control. We can do this, simply because we are Communists, and have no 'material' foundation for elite control (ie. property not under social control).The religious cannot do this, because neither priests nor god can be compelled to follow the instructions of the organised whole of humanity.We do not have this problem. If we are democrats, that is. If the means of production, distribution and consumption are under democratic control (and this must involve 'science', as it falls under that heading of the 'means'), we can vote god out of our affairs.The attempt to resurrect 'Science As Truth' won't work, and as that involves an 'elitist method' anyway, it will provide unwitting support for the god-botherers.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

DJP wrote:

I don't think Sheldrake is particularly relevant to what we have been discussing.

I read the 'example' on Kindle and some of it is word for word the criticism of materialism on this thread.  Freeing the Spirit of EnquiryThe science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality. The fundamental questions are answered, leaving only the details to be filled in. In this book (published in the US as Science Set Free), Dr Rupert Sheldrake, one of the world's most innovative scientists, shows that science is being constricted by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The 'scientific worldview' has become a belief system. All reality is material or physical. The world is a machine, made up of dead matter. Nature is purposeless. Consciousness is nothing but the physical activity of the brain. Free will is an illusion. God exists only as an idea in human minds, imprisoned within our skulls.Sheldrake examines these dogmas scientifically, and shows persuasively that science would be better off without them: freer, more interesting, and more fun.In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins used science to bash God, but here Rupert Sheldrake shows that Dawkins' understanding of what science can do is old-fashioned and itself a delusion. 'Rupert Sheldrake does science, humanity and the world at large a considerable favour.'

[my altered bold]Yes, from this extract, Vin is correct, and this seems to be entirely relevent to what we're trying to discuss.Is Sheldrake a defender of religion, Vin?If so, this backs up a quote that ALB gave on an earlier thread about science, which showed that the religious can read the latest philosophy of science, too, and have drawn the conclusion that 'science now supports god'.If we are to defend 'science' from the religious, we have to establish its basis on different grounds from those of, the now discredited, 19th century science.As I've constantly stressed, if we don't find a way of defending Marx's conception of knowledge production (as briefly outlined in the Theses on Feuerbach, for eg.), 'science' will find itself at the service of the religious.Sticking our heads in the Engelsian sands won't do it, comrades.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course socialism can never come if people are not going to concern themselves about politics and economics (not so sure about the need for them to immerse themselves in "the philosophy of science" as well) and both the socialist revolution and its outcome (socialism) will have to involve participatory democracy. As the saying goes, the emancipation of the working class has to be the work of the working class itself (not of any leaders, vanguard or elite).

[my bold]To me, ALB, the bolded part of your post is at odds with the rest of the post.The philosophy of science will be an integral part of politics, economics, socialist revolution, socialism and participatory democracy.If it isn't, it will remain in the hands of 'leaders, vanguard or an elite'. It will remain an authority above the proletariat, and its meaning will be 'helpfully' translated by an elite body. I think we all know where that will lead…The task of class conscious workers is to find a way of explaining the 'philosophy of science', so that as many comrades as possble can form an opinion and take part in the relevant debates.

ALB wrote:

And what about the voluntary societies formed by people interested in a particular subject, would these be an "elite" in your eyes?

Would these 'voluntary societies' have any form of power? If so, they must be under democratic control. If you're talking about 'knitting circles', an elite 'bobble-hat production society', probably not! After all, we're taking about politics and science, here, aren't we?I won't answer the rest of your post, because it seems to have been flagged by the moderator, as requiring as separate thread.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

You had me worried for a moment that I'd have to spent all my time in socialism voting on subjects…

Well, yes. If we're going to run society, we'll be spending at least a lot (if not quite 'all') of our time reding about, discussing and voting on 'subjects'. That's the nature of running society.If most people are not going to be doing this, what will 'most' be doing, and who will the 'few' doing the doing? This sounds to me just like class society, divided into the 'mob', who will be eating and carousing ('bread and circuses'?), while the 'few' with the desire, ability and intellect to raise themselves above their stomachs and pleasure-seeking, will actually run society.Let's face it, if most people will still mainly concern themselves with getting shitfaced, shagging and eating burgers, and completely ignore politics, economics and the philosophy of science, we're never going to see Communism. We'll have to be doing all these activities, with equal relish!

ALB wrote:

It still worries me, though, that someone who thinks they know something about something but doesn't can have a say in deciding something that might affect me.

So, who's to decide whether someone does or doesn't know 'something'? Why not go the whole Leninist hog, and let the Party decide on who gets to 'have a say'. Can't we trust those who have made a revolution to show some interest in their self-declared arenas of voting, and confidently expect that they'll make themselves aware to the necessary extent? Especially as our society will be set up to do just that, to allow all its members to develop themselves? And especially given that the SPGB argues for mass participation in the revolutionary process?

ALB wrote:

I don't think I want the whole hospital staff voting on what treatment I should get …

Surely both the hospital staff and the potential patient population will 'vote'?In fact, your own argument for 'experts' would exclude the 'unwashed' outside the hospital, and leave it in the hands of either the elite of the 'whole hospital staff' or the even narrower elite of the 'surgeons and administrators'. In fact, just like now, with the NHS.No, I expect much wider participation in decision-making within all aspects of medicine. Or are you like Vin, and will leave yourself in the hands of 'Dr.' Mengele? He was an 'expert', who fed his 'medical knowledge' back to his professor at his university, like the true academic he actually was.

ALB wrote:

The serious point is that there is no need for democracy to extend to every decision in a socialist society. There are many decisions that can be left to the individual and some that can be left to those with the qualifications, training and experience.

'Leaving decisions' to an elite? Doesn't sound very 'revolutionary' to me, ALB.Perhaps this is why the 'parliamentary road' is so attractive to SPGB members?I'd expect a Communist majority in parliament to legally dissolve that parliament, and hand over political control to the parallel proletarian organisations within Workers' Councils, which will have developed at the same time as the increasing vote for Communist MPs within parliament. I'm all for the SPGB strategy of education, propaganda, development of the mass of the working class – I've no time for Leninist parties, or 'revolution first by a party, then hand over to the class afterwards' methods of the ICC, for example.But that SPGB strategy does lead to workers' control doesn't it? And not just representatives' control?As usual, I see questions of 'science' and 'politics' as being intimately inter-linked.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Personally, I'm prepared to let those interested in the subject decide on …

Isn't that just democracy?No one tells you that 'you can't vote'. You decide. If you're interested, you'll do the work required, and have your say in a vote.If you're not interested, you find something better, and just as important to running our society, to take up your time.Society will provide the tools for any individual to participate, if they want. No elite to sneer that 'you're not qualified, sonny!' It's the task of those who develop insights to explain to their wider society, and those insights are then subject to a vote.If those with insight fail to explain, and the vote doesn't go their way, they've only got themselves to blame!Within Communism, 'science' will mean explanation. A 'science education' will involve developing the ability to explain clearly, to all and sundry.None of this 'boardful of equations' shit!I think I'll vote that all physics textbooks must eschew 'maths', and have to be written in rhyme! And be funny!After all, it'll be our world. Why shouldn't we all be interested, indulged and, most of all, involved?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

You mean you can't sense the religious fervour of the 'materialists' here, in their defence of their Faith?

I can sense some fervour in this discussion but I can't think know why but something about people in glass houses comes to mind.

Ahhh, but my fervour is Marxist, my faith is Communism, and my god is The Proletariat!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Actually I think calling Marx a "critical realist" is not an unreasonable way to go.i don't think coining the term "idealism-materialism" is helpful for anyone, yet alone yourself.

But this is an opinion about the usage, not the substantive.I'm open to suggestions about how to help other comrades understand why Marx wasn't a 'materialist', if you now agree about that substantive issue.

DJP wrote:

Yes and No. Yes, Marx was not a "crude materialist" but he was still a materialist. But to say that one is a "materialism" does not mean that one is necessarily endorsing "crude materialism"

I think I've shown time and again why it does mean necessarily endorsing 'crude materialism'.'Physicalism', for example, is a new name for 'crude materialism'.I'm a Critical Realist, and I think Marx was too, and thus 'ideas' are as important as the 'material'.The 'material' does not take cognitive priority to the 'ideal', even if it clearly takes historical priority.The simple fact that the 'material' existed prior to consciousness has no implications for the cognitive process, other than to ensure that the material and ideal are a unity, expressed through 'theory and practice'.The material doesn't simply tell us 'what it is'. Pannekoek called the 'laws of physics' a human invention, didn't he? I've quoted that enough times, too.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Personally I'm proud to call myself a "materialist", always have been, despite the word's association with one-sided, mechanical materialism. You're one too on this definition.

Yes, I agree. But I prefer the term 'realist', simply because it forces the question onto the agenda about Marx's alleged 'materialism'. This ALWAYS defaults to Engels' definition, and then comrades unfortunately return to 'mechanical materialism', but with the qualifier now well hidden.'Historical Materialism' in effect means 'Not Materialism' ('materialism' here in its, as you say, 'one-sided' meaning).

ALB wrote:

It looks as if you need to define what you mean by "religious". It doesn't seem to be a normal usage.

You mean you can't sense the religious fervour of the 'materialists' here, in their defence of their Faith?For them, 'matter' is a no-go zone for most humans, a 'matter' only for the special few, who have a special understanding denied the masses.You yourself seem to see physicists as priests. Who are the laity to question the priesthood?It's the 'scientific' route to Leninism and The Party. 'Matter' replaces 'God'. And cadre replaces priesthood. And laity replaces class.'Democracy' is always an evil to the elite. They'll fight, like vampires fight for blood donorship, to retain elite control.

[Author]

Posts