LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
