[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

But, if you wish to remain looking 'through bourgeois scientific specacles' (perhaps in the mistaken belief that there are no 'bourgeois spectacles'), why bother to criticise 'bourgeois' economics, either? Or 'individualism'?In fact, why not just stick to the old way of doing things? I'm baffled by the obvious belief on this site in the sanctity of bourgeois thought.

 So if the WSM has it all wrong –   with us using our bourgioes specs  –  then pehaps you can explain where the SPGB's anaysis of capitalism is incorrect?edit: as a result of us using bourgeois science.

A discussion of 'capitalism' (and its explanation by us, translating Marx's difficult works) is a long, long, long way down the road, Vin.This is about philosophy of science, for Communists. When we've got that sorted out, it might give us some insights in how to explain Marx's works, which are still opaque to most (including me!), which I think should be the task of class conscious workers, like us, in attempting to explain the world to other workers, a world both physical and social.

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Whether you are proletarian, aristocracy, or bourgeois, there are an infinite number of primes. So, it does cut to the heart of the matter.

Well, that's solved that then. The 'mathematicians' don't agree with Marx.'Maths' is not a social construct, with a historical development, and 'primes' told us what they are (no need for humans and their thought there, eh?).Oh, so now we have a 'material', non-human basis for maths… and physics… and err… chemistry…. [to cut a long story short]… politics, sociology, economics…The 19th century scientists were right, after all!Bollocks to Marx, Einstein, Rovelli… we've 'cut to the heart of the matter'.Individual, Matter, Market…Eternal Truth: TINA!Who needs the bourgeoisie to 'big themselves up', when the 'socialists' are doing it for them?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I wasn't trying to categorise you as a "Machist". Just pointing out that in the passage quoted in the book he seemed to be saying something similar to what you are.

What? Mach argued for the democratic control of physics? Mach argued for workers voting for 'Truth'?Can you point out the relevant passages, ALB? Perhaps I am a Machist.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Most of us here can see that this might make sense with regard to history, society, economics but not to the so-called natural sciences, e.g. there is no "proletarian" or "communist" or "bourgeois" or "capitalist" astronomy or chemistry, just astronomy or chemistry.

So, fuck Marx and his 'unity of science', then?Why not all just openly say it?'Marx was wrong' about a unified scientific method, and then I can go away, and do something better with my time.I agree with Marx. If the SPGB doesn't, say so, and I'll bid you all a comradely 'goodbye'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

His problem, as far as I can see, is that he regards any interpretation of the observable world as entirely subjective, hence opening the door to "extreme relativism".

But I keep stressing 'THEORY AND PRACTICE' and 'SOCIAL SUBJECT' and 'REALISM'.How to god can that be interpretated as ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE?I'm beginning to think my screen is showing different words to those of other comrades here.Can everybody see 'THEORY AND PRACTICE'?Can everybody see 'SOCIAL SUBJECT'?Can everybody see 'REALISM'?I suppose we're back on the merry-go-round, where my words are ignored and replaced by those of a different ideology.Oh, sorry, I'm the only ideologist here, aren't I. What a joke.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

There is a new hurdle facing the socialist movement:We in the world socialist movement have up until now analysed capitalism through bourgeois scientific spectacles which means we are way off the mark.Furthermore, we have failed to grasp this idea of a ‘proletarian science’ so what hope is there for the working class?The vast majority of workers will have to grapple with the ‘philosophy of science’ understand the past errors of bourgeois and other philosophies and settle on a ‘proletarian science’.A mammoth task indeed 

Vin, how else can you see workers taking over production, if not by 'grappling' with 'science'?If workers remain merely concerned with their 'day-to-day' lives, of feeding and enjoying themselves, who will make their decisions for them? The 'elite' that Marx warns us against?Of course it's 'a mammoth task'!I, for one, am prepared to try to both develop myself and my comrades.But, if you wish to remain looking 'through bourgeois scientific specacles' (perhaps in the mistaken belief that there are no 'bourgeois spectacles'), why bother to criticise 'bourgeois' economics, either? Or 'individualism'?In fact, why not just stick to the old way of doing things? I'm baffled by the obvious belief on this site in the sanctity of bourgeois thought.Oh, sorry, the 'Real World' (copyright, Conservative Philosophical Productions) which is obvious to any individual who cares to open their bedroom curtains in the morning. There's no need to confront our social brainwashing – after all, we're all individuals!What do comrades here think that 'ruling class ideas' consist of?'Ruling class ideas' are the ideas that most people hold: 'science produces the Truth', 'we're all individuals', 'TINA to the Market'. If you've rejected the last one, Vin, why not the others?This is not a 'new hurdle', Vin, but the same one we still haven't leapt since Marx's death.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Lbird,It's a serious question: are there, or are there not, an ifninite number of prime numbers?

YMS, it's a serious question: is Rovelli talking out of his arse?

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

Anyway, Lbird, quick Q: are there are infinite number of prime numbers.

Another helpful contribution to the discussion, YMS.I don't need to be a 'mind reader', in your case, YMS, simply a 'reader'.You continue to avoid Rovelli's concerns, which are no cause for concern at all, according to you.The entirety of 20th century philosophy of science dismissed in a shrug.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

…to see if it would throw any light on where LBird is coming from… As far as I can see, the person who comes nearest to LBird's position is the physicist Ernst Mach…

It’s  always easier to pidgeonhole someone, rather than actually discuss what’s being said, isn’t it?I’ve stated repeatedly, giving quotes, that I’m ‘coming from’ the likes of Marx and Pannekoek, with influences from Einstein and Lakatos. The suggestion that I’m a ‘Machist’ says more about ALB’s ideology of science than it does about mine.

DJP wrote:

I think LBird was claiming to be a realist whilst at the same time also holding to extreme cognitive relativism… Though he would deny it I think there was a strong influence of postmoderism in his thinking…

Marx was clearly a relativist, too, of the ‘social’ kind (‘modes of production’ – has anyone heard of them?). PostModernism is a relativism of the ‘individualist’ kind, and since I constantly quote Marx’s social ideology, and stress ‘democratic control of knowledge production’, how this can be construed as PM, I don’t know. The accusation says more about DJP’s ideology of science than it does about mine.As for YMS’s quote from Charlie, it just backs up my ‘social’ (and thus agreeing with Marx) position on the nature of ‘science’. However, YMS, employing an individualist ideology of science, wishes to read it as comfort for ‘individualist sense experience’. Marx makes it very clear that ‘sense perception’ is a socially-created experience of nature, and not merely what any person can see, hear, smell, touch or taste. If any individual could be magically transformed to a different society, they would experience nature in a different way. Nature does not tell us what it is; we ask questions, and thus the answers are already pre-loaded. The myth that science produces ‘Eternal Truth’ (which is knowledge that is the same for any observer, at any time, in any society, forever) is a bourgeois myth, tied in with the need for ruling class legitimacy and authority.Finally, in YMS’s quote, Charlie clearly puts humanity at the forefront of science (not simple ‘nature’, as for bourgeois science and a misled Engels), and aims to build ‘one science’ in which ‘physics’ and ‘sociology’ employ the same method. The positivists of the 19th century thought that this meant making ‘sociology’ more like ‘physics’. We now know, since Einstein, that ‘physics’ is more like ‘sociology’, and that this must be the aim of our proletarian ‘science’, to democratise knowledge production, as part of the task by the proletariat to assume control of all production.

Marx wrote:

Natural science will in time incorporate into itself the science of man, just as the science of man will incorporate into itself natural science: there will be one science.

Bourgeois science clearly separates the ‘arts’ (or ‘human sciences’) from ‘science’ (or, at heart, ‘physics’). Marx argues against this, and I follow Marx on this point. If ‘proletarian science’ means anything, it is the methodological unity of all of the ‘sciences’. In a nutshell, physics must become poetical, rather than mathematical. Scientists have a social duty to explain, in a manner understandable to most humans, rather than retreat into a world of mumbo-jumbo, as did priests. Today’s scientists are simply old-fashioned elitists, as we can tell from the horror expressed by those on these threads, who consider themselves ‘scientists’, at the thought of workers voting on the ‘truth’. For them, one professor’s vote is worth a million workers’ votes. We have to undermine this elitism, and start to build for the day when workers will democratically control the means of production, distribution and consumption. And that includes ‘science’.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

 Vin, mate, try just reading on this thread, and try to think about what's being said, and keep your comments to a minimum, for now.You're out of your depth, comrade. I'm trying to give you good advice.

 When you are unable to give an answer you inevitably become personal. Why not deal with the content of my post. Would you as a 'communist' (Shakespear comes to mind here) allow an 'elite' (your words) make undemocratic decisions about your treatment? 

Sigh.If the 'elitist' brain surgeon was named Dr. Mengele, then, no, I wouldn't.According to YOUR METHOD, Vin, you would allow Dr. Mengele to make decisions about your treatment.We really have to lift this discussion beyond "What if, to me as an individual…".Can't you and YMS address some of Rovelli's concerns?

[LBird]

Y'know, we're trying to discuss philosophy, and the scientific method that would best suit the democratic proletariat in its attempts to understand the world and thus to build Communism, in the light of the obvious failure of 19th century science, and we're reduced to nuts, widgets and dentists.I sometimes wonder…

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

Do you wish an elite to make 'estimations', YMS, or a whole society?

If you mean by 'elite' someone like a brain surgeon then I would prefer the 'elite' to make the estimation rather than wait for a democratic decision.  Tho' I would not refer to a specialist as 'elite'. That would  obfuscation. 

Vin, mate, try just reading on this thread, and try to think about what's being said, and keep your comments to a minimum, for now.You're out of your depth, comrade. I'm trying to give you good advice.2nd Warning:  2. The forums proper are intended for public discussion. Personal messages between participants should be sent via private message or by e-mail.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

So some people will have 5,000 hours of practice in science, some people will have less than a 1,000…

[my bold]Yes, 90% will have over 5,000 hours, and 10% will have less than a 1,000…What?That wasn't your assumption?My assumptions are based upon my political ideology, that of Communism, which asserts that the proletariat has the innate ability to run the economy and society, by democratic means. This, of course, includes 'science' as part of the means of production, so I 'assume' that 5,000 hours is a gross underestimate of the time which will be put in by most workers to develop their understanding of the world we live in.Errrr…. You're not assuming that most people are naturally thick, are you, YMS?Now, there's a 'ruling class idea' if there ever was one!

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

All a vote can tell us is what the majority agree is the case, not what is the case.

Could you describe the 'scientific method' which doesn't require voting, YMS? The method that does tell us 'what is the case'?'Scientists' throughout the 19th century alleged that they had one that told us 'what the case is', but Einstein disproved that allegation.This has been the basis of discussion by philosophers ever since, and, indeed, by the brighter physicists, like Rovelli.

Rovelli, The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy, wrote:

This reading of scientific thinking as subversive, visionary, and evolutionary is quite different from the way science was understood by the positivist philosophers… (p. xii)Facile nineteenth-century certainties about science— in particular the glorification of science understood as definitive knowledge of the world—have collapsed. One of the forces responsible for their dismissal has been the twentieth-century revolution in physics, which led to the discovery that Newtonian physics, despite its immense effectiveness, is actually wrong, in a precise sense. Much of the subsequent philosophy of science can be read as an attempt to come to grips with this disillusionment. What is scientific knowledge if it can be wrong even when it is extremely effective? (p. xv)But answers given by natural science are not credible because they are definitive; they are credible because they are the best we have now, at a given moment in the history of knowledge. (p. xvi)

'Best' is an estimation, the product discussion, by humans.Do you wish an elite to make 'estimations', YMS, or a whole society?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

It's alleged it takes 10,000 hours of work to become an exprt in any field (this also applies to music, sport and art).  Now, 10,000 hours is a lot of life, and we all have finite lives.  At some point, we have to surrender to expertise.Now, obviously, there are spaces for democratci control.  Will we build a sucessor to CERN?  That's a democratic question.  All scholarly communications should be available freely, everyone should have access to acadmic libraries.  Publishing houses should have juries or elected boards to decide what to put into mass runs (and there needs to be a variety of publishers).Obviously, only one eye can go to a telescope at a time (or put another way, time with a massive radio telescope will need to be booked), and a demonstrated capacity to use it should be at least one critirion.  Any (shudder) individual should be free to follow whatever object of study they choose, but when serious resources are required, and collaborative effort is needed, then that is a matter for democratic control.Is someone who has spent 10,000 hours studying physics an elite?  no, because they haven't spent 10,000 hours studying biology, or working a lathe, or farming.  People will do different work, and each specialism is equally useful to society; and that is what social production of knowledge looks like.

Perhaps you're missing the part of a 'scientific education' under Communism that will make it a requirement that any 'specialist' will be taught to explain their findings to a non-specialist audience, YMS.The separation of 'science' from the 'arts' will be rejected, and 'individual findings' will only reach the status of 'scientific knowledge' after a vote by non-specialists.If 'it' can't be explained to our society, 'it' won't be 'scientific knowledge'.To maintain otherwise, that 'the masses' can't ever understand 'specialities', is to join Bakunin.I'm not a Bakuninist, YMS. Are you?

[Author]

Posts