[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

This, again, depends on what you mean by ideology. in a classless society, where there are no established rulers to threaten, then the production of knowledge cannot be used to support them (through distortion) nor be a chance to overthrow them (and thus be suppressed), any knowledge would simply, then, be produced as that which we are capable of producing.

[my bold]ALL knowledge suffers from 'distortion' and 'suppression'.ALL knowledge is thus ideological. The bourgeosie do it, the proletariat will do it, all previous classes have done it, all previous societies have done it, all future societies will do it.This is the whole point of Rovelli's quote. Humans SELECT. Selection requires theory, for its parameters. Theory, by its nature, distorts 'reality'.There can never be any humans who have access to The Truth. That would make us 'god'.Our role is to criticise existing knowledge. That can't be done if we start from the position that the knowledge we already have, and are about to criticise, can't be criticised because it is 'True'.We can accept this human limitation, but the bourgeoisie can't, because they have to 'eternalise' their rule, just like all ruling classes. Once they let go of 'The Truth', everything is open to criticism.Physics, just like sociology, becomes an ideological battleground, and their pretence of 'authority' is shattered.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Are you implying that the term 'ideology' should be used in the context of 'scientific knowledge'?

No. It's better to find some alternative term since, in the Marxian tradition, "ideology" is a prejorative word.

LBird wrote:

It seems to me that his whole works are opposed to the notion of a "fixed, timeless, Truth", which is required if no ideology is held to be present in scientific knowledge.

Totally agree with the first part, but not the way the second is expressed (because it uses the word "ideology"). Better to say something like "which is required if the brain/mind produces a simple photograph (or 3-D picture) of the world". Which of course it doesn't.

I'm all in favour of the pejorative word 'ideology' being used in conjunction with 'science' and the production of human knowledge.There is no 'bias-less' knowledge of the world, and it's best, not only to be open about that, but to make it crystal clear to everybody, including those still taken in by the bourgeois myth of 'science produces the Truth', that ALL KNOWLEDGE is biased, including physics.Once that is understood, then we can move to seeking a reconciliation of 'social' and 'natural' science into a single unified scientific method, which Marx seemed to think was possible, and I do, too.Anything less than this expressed, hammered-home, view will lead to comrades thinking astronomy, for example, is 'The Truth', as Young Master Smeet seems to imply.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I wasn't saying Marx was right or wrong, merely what I thought was Marx's use of the term. I don't think, either, that

Quote:

Marx thought that the world could be understood as it is, rather than through the prism of human ideas

but that he didn't use the term "ideology" in this context.

Are you implying that the term 'ideology' should be used in the context of 'scientific knowledge'?I certainly think that it should, as I've often argued, and I think that perhaps a case can be made for thinking that Marx would have agreed with this, if he had lived beyond Einstein revelations, given many of the things that he wrote, about human knowledge and human senses, and his emphasis on the social and historical.It seems to me that his whole works are opposed to the notion of a "fixed, timeless, Truth", which is required if no ideology is held to be present in scientific knowledge.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

If we look at ideology as the ways and means by which the ideas of the dominant class become the dominant ideas, this changes things dramatically.  First off, it suggests that without a dominant class there will be no ideology (this is conconant with the claim that without class there is no politics, we move from the dispute over who gets to make the decisions, to actual technical decision making based on reason).  To my mind this means a communist ideology cannot exist (saving some Stalinist notion of bthe dictatorship of the proletariat as communists rule over non-communist classes).

I agree that is how Marx used the term "ideology" and that therefore, for him, to talk of a "communist ideology" would be an oxymoron.

If Marx thought that the world could be understood as it is, rather than through the prism of human ideas, then Marx was wrong.I don't think that Marx thought this, though.But, I'm prepared to accept that my minority opinion about Marx is worthless, and let the majority keep using Marx to prove that there will be no ideology within Communism.Frankly, I think that that's nonsense. And, for what it's worth, Rovelli the physicist seems to agree with me, as does Kuhn, Lakatos, et al.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The implication for science here is that there is a rational and non-ideological way of gathering knowledge that is distorted in class society, and the elimination of class warfare will allow a genuine reason to examine the world freed from such conflict. Further, in a society of abundance, this reason will not be limited by economic conastraints, only real ones.And there we get back to science and socialism, via a slight detour through ideology.

LBird, post #9, wrote:

Here is Rovelli's view, again, for those reading this thread anew:

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 not 'Truth'.

We're not going anywhere on this thread, so I might as well drop out.Whilst workers and Communists adhere to outdated notions of 'rational, non-ideological, science', they're living in the 19th century. That puts an end to any notion of a leadership of ideas within society by class conscious Communist proletarians.The bourgeoisie's thinkers are still streets ahead of us.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

LBird wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

Another load bollocks from LBird. Same rubbish on every thread. 

I'll leave Paramjeet and Steve in your capable hands then, shall I, Vin?

Quite frankly I think you should, because your brand of 'obscurantism', rather than providing much needed clarity is simply muddying the waters still further.

Well, your clear-sighted thinking, along with Vin's obvious talents, will be enough to advise Paramjeet, then, won't they?Yeah, the world's 'so obvious', isn't it, gnome? There isn't really a problem for socialists, in their relation to workers. Just keep saying "it's obvious" to them, and they'll be attracted in droves, just like always.

[LBird]

Since no-one has objected to what’s been said so far, or argued that ‘science produces The Truth’ (which was the position of science prior to Einstein), I’ll quickly recap:

LBird, post #48, wrote:

This is the first step: to answer the question: 'Is there a problem with scientific knowledge, or is it true?'It seems to me there are two answers: 'Yes, there is a problem' or 'No, there isn't a problem'.As long as, for now, we proceed with some consensus that 'Yes, there is a problem', I'll try to go on and illustrate that 'problem'.

And DJP has agreed that there is a ‘problem’ within ‘science’, and the problem is one of the status of the ‘scientific knowledge’ that ‘science’ produces:

DJP wrote:

Yes nothing can give us the Truth of the capital T kind…

This retreat by science from the position that it produces ‘The Truth’, a 100%-accurate copy in our minds of what is being ‘observed’, has really troubling implications.Put simply, if one says “the knowledge produced by science is 99.999999% ‘true’ ”,one is left open to the following objection,“but how do you know that it’s only 0.000001 that is unknown?; it might be that 99.999999% is actually unknown, and science only knows 0.000001% about what is being observed’.It’s a bit like having a board with what you suspect is four squares, and saying you ‘know’ three of them, and are aware that only the fourth remains unknown. This is vulnerable to the objection that perhaps the ‘board’ is a chessboard, with 64 squares, and ‘knowing’ three of them would mean that 61 are unknown.Now that I’ve illustrated the problem, I’ll allow comrades to comment, before I take this explanation any further.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Another load bollocks from LBird. Same rubbish on every thread. 

I'll leave Paramjeet and Steve in your capable hands then, shall I, Vin?

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

I still think you need to give a couple of sentences explaining what you mean by "true" though.Yes nothing can give us the Truth of the capital T kind, but that does not mean that all scientific knowledge is therefore false.

Glad to see you're still with us, DJP.I'll give it a bit more time before I take things forward, but just one thought to be going on with, since you've raised it:Since you accept 'truth' of the capital T kind doesn't exist, what about 'false' of the capital F kind? I'm not trying to 'catch you out', but perhaps one stance implies the other?Oh yes, and once again, as an overarching point, no-one is arguing that 'all scientific knowledge is therefore false' (with a capital F).

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

Yes I don't think anyone, especially working scientists, claims that science produces the "Truth" in the complete and final for all eternity sense of the term.

Well, that's one 'Yes' vote, I think, that we now know that there is a problem with scientific knowledge, which makes us more aware than those scientists working in the 19th century, that 'scientific knowledge' is problematic.I'll wait for a while to see if there are any comrades who don't vote 'Yes', and if we're all aboard, I'll try and explain with simple everyday objects why this problem exists, and the consequences for us if we do accept this problem.If I've taken your 'Yes' vote too far with what I've just written, DJP, please say so.

[LBird]

steve colborn wrote:

We, as Socialists, see the "reality" all around us, every day.

Yes, I agree, Steve, but that is because we use the same framework of reference (or ideology) to understand that 'reality'.'Reality' does not tell humans what it is. If it did, we'd have been successful in the 19th century. As soon as capitalism took shape, everybody would have clearly 'seen' what 'reality' was.They didn't, and still don't. Unless we socialists address this philosophical problem (which affects 'science' as much as 'politics'), and help to shape and offer this framework to other workers, then the 'reality' that they 'see' will be the same one as the 'capitalists' see.It's the road to reformism, comrades. We can predict now where Paramjeet will end up, on their present course.

[LBird]

SocialistCenter wrote:

…we have to address it by seeing the reality, accepting it and then striving for the solution. I bet "practical" socialism ( a good one; one for the welfare of all) does have a huge scope to exist and solve all the problems that the world face today.

I'm afraid the issue of 'seeing the reality' is a huge philosophical problem for us, Paramjeet. By 'us', I mean both 'humans generally' and especially 'socialists', who want to 'change the world'.'Practical Socialism' will prove to be a conservative method, and will hinder us.

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi LBirdIt might be a good idea to get to grips with what is meant when we say "science". Again I'm gonna suggest keeping it simple for now.

Hi, SP! Well, if you're willing, so am I.I was thinking of even simpler steps than you've suggested.The first question is a simple one: is there a problem with what science tells us, since Einstein wrote.Science in the 19th century said it produced the truth, that scientific knowledge was 'true'.But Einstein overturned that thinking. This is all uncontroversial, so far, I think.This is the first step: to answer the question: 'Is there a problem with scientific knowledge, or is it true?'It seems to me there are two answers: 'Yes, there is a problem' or 'No, there isn't a problem'.As long as, for now, we proceed with some consensus that 'Yes, there is a problem', I'll try to go on and illustrate that 'problem'.But there has to be agreement that there is a 'problem' to be had, first of all. If anyone's happy that 'science produces true knowledge', then say so, and I'll have to resort to evidential backup, to prove that this is disputed by philosophers of science. Or they can just read the Rovelli quote that I gave earlier, again.

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

Does this sound feasible, to everyone?

I have no intention of entering intto a discussion with an individual who becomes nasty, sarcastic and derogatory when he feels he is  cornered. Besides you havent got a fucking clue 

Bye-Bye, then, Vin.

[LBird]

I’ve had a little think about this issue, and perhaps the best approach is to just start with some basic ideas, and some basic questions, and see if we can generate enough understanding and consensus to keep taking things forward.I’ll try to avoid philosophers, books, concepts, links and ‘evidence’ (for now, at least), and attempt a few simple steps.If this method doesn’t prove to work, because comrades want proper ‘evidence’ for my necessary assertions at this point, I’ll abandon it, and we can try some other way.Does this sound feasible, to everyone?

[Author]

Posts