LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
SocialistPunk wrote:So I sugest in the interests of simplicity, and I know some people look down their noses at such a suggestion, we use the word ideology to refer to political belief etc and the word creed to refer to religious belief etc.If we all agree (democratically of course) to stick to some basics maybe a productive discussion can be had.It all depends on what comrades think that the 'basics' are.I've presumed, on all threads that I've entered, that I'm discussing with Communists, and that the word 'ideology' would be totally unproblematic, as would 'class', 'ruling ideas', 'Marxism', etc.If other comrades are seriously suggesting we should begin with an overview of political events and ideas since the French Revolution, or are still at the developmental stage of needing to be convinced of the case for Communism, then I don't think that what this thread set out to do is possible.
alanjjohnstone wrote:All along i have been repeating ..so what if the book is a fine piece of research and according to one the best thing since slice bread, it was… not assisting the socialist case but was a disservice, and merely confirmed what we already knew without any requirement of equations…the rich get richer, the poor get poorer…… And this book ensures that capitalism goes on and on with another forlorn hope…This is just about my estimation of the book, too, ajj.Academically, perhaps 'a fine piece of research'.But… it doesn't 'assist the socialist case', it 'merely confirms what we already knew', and the most acute of your observations, Alan, 'this book ensures that capitalism goes on and on with another forlorn hope'.Piketty's book provides what we would estimate as 'forlorn hope', for the reformists, that is, yet another deckchair re-arrangement on the Titanic. Us lot in steerage have little to learn from studying the Titanic's First Class, return trip, seating plan.
SocialistPunk, post #34, wrote:Of course if anyone wants to they can seek out long academic tracts on the philosophical nature of ideology, but there is little point in doing so unless confusion is your goal.'Confusion is your goal'? Could be the name of a socialist band!
SocialistPunk wrote:Why keep it simple YMS, when obfuscation is so much more helpful?Yeah, it does begin to look like this, doesn't it, SP? Confusion and obfuscation as a deliberate policy.As if the philosophy of science isn't confusing and obfuscatory enough, already!
alanjjohnstone wrote:More the reason to expose the weak policy that Piketty advocates, his inconsistency as ALB pointed out, and perhaps we could call it what it is, political cowardice, that he won't take his own findings to their logical conclusion and condemn capitalism per se.I don't think the term 'political cowardice' is correct, ajj.The 'weakness, inconsistency and illogic' are simply fundamental features of 'reformism'.And the whole purpose of reformism is to avoid the condemnation of capitalism.I think many reformists are brave politicians (on a personal level), even though clearly some are liars and war criminals (step forward, Blair!), but, simply, they are not Communists.What makes people Communist? Well, that's the $64,000 question, and has been since Charlie and Fred were writing.If I was to proffer a reason for Piketty's lack of understanding, I'd just put it down to him not being too bright – I've met professors, you see!
LBird wrote:Perhaps I need telling: the SPGB is not a Communist organisation. Then it will be shown quite clearly that I’m the ‘naïve innocent abroad’, and should go back to my books and playing alone with my intellectual ‘mud pies’, and leave the world of politics to adults, like Vin.Vin wrote:But, LBird, what is 'mud'? What are 'pies'?Vin Maratty wrote:You wish to discuss science and ideology. How is my post off topic?You have derailed a lot of threads with your views on 'science' but when challenged you cannot define simple terms.What is 'ideology' what is 'science'? I do not consider myself an expert, I too am learning but if we cannot or you will not define the terms we use there is little point in discussing the matter.This is just getting pathetic. "What is ideology?" You're supposed to be a socialist.You'll wait until I've spent six months discussing it, and then say, 'but, LBird, I can't read, and can't understand your posts'.Then I'll explain the alphabet, spelling, grammer and syntax, and you'll say, 'but, LBird, I'm blind, and can't see your posts'.If you want to know what a computer and the internet is, Vin, this isn't the thread to ask.
Vin wrote:You have become very personal and abusive towards me and I see no reason for that apart from the usual smoke screen you hide behind. I suggest you withdraw your remarks, and undertake that in future you speak to me and others in a reasonable manner.I've got a better suggestion, Vin.Why don't I just fuck off altogther? I'm sick of trying to reason with you.
