[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Where is this non-bourgeois philosophy of science? I genuinely want to know

I'll take your query at face value, Vin, since you're a comrade (and you've used a smiley).I suppose later posts will show whether I've been wise, or simply duped, by someone who doesn't have a genuine interest in discussing the philosophy of science.A 'non-bourgeois philosophy of science' is awaiting construction by Communists.Will you join fellow Communists and workers in making the attempt to do this, initially by employing criticisms that have emerged within bourgeois society since Einstein wrote?For example (and I've posted this before, but do so again in good faith, in case you've forgotten it), here is a quote by a working physicist about the problems with 'science', the version of which we're all taught at school, and have reinforced by the media:

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)

"Collapsed, dismissal, revolution, disillusionment, wrong" – The words of a physicist; surely worth a discussion by anyone, never mind Communists?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

LBird wrote:

I thought you, at least amongst the regular posters, took these issues seriously, and have actually read some philosophy of science.

Written where and by whom?  Name some non-bourgeois philosophy of science.

If you're not interested, Vin, why persist? Why does it matter to you what I think?Why not just let it go?Why are you, and several others, like 'moths to a flame' whenever 'science' is mentioned?Is it a religious compulsion to defend 'The Faith'?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I think you've missed the point. YMS wants to know if it is a fact that you are a communist. I think it is, but do you/can you?

I'm not sure why you've joined in the games of the 'positivists/objectivists', ALB.I thought you, at least amongst the regular posters, took these issues seriously, and have actually read some philosophy of science.Up until now, it's only by pm that I've had any contact with SPGB members/sympathisers who can see the difficulties involved in these issues of science, nature, facts and social knowledge, and they've preferred not to post, due to their unsureness about the issues.I too am unsure of much of it, and would like to discuss and learn more, but I don't seem to be able to get a discussion going, due to the almost religious views of the 'defenders of science'. I hadn't placed you in that bracket, due to your circumspection around these issues, since our initial exchanges, which I'd assumed meant that you were 'watching and listening', rather than had just given up on the discussion.Perhaps I'm doing you a disservice?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

We all know that Piketty is a reformist who wants to try and regulate capitalism to benefit the majority, which can't be done.

I'm not so sure that 'we all' do 'know' this, ALB.I'm yet to see a review that openly says that, as a bourgeois academic, who is clearly unaware of the way capitalism really works (according to our ideology), that Piketty is very untrustworthy, because of his ideological framework. This undermining of the so-called 'Professor Piketty' should be so prominent, from the start, as to leave anyone reading totally clear  that Piketty is a charlatan, liar, and a selector of biased evidence, who is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, in the service of the rich.Once that is done, then perhaps we can proceed to place Piketty's book in its proper perspective. It's a bible for supporters of capitalism, not a handbook for Communists.

ALB wrote:

But you've still not, L. Bird, given your opinion on the statistics produced by Piketty in chapter 10 on the 'Inequality of Capital Ownership'. Are they underestimates, overestimates, biased, complete fabrications or what? Are you saying that we can't use them to back up our case that capitalism is based on the ownership and control of the means of production by a tiny minority?

But I'm a Communist, so given what I've openly said, I wouldn't read Piketty's book to find 'statistics' or to prove that the rich exist. Any worker who works in this society can 'see' this, once they start to think about their society. They don't need to read Piketty's book to find these things out, and I wouldn't recommend Piketty's book, for those purposes.Where I would recommend Piketty's book, is to Communists who wish to read what bourgeois professors say about capitalism, and then laugh at the stupidity of those academics, who don't seem to understand what any ordinary worker can understand. This can only help to develop the confidence of Communists, and those workers who are moving towards class consciousness.A worker can have a better understanding of the world than a professor. Professors are stupid. The benefits of the undermining of authority by this process doesn't need emphasising for Communists, I think.However, ALB, if you are asking me if I think that getting reformists to read Piketty will make them seriously question capitalism and become Communists, then, no, I don't. I think reformists reading the reformist Piketty will pick up on his strategy of reforms.As for most Communists, I think there are better uses for their time than reading this book. I've only read it to see what all the fuss is about, and I'm inclined to say to any comrades who ask whether it's worth their time to read it, I'd say 'no'. If they've got the free time and inclination, for whatever reason (perhaps the same one as me), then go ahead and read it. Otherwise, no.

[LBird]

gnome wrote:

Young Master Smeet wrote:

And the thing I want to know is: is Lbird a communist.  I'm not sure on that point. 

He certainly refers to himself as one….. ad nauseam.  Sort of begs the question – who's he trying to convince?  Us….. or himself?

And gnome's scientific perspective is….?Not another 'objectivist', surely? Or has Communism nothing to do with science and nature?

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

And the thing I want to know is: is Lbird a communist.  I'm not sure on that point. 

Well, using the scientific method, I openly expose my perspective.You won't do the same, YMS, so your method is suspect. What have you got to hide?

[LBird]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Does  'bourgeois' science  need replacing with 'proletarian' science. If so then how can 'bourgeois' science be used against '19th century positivism'

I'm afraid I can't go over all this again with you, Vin. You'll have to re-read the several (dozens of?) earlier threads, in which I've tried patiently to explain these issues to you and DJP.You weren't keen to engage then, so I presume you're not keen, now, either, so I won't waste the time of both of us. Just stick to 19th century positivist science, and its promoter within the Communist movement, Engels, and continue to argue for 'facts'. Then read Piketty's 'facts' and you'll know 'The Truth' about 'economics'.Simples, eh?It makes one wonder why we even bother with all that theoretical and ideological stuff in Capital. The first one, I mean.Then again, perhaps you and DJP don't.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

LBird wrote:

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Entrepreneurs are sociopaths.

What a profound and nuanced analysis.

Yeah, perhaps too profound for both Piketty and you?Wake up.

This may be of interest to the pair of you.

My 'entrepreneurs are sociopaths' comment was merely intended to highlight the political ideology of Piketty, which, quite strangely, seems to be being ignored by comrades who have read his book. It's almost as if they seem to think that 'facts' exist outside of any theoretical framework, and thus that Piketty's book can be read 'apolitically' for its 'apolitical' facts.In reality, Piketty is an ideological bulwark of the bourgeoisie, and he's chosen his concepts and facts to suit his political framework (as we all inescapably do). Thus, his use of 'entrepreneur' (a bourgeois category) and his placing of this category in a positive light. I'm surprised that more comrades haven't picked up on Piketty's ideology, which is opposed to ours.But why DJP chose to make their uncomradely comment? I've no idea. Perhaps, and I'm trying to read between the lines of our earlier exchanges about 'science', DJP does believe in the sancitity of 'facts', and that an 'entrepreneur' is a 'fact' and that Piketty is merely objectively reporting the existence of 'the facts of life', ie. Capitalism, which we have to deal with.Being a Communist, I don't accept those so-called 'facts', and wish to change those 'facts' for our 'facts'. I think Piketty is a bullshitter, an academic who doesn't know his economic arse from his ideological elbow.Again, I find it quite surprising that so many comrades seem to take bourgeois academics at their word and at face value. I don't, I criticise them.Just a trouble-making Commie, eh? Bit like you, aj, you stirrer, you!

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Entrepreneurs are sociopaths.

What a profound and nuanced analysis.

Yeah, perhaps too profound for both Piketty and you?Wake up.

[LBird]

Piketty, pp.443-4, wrote:

No one denies that it is important for society to have entrepreneurs…. Entrepreneurs thus tend to turn into rentiers….[but we must act] while preserving entrepreneurial dynamism…

Entrepreneurs are sociopaths.What bit does ‘professor’ Piketty not understand about this?

Quote:

sociopath:a person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sociopathAnd a ‘rentier’ is just a successful sociopath.So, to translate for the non-communist, pro-Piketty crowd:Piketty wants dynamic sociopaths, who are ‘important for society’, even though he realises that they succeed in their sociopathy, and so he proposes… ‘tax’?Perhaps Piketty, as a 60s judge, would have proposed that Hindley and Brady should have been punished by putting them in a higher tax band?The more I’ve read of this book, the more laughable it becomes.Whilst the people reading it give the term ‘entrepreneur’ any validity whatsoever, they are using the wrong ideology to understand Piketty.We need a translation from ‘bourgeois’ to ‘proletarian’, never mind from ‘French’ to ‘English’.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

…knowing…what it is…

That's the point that you're missing entirely, YMS.Humans 'knowing what something is' is a lot more problematic than your appear to realise.What Piketty 'knows' and what we 'know' of the apparently same 'it' is the problem.The 'it' doesn't tell us 'what it is'.The belief that the 'it' tells humans 'what it is' is an ideological belief, rooted in 19th century positivistic science, and, for Communists, rooted in Engels' misunderstandings of Marx.To 'know' an 'it', the 'it' must be defined first, by humans.Fish do not have 'fish' written upon their sides…

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Or, put another way: if we know the rod, know the river and the time we can accept the fish for our own porpoises.  We don't condemn for such choises, that would be foolish, because those choices mean something to us too.

But if the 'fish' is used for the 'porpoises' of making 'glue', what use it then for our purposes of producing a fish & chip supper?We can 'condemn such choices' and waste, unless you're happy to be given a 'bostik butty' for supper.We can't separate out 'facts' or 'raw data' from the purposes for which it was 'collected', YMS. By accident, some 'data' might be useful or relevant, but we would have to determine that by placing the 'data' within our contexts, if that is possible.It's a serious methodological error to think that 'data' is ever 'raw'. Choice is inescapable.We must examine the 'chooser' and their 'choices', and what 'concoction' is produced from the combination and structuring of those 'choices'.For me, Piketty's 'concoction' is a rancid 'fish' stew of uncertain status and origin. May contain nuts. Or porpoise penis.I think I prefer Marx's culinary skills and tastes.

[LBird]

Once more, for those unfamiliar with Carr's famous quote:

E. H. Carr, in What is History?, wrote:

"Study the historian before you begin to study the facts. …. The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger's slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend, partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use – these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants. History means interpretation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_History%3FThis all applies to science, too. This is the proper scientific method.Hence, "Study Piketty", not just his book of 'economic facts'.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

That analogy doesn't hold, though, does it, by your own account. The selectivity of evidence presupposes that there is phenomenal evidence to select from.

This is all very difficult for you, isn't it, YMS?What do you think 'fish' represent in Carr's brilliant analogy?'Fish' don't have their origin in a Fisherman's head, do they?

YMS wrote:

To return to my natural history theme…

You actually mean:

YMSs ideology wrote:

To get away from philosophy of science, of which I know nothing, and get back to 'the real world' beloved of conservative thinkers…

And so,

YMS wrote:

So, the only point of contention is the extent to which an author:Is aware of their premises/presuppositionsArticulates their premises/presuppositionsConceals or attempts to concceal their premises/presuppositions

No, this is not about 'individuals', YMS.It's about how societies (especially classes) brainwash 'authors' into being aware of premises/presuppositions which make sense to that society.The bourgeoisie CAN'T be 'aware' of what we're aware, because they are not Communists, whereas we are Communists.In short, it's about the politics of the 'author'. The author is a glove-puppet for their socially-implanted ideology.Your 'point of contention' is like insisting we ask Sooty if he's aware of Mr. Corbett's 'premises/presuppositions'.Whatever 'Sooty' says, we know it's not Sooty's opinions, which we can change by talking to Sooty.To make it clear, for 'Sooty', read 'Piketty'. The bourgeoisie has got its hand up Piketty's arse, comrade. He'll 'fish' for the 'fish' that his training, tackle, bait and choice of river determine. The 'fish' he'll get won't be the same as us, because we're using different training, tackle, bait and a different river.And which sauce will the 'objective, raw, fish' be served with? To 'taste', another social factor…

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Anyway, L.Bird, have you reached chapter 10 yet on "The Inequality of Capital Ownership"? If so, I'd be interested in what you think of it.

No, I've only reached chapter 4, and that's only with some skipping!For me, reading bourgeois economists like Piketty is a bit like reading a 700 page account by a child about how the tooth-fairy puts a tanner under the pillow. It's full of 'interesting' detail like the wingspan of the fairy, how the pillow is filled with 'magic-down', so that the pillow floats up holding the head of the sleeper whilst the tooth-fairy deposits the 6d…No, I'm quite capable of seeing through the child's fairy-tale, I know where they've got this ludicrous idea from, and I just want to know why the tight-arsed parent only gave the kid a tanner for that bloody big, painfully extracted, molar.Pikitty, like all professors (and especially economists), is like a particularly slow kid who 'believes in' the tooth-fairy.I'm just surprised at how many regard his 'tales' as 'enchanting', rather than essentially misleading. pgb is apparently enamoured of the kid's curls and teddy-bear pyjamas. Ahhh, how cute! It must be the truth!Only the nasty Communists, LBird and alanjjohnstone (AKA "can't and don't know"), hate cute kids. Bastards!

[Author]

Posts