[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

most 'people' share exactly the same ideas

Oh dear. If that where true I'm not sure why we would need this forum.I'm just getting the feeling you havn't considered what I said. You havn't replied to much of my points just repeated what you have said 1000 times before…Yes, no individual exists seperatly from their place in history and in society.And yes science and language are social activities. These are nothing but banalities.But at the same time it is not "individualist" to suggest that there is not going to be complete uniformity amongst members of a group.I fail to see what point you are trying to make other than we do not share the same ideas, which seems to contradict your starting point.Maybe take up my essay suggestion because I don't see this current discussion going anywhere.

All your doing here, DJP, is reiterating your ideological beliefs.If you think 'individuality' is the basis of society, fine, but then there seems no point in discussing 'science' with me, because I hold the contrasting ideological belief that 'society' is the origin of indivdual's ideas, and so will discuss 'science' from that perspective.We need this forum precisely because you, Vin, YMS, et al, all say the same thing. With complete uniformity!These are not your 'individual thoughts', but social beliefs about the nature of 'individuals', 'society', 'ideologies', 'science', etc., etc. I would say this, because of my ideological beliefs.Now, if you want to discuss from a liberal perspective, say so, and I can bid you good-night.I'm on a Communist site precisely because I want to discuss science with other Communists. I've clearly made the mistaken assumption that all comrades here were Communists/Marxists. If some aren't, that's fine. But I want to discuss with those who are Communists/Marxists, so perhaps only those who regard themselves as such will want to continue the discussion with me.My mistake.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

The trouble is no two people will share the exact same compound of beliefs, experiences or concepts.

To me, DJP, this is a statement of liberal ideology.Because I'm a Communist (as I never tire of being open about), I think that 'ideas' come from society, and that most 'people' share exactly the same ideas, and these ideas come from classes.So, if I'm to discuss 'beliefs', I don't start from 'people' (in effect, this means 'individuals'), who supposedly have their 'own beliefs', but from society, and the ideas that it implants into the members of that society.And, as we live in a class society, I would look for the broad similarities within 'class ideas', which oppose each other, ruling and exploited.Now, I'm open about my ideology.If you don't agree with my outline of 'social ideas', and prefer 'individual ideas', that's fine by me. But why not spell out your ideological bias towards 'no two people'?It's not just 'your opinion', but the basis of an ideological outlook, which I do not share.So, if we want to discuss 'science', we need to be open about our contrasting ideologies, from the start, so that all can follow our discussion, as clearly as possible.The points I would go on to make about 'science' would be anathema to 'individualists', because I see science as a social activity, not an individual one.It's best to be open about our ideologies. We all have them, but only Communists have no 'material' () reason to hide this.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

1. Asume good will.2. Apply the principle of charity.3. Avoid binary over-simplifications (all x's are y)4. Avoid appeals to authority.5. Use your own words as much as possible.6. Test your own arguments against the strongest opposing ones you can think of.7. If you feel wind up by a post turn the computer off.

I've tried all these, to no avail. I can't get anyone to discuss, on these threads, whether they think there is something to what Rovelli says.I can't get anyone to tell me what ideology they employ, in reading Piketty, or doing 'physics'.The default seems to be the pre-Einstein position that 'science has a method which produces the Truth', and is not ideological. But Rovelli claims that is not true, and all recent philosphers of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend, Lakatos) seem to agree with Rovelli.I suspect that the 'ruling class ideas' about science are the ones that are prevailing, though.

[LBird]

Given what you've said, DJP, I can only take it at face value, and apologise for my tone in the last post.But I need some time to reflect, about why I'm 'doing a very bad job of it'.

[LBird]

Furthermore, DJP, I'm fed up with the disingenuous questions, on the pretence that you're actually interested in discussing these issues. You stick to your Engelsian ideology, and I'll stick to my Marxian one.If you want to know more, re-read the dozens of post I've made to you especially, in my forlorn attempts to get you to think about science, and what physicists like Rovelli argue are fundamental problems with what the layperson calls 'science'.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

Marx was a trained philosopher, but Engels was, at best, an amateur. And we now know his amateurish books are wrong (NB. his science, not his other works).

So, are *you* a trained philospher? Have you written your views in essay legnth form anywhere?

Ahh… you won't have a word said against the Holy Father, will you now, DJP.More displays of unreasoning faith, and refusal to discuss.

[LBird]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

A worker can have a better understanding of the world than a professor. Professors are stupid.

Quote:

The words of a physicist; surely worth a discussion by anyone

As on all the previous occasions, i now bow out when the debate gets to, for me, at least, exchanges of philosophical gobbly-gook between "the stupid". As a worker i have a better understanding of the world. 

Oh, there are plenty of stupid 'physicists', too, aj!As for 'a worker', that's what all this is about: arming workers intellectually for coming battles with 'authority', of both the political and scientific varieties.And, indeed, the economic variety!

[LBird]

SocialistPunk wrote:

Hi LBird,Is the quote regarding science you use, referring to the classic Newtonian ideas about scientific fundamentals, in the face of the discovery of the quantum world and the weird paradox of classic physics still at work on the macro level but falling apart ,or not appearing relevant, at the quantum level?

Hi, SP!That's part of it, but it has more far-reaching philosophical implications for human knowledge, which I think impact on both our physical and social worlds, and so, on our understanding of Piketty's book, too.From what I understand, Marx in the 1840s was ahead of bourgeois science by about 120 years, because his ideas from then fit better with what philosophers of science say now about 'science'.Engels, on the other hand, having been mesmerised by the tremendous advances within 'science' in the 19th century, took their part, and forgot whatever he had understood by Marx's words from 50 years earlier. If, indeed, he had ever understood this 'philosophy'; Marx was a trained philosopher, but Engels was, at best, an amateur. And we now know his amateurish books are wrong (NB. his science, not his other works).

[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.

[Author]

Posts