LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
twc wrote:Specialist knowledge, particularly that at the inconclusive forefront of science, is something that even specialists must take conditionally on trust. It simply does not meet the preconditions for democratic decision making by the whole community, and rarely even by the specialist community, and would be held suspect if its truth were always decided by so unscientific a procedure.
[my bold]twc, for me, you might as well have written:
Quote:Specialist knowledge, particularly that at the inconclusive forefront of politics, is something that even specialists must take conditionally on trust. It simply does not meet the preconditions for democratic decision making by the whole community, and rarely even by the specialist community, and would be held suspect if its truth were always decided by so unpolitical a procedure.I trust neither politicians nor scientists, comrade.If I can't put my trust in my future comrades across the planet to make important decisions that affect all of us, I can't see the point of being a Communist.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science….'elites' in any sphere(Bold added) So, I provide an example of elites in society.And, by corollary, we can say that there are ability elites in science, some people are much better at doing sums in their head (whether by habituation and practice or any natural aptitude is irrelevent). So, we can have poetic elites, sporting elites and, yes, scientific elites.(p.s. and poetry has always had authority, the authority of the, er, author).
Wow! A killer quote!Well, you've got me beat, YMS.You're quite correct, on a politics site discussing power, I didn't specify political power.Next, you'll pick me up for not specifying 'Earth politics' (you could argue that I might be talking about Martian power struggles), or not specifying 'Human science' (you could argue that I might be talking about Aardvark science).Yes, my failures are now all too apparent, YMS. The SPGB are too sharp for me! Sorry for wasting your time.
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,Lbird wrote:I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science.But if you (and YMS, DJP?) do believe in 'elites' in any sphere, why not say so, and make it plain?I cited the example of sporting elites, they plainly exist, likewise I believe there are mathematical elites, and even linguistic elites. Try as I might, I can't write poetry what is as good as Shelley's. Or should we write poetry democratically?
This is becoming laughable, now!Since when has 'poetry' or 'rugby' had the authority of science?What's the matter with comrades on this thread? This is supposed to a political site! We're supposed to be discussing power.Perhaps ajj is right, and I should move tables with him! But the topic of footie only.
alanjjohnstone wrote:If i was sitting in the pub with you lot, i would move to another table !!Therein lies our problem!If you can't be induced to engage in such an important issue, it won't be raised and discussed amongst us, and the current default position will remain: 'keep politics out of physics'.
Young Master Smeet wrote:I've played on the same pitch as elite sportspersons (well, an Ireland 7's international), so I quite firmly believe they exist…We're on the site of a Socialist party, talking about Communist politics, and about the power of various socio-economic and political elites, who have authority over the proletariat, and you bring up sport?I really don't know what else to say.Well, YMS, you look to an Ireland 7 international for your answers about the philosophy of science and the problem of scientific authority within society. Good luck.
twc wrote:Can you afford to remain democratic?Democracy is the only option for all Communists, not just me.I don't believe in 'elites', either in society or in science.But if you (and YMS, DJP?) do believe in 'elites' in any sphere, why not say so, and make it plain?I don't understand how any Communist can hold to 'democratic' methods in politics, but not in science. This contradiction, to me, is a key philosophical problem.But to answer it, we have to actually recognise it as a 'problem'. I suppose that the obvious answer for those holding this (to me, contradictory) idea is to deny that there is any problem, and that 'democracy in politics' can exist alongside 'elitism in science'.
You know what I find so strange, comrades? The fact that the philosophical position I’m advocating is the one far more in line with the general philosophical approach of the SPGB.That is, an approach that stresses the centrality of human thought, and its creative and critical thinking (which is prior to our practical dealings with the world of nature and society), provides a far more suitable ideological basis for the political thrust of the SPGB, that of propaganda, education, persuasion and of actually asking other workers what they think, by the process of democracy, in preparation for the assumption of power by the proletariat.The alternative, of ‘practice’ and the ‘real world’ being the basis of politics, is far more suited to provide an underpinning for the political approach of the Leninist, elitist, cadre-party, where a ‘select few’ are the ones who ‘read the runes’ of ‘what really is’, and merely pass on this ‘truth of reality’ to the passive majority of workers who can’t hope achieve this level of consciousness themselves, by their own efforts. The ‘professional revolutionaries’ merely reflect the role of ‘professional scientists’ (and, in an earlier epoch, the ‘professional priests’); that is, an elite above society, who are beyond talk of ‘democratic controls’. Why should the mass control cadre or clergy? The truth is ‘in the stars’.Even more simply, looking at ‘what is’, and drawing conclusions, is essentially a conservative method. How this method ever came to be the one espoused by ‘Socialists’ (at least, by those who see the need for revolution in thought and practice), is a question worth asking.I’m still inclined to place the cause of this with the immense prestige of 19th century positivist science, garnered from its tremendous real advances, and Engels being philosophically dazzled by the evident progress of physics (and other sciences) during his lifetime.I’ll make one prediction, though, comrades:‘Those who start from ‘practice’ and ‘material conditions’ will oppose 'democracy’.All talk of ‘workers control’ will be dropped, in favour of a ‘parliament’ of ‘experts’. I can already see this dichotomy amongst the SPGB posters, when the issue of proper workers’ power comes up. Those who favour proper democracy will stress the need to ensure power lies with newly created workers’ councils, whereas those who favour ‘practice’ and ‘reality as it is’ will favour the retention of a modified ‘parliament’ as the location of power.That is, some SPGB-ers see parliament as the end (to be retained), whereas others see parliament as a means (to be discarded).My views support the latter. I’m in favour of the SPGB’s strategy if it leads to the self-destruction of parliament and the state.But if the SPGB sees parliament as something to be taken over and retained, I’m opposed.Philosophy, eh?
LBird wrote:If it's not the mode of science as practiced by proletarians, then isn't adding 'proletarian' just a bit of branding, a bit like 'All new and improved'?Yeah, I'm just the Communist Salesman, trying to bamboozle! And a failure at that, too!We should inscribe across our banners: "For Practical Rationality!"Inspiring for the youth, what?
YMS, DJP, if you want to start from 'practice', be my guest.Nothing I say is going to change your minds, I've come to realise that. There you go. Consciousness, at last!
YMS, I'm not sure if your latest posts have been aimed at me, for my answers.But if I can illustrate my problem. You said:
YMS wrote:LBird,well, if we're looking in a rational way at what proletarian science might be, it'd be best to start with the practice of proletarian scientists, rather than starting from the sky.If we pose your method in terms of, say, economics, it would read:
Quote:LBird,well, if we're looking in a rational way at what economics might be, it'd be best to start with the practice of economists, rather than starting from the sky.My simple answer to this would be:No, if we start from the current practice of economics (and ignore theory), we're then compelled to use the present theories of that practice, like 'the firm', 'supply and demand', 'individual consumers', 'selfish human nature', 'marginal utility', etc., to understand that practice.On the contrary, we need, firstly, to read Marx's Capital, to critically theorise 'the commodity', 'exploitation', etc. and then apply our new critical theory to the current practice of economics.That is, we must 'start from the sky'. That's how humans understand both the social and natural worlds. Theory and practice, in that order.To start from 'practice' is a conservative method. It accepts 'what is' as the basis of understanding. We Communists start from 'criticism of what exists'.Hope this helps, YMS.
Seriously, YMS, why would you employ a method of 'starting with practice'?Surely our Communist method is to 'start with criticism of existing practice'?Y'know, 'theory and practice'. Which I never tire of saying…
Young Master Smeet wrote:LBird,well, if we're looking in a rational way at what proletarian science might be, it'd be best to start with the practice of proletarian scientists, rather than starting from the sky. Living ensuous proletarians, engaged in the production of knowledge.[my bold]Would that be using bourgeois 'rationality', or proletarian 'rationality'?Or is that too 'sky-ey' for you?Why not just ask why we can't just deal with 'the real world' and 'common sense'?And forget about all this 'revolution' malarky, eh?
Young Master Smeet wrote:I'm not sure this bourgeois/proletarian science thing holds. There are thousands of proletarian scientists, in unviersities up and down the land, on the treadmill of publish or perish, working without owning their ideas (in collaboration in massive projects of associated labour), most mainstream science and its outputs are prolatearian efforts. The day of the lone gentleman of leisure collating knowledge from correspondence is long over.What this has to do with anything I've written, I'm not sure, YMS.
Vin Maratty wrote:It seems to me, LBird, that the only 'meat' on your argument consists of insults, which is not impressing anyone.twc calls me 'boy', I call him 'old'. If the latter is an insult, so is the former. Have a word with twc, if you're so concerned about 'insults'.As for arguments, I see that you haven't ventured to engage in the discussion. I'm not impressed with you, either.As to 'meat', for god's sake, how much more can I do? I've tried explaining over several threads the need for 'theory and practice', and all I get is 'Why keep talking just about theory, LBird?'.I've tried discussing Marx, Engels, Pannekoek, Untermann, Dietzgen, Lenin, Korsch, and modern philosophers of science like Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, Bhaskar, Archer, Schaff, Marks…How much more 'meat' is there? No, the real problem is the lack of willingness by the partisans of 'Engelsian science' to actually do much wider, and critical, reading.
