LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
As far as I can tell, slothjabber is literally correct in their contributions to this thread. That is, they have a good case for their argument, which probably needed making, that that SPGB were being a bit sloppy in their own use of language/terms.But I can't help feeling that slothjabber has alienated comrades from, rather than attracted them to, their side.Politics isn't just about 'winning a case', but more like 'garnering support'. It doesn't pay politically to be 'right', but end up isolated. It's possible to 'win support' by comradely means.There's a lesson here somewhere, for all of us Communists. And I include myself in that judgement.
Vin Maratty, post #424, wrote:Do the 'methods' used today to search for a cure for cancer need replacing with some other 'methods'?Could you describe the scientific 'method' used today to search for a cure for cancer, please, Vin?
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:'Never mind the idea of 'free-access', will I still be able to buy a packet of fags?'.This does not remotely resemble my questions to you; questions you have still not attempted to answer.
Do you want to discuss the philosophy of science, Vin?If not, that's OK by me.
Vin Maratty wrote:Do the 'methods' used today to search for a cure for cancer need replacing with some other 'methods'?Is the failure to find a cure for cancer down to bourgeois methodology?This is a discussion of philosophical ideas, Vin.These ideas have implications in politics.Reducing this to a question of 'cancer cure' is to reduce it to day-to-day concerns.It's a bit like trying to discuss Capital, revolution and Communism, while the other person insists on reducing the issues to day-to-day, real-life, concerns, like 'Never mind the idea of 'free-access', will I still be able to buy a packet of fags?'.If you think that discussing a vital issue like 'finding a cancer cure' answers all our difficulties with 'science', I'm afraid that you're mistaken.Sorry, comrade.
ALB wrote:What do you think they were trying to express in the crossed-out passage?I think that they were trying to express what I wrote earlier:
LBird, post 418, wrote:The production of knowledge of both natural and social science is done by humans.Natural and social science both employ the same method.If social science can be bourgeois, so can natural science.If natural science can be socially-neutral, so can social science.If anyone disagrees with these theses, please detail the different theories of cognition used by natural and social sciences.I'm with Pannekoek, who argues that scientific knowledge is created by humans (not by nature or a neutral method) and Marx, who argues that humans must unite natural and social science into a singular method.The belief in the separation of natural and social science is a bourgeois ideological belief.The notion that the 'science' of nature has a socially-neutral method, which differs from that of the science of society, has been destroyed by bourgeois philosophers themselves. Even religious thinkers, as you yourself have shown, know this.It's my opinion that 'Engelsian' positivist science is a break with Marx's earlier formulations; a break which was caused by the power of positivist science in the 19th century to influence social ideas, especially Engels' views of science; and a break which leads to the separation of humans from nature and thus politically the separation of party from class.I might be wrong, but in none of the discussions so far, on a number of threads, has there been any proper counter-argument, other than mere repetition of 19th century, outdated, views of 'science'. It's the 'science' we're taught in schools, along with history, politics, economics, sociology, etc., etc.I'm always surprised that Communists who have already come to realise the lies about 'The Market' find it so difficult to overcome similar lies about 'Science'. If we can't trust 'economists', why should we trust 'scientists'? Specialist authority is the antithesis of democratic control: if it's allowed in science, it'll follow in politics.Whoever says 'Scientific Socialism' says 'Leninism', in my opinion.
Marx, The German Ideology, (CW 5, p. 28) wrote:We know only a single science, the science of history. One can look at history from two sides and divide it into the history of nature and the history of men. The two sides are, however, inseparable; the history of nature and the history of men are dependent on each other so long as men exist.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm
Malayahttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/25/malaysia-militaryKenyahttp://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimesPalestinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Night_Squads
Ozymandias wrote:…there is still 1% of me that holds a wee peep of hope.The '1% seed' will blossom, in the right soil, watered by circumstance, comrade!
Ozymandias wrote:Don't be angry with me please. Rather pity me.I'm not angry, you've already got the '1% seed', which is more than most, so far.I'd prefer to hope with you, than to pity.
Brian wrote:Could you please clarify what exactly you mean by "potential"?The potential to become Communists.
Brian wrote:The youth always have had potential to criticise capitalism…No, until this generation, 'youth' has always been better off than its parents.
Brian wrote:Indeed, these malcontents passively accept the reproduction of capital and their own labour power whatever the circumstances they happen to be in.That's why it's only 'potential'.The question is, 'will passive acceptance continue, whatever the circumstances?'.If we Communists continue to offer an alternative, perhaps 'youth' will 'actively choose' to prevent the 'reproduction of capital'.Perhaps they'll flock to 'the colours' and the queen, when the Chinese War begins. Perhaps Marx was wrong. Perhaps the tories are right, and most people (young and old) are thick.On balance, I think I'll stick with 'youth potential'. Beats relying on academics.
Ozymandias wrote:…right about the youth, they are thick as shit like the vast majority of the proles…Quite frankly, I don't think that 'the youth' are any 'thicker' than many bourgeois professors and other academics. Have you ever talked to 'academics' (or PhD students) about anything removed even fractionally from their extremely narrow 'speciality'? In fact, I'd go further: even within their speciality, they often don't have a clue beyond what they've been taught to think.Nah, give me 'the youth' anytime. At least they've got potential, given the ever harsher circumstances within which they are being forced to survive.Oh yeah, and while we're here, Oz… I'm a fuckin' 'prole'…
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Natural and social science both employ the same method.No, you can't perform experiments in the same way in the social sciences as you can in the natural sciences.
And so, after months of discussion, we return to the assertion that 'rocks' and 'ideas' are different.No matter how many times those arguing this, themselves post quotes about the "theory ladenness of 'facts'", and quote Pannekoek and Marx approvingly, when push comes to shove we return to 'real science' (sic), to physics, and ignore all other sciences as somehow 'not real science'.Then we encounter Einstein's quote about 'theory determining what we can observe', spend hours and hours discussing cognition, Marx's arguments about the social bases of 'senses', the nonsense of DiaMat and Engels' diversion from Marx's critical practice and Historical Materialism, etc. etc….Then, the old empiricist canard about 'science and experiments' appears once more…I give up. Forget philosophy of science, and talk to rocks – they'll tell you the unvarnished truth…
mcolome1 wrote:ALB wrote:I think the distinction you are trying to make is not between "bourgeois" and "proletarian" science, but between a "bourgeois scientific method" and a more adequate method or maybe between how science is conducted today and how it will be in socialism/communism (which of course can't be described as "proletarian" as someone has already pulled you up for suggesting since there will no longer be a proletariat in socialism).Pannekoek was not studying or teaching "bourgeois astronomy" if only because it's not clear what this might be. He was studying astronomy with a different scientific method from that which you call bourgeois" (but which you've admitted on another thread most mainstream scientists don't accept now anyway).You seem to be riding the same sort of hobby horse against "science" as RL does about "philosophy".There are bourgeois social sciences, and 'humanities", but there are not bourgeois natural sciences. The capitalist used sciences and some scientists to carry their own economical purposes, but there is not homogeneity among scientists. The capitalists have tried to applied Darwinism to society, but it does not mean that biology is a bourgeois science. Like Engels wrote: Scientists are materialist in their laboratory but some scientists can be metaphysical or idealists in their private life
The production of knowledge of both natural and social science is done by humans.Natural and social science both employ the same method.If social science can be bourgeois, so can natural science.If natural science can be socially-neutral, so can social science.If anyone disagrees with these theses, please detail the different theories of cognition used by natural and social sciences.I'm with Pannekoek, who argues that scientific knowledge is created by humans (not by nature or a neutral method) and Marx, who argues that humans must unite natural and social science into a singular method.The belief in the separation of natural and social science is a bourgeois ideological belief.
mcolome1 wrote:…I do not think that Engels can be rejected completely, in others aspects he also made his own contribution.No, I've already made this point to ALB, when he seemed to suggest I was 'rejecting Engels completely'. We're talking here about Engels' philosophy of science, not his other works, like economics, history, etc.
mcolome1 wrote:I will never mix up Engels with Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao or Hoxha, because all of them used some economical ideas of Marx and they twisted them also in the same manner…Well, I think we should 'mix up Engels' with these ne'er-do-wells, 'because all of them used some philosophical ideas of Engels'. In this regard, 'they twisted the ideas of Marx', as did Engels.Simply put, Engels became a 19th century positivist, whereas Marx (probably) did not.An illustrative case of 'Social being determines social consciousness'? 19th century ideas of science were very powerful and influential; even are to this day.
There's a danger that I'm going to write something uncomradely which I later regret, so I'll bow out of this current exchange.I'll leave it for now with 'if anyone wants to employ 'scientific socialism', be my guest'.The fact that no-one can say what it is, seems not to cause any concern.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:What have you got to hide, DJP? Ignorance of scientific method?I have nothing to hide. But I don't have the time to write an amateur expose' on the scientific method. Read Chapters 6 and 7 of "Beyond The Hoax" by Alan Sokal as I think this highlights where our views diverge quite well…
Of course, you'll have read Jonathon Marks' comments on the invalidity of Sokal's method.J. Marks, Why I am not a scientist 'The Sokal Hoax', pp. 10-13.No? You probably 'haven't got time', eh?Makes me wonder why comrades who haven't read much (or any) philosophy of science bother to engage.Must be down to Engels' method, which allows Communist employing 'scientific socialism' to not bother.
