[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

If science does not produce 'certain' knowledge (and science already tells us that it doesn't), this lets in the social aspect.Once this is done, it's as 'scientifically valid' to start from the Koran, which will 'explain and predict' from a 'Muslim science' perspective.That's our problem, in a nutshell. We have to find a social basis for 'Communist science'.There are no bald 'scientifically arrived at ones'. That is to posit a socially-neutral method of science. You (and ALB) seem to agree that this doesn't exist, without realising its implications.

But where are you getting your certainty from?How do you know that what you are claiming above is true?

I’m making the same claim as a certain DJP:

DJP, post 352, wrote:

OK, we might be getting somewhere now.All you are saying here is that knowledge is that knowledge is uncertain, that's fine….We need to have a critior to enable us to evaluate competing claims. This criteria will never give us 100% certainty. So whilst appreciating that we can (probably) never know the absolute truth when faced with two competing claims we should choose the one that offers the most explanatory and predictive power.

You seem to be able to logically follow and accept the argument thus far, DJP, but then, when you realise just what this acceptance of yours entails, you recoil in horror and try to revert to ‘discovery science’, a ‘neutral scientific method’, that ‘certainty’ and ‘truth’ are absolutes, and thus ask me about ‘my certainty’ and ‘my truths’.I’d like to move on to discussing the ‘subject’, not ‘my truth about the subject’, but a discussion in which we all participate, and try to improve our ‘knowledge’ of the scientific method. That is, to define what we Communists consider to be the ‘scientific method’ and then, as you say, ‘when faced with two competing claims we should choose the one that offers the most explanatory and predictive power.’But… our ‘choice’ surely has to be a ‘democratic choice'?It’s possible to argue that the ‘choice’ should be made by each ‘individual’, or by a small ‘elite’ of ‘scientists’, or by a ‘society’ as a whole. I favour the latter, and I also think that a discussion of the nature of the ‘subject’ will help to clarify this question, and provide some potential answers, including the three that I’ve suggested. But, perhaps other posters can suggest other candidates for the ‘subject’ – god/allah/the party/rainman/your invisible gorilla/etc.

[LBird]

rodshaw wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by ideals.We want…

They're 'ideals'.

rodshaw wrote:

But whatever 'ideals' they hold, won't they be their ideals, not ours?

Well, since we'll have set up the society, that implies that we'll have set up the socialisation processes: as you say, class, private owndership, oppression, etc., will be taught to them as harmful for humanity.Personally, I think that 'democratic control' will be another 'ideal' that we will carry forward in our socialisation of our children.To pretend that Communism will be a 'year zero' or a blank slate, and that future generations will start from nothing, seems to me to be disingenuous: we, like every generation, will pass on our beliefs about what we consider to be moral, decent, etc.We should be open about this, and discuss it first, I think.

[LBird]

rodshaw wrote:

…spring naturally…

Given that we usually claim that Communism will involve a 'coming-to-consciousness' of the proletariat, so that we humans consciously start to take control of our lives, I'm not sure how this 'natural springing' will happen.Surely the 'first generation to be born into a socialist society' will be inculcated with our Communist ideals?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I'm not too sure what the "democratic control of ideology" means. On the face of it, this could be interpreted as meaning that in a socialist/communist society people's ideas should also be subject to democratic control, but surely, in a future socialist society, the field of democratic decision-making will have its limits (matters of collective interest).

[my bold]To be a bit provocative, surely "in a socialist/communist society people's ideas would be subject to democratic control"?To be a bit more specific, every society that has ever existed has socialised its young into acceptable forms of behaviour. If that's not 'controlling people's ideas', from the very outset of a person's existence, what is?I think that we should be open about this inescapable 'brainwashing' social process, and discuss its contents.The bottom line here is, I think, that if society's basic ideas (including respect for democratic methods and minorities) aren't under our collective control, whose control will they be under?This is a long way from 'thought-control' in the the sense that it's usually used (state control of the individual), but it's worth getting to grips with just what would be our enforced basic social ideas.All societies enforce 'ideology', and personally I think that the contents of this 'ideology' should be discussed and voted upon by all of humanity. Someone or something has to set limits – if it isn't us, it'll be 'god'.In that case, I wonder who'll interpret his/her/its thoughts?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Actually, it's not so much religion that I want to discuss as what are the limits to the field of democratic decision-making in a socialist/communist society, i.e what decisions can be left to individual choice and what to be made collectively.

If there's one issue that's more important for Communists than 'science', it's 'democracy'! In fact, many of my positions on science are predicated upon democratic control, and in that sense, at least, democracy is more fundamental than science.Anyway, I'll get back to the issue of the 'subject' in our tripartite schema, later, unless there are any objections, from any other readers as well as from you. I think 'knowledge' has been done to death for now, at least until we have a bit more discussion on subject and object, which might help clarify their relationship and thus their product, knowledge.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

I simply meant that 'religion' would be got rid of by democratic methods.

On the face of it, this is a bit worrying, especially as you also said that in future socialist/communist society "ideology" would also be under democratic control.I think we are all agreed that religion will have virtually died out by the time socialism is established, but I'can imagine that a small minority of people might continue to entertain religious views and customs. The way you've put it above could suggest that they will be banned as a result of a democratic vote.  Would that not be "thought control" as would telling (even by a democratic vote) people what "ideology" they should hold?Tell me that this isn't what you meant.

I'm not interested in this sidetrack, ALB, following a throwaway, poorly-judged, inconsequential to the main theme, remark of mine. I see this line of questioning as a diversion from the real issue of science, method and cognition.If you want to discuss religion, rather than science, it requires a new thread.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I meant to pick you upon this earlier but got distracted. What do you mean by "the democratic control of … religion" in future socialist/communist society? Depending on your reply might even be the subject for a separate thread.

I wish you'd 'pick me up' on the central issue of this thread, rather than looking for more things to sidetrack us!I simply meant that 'religion' would be got rid of by democratic methods.Let's face it, if anyone thinks that 'religious authority' is going to continue within a Communist society, they've got seriously different ideas to most Communists, I think. But we've got more important things to resolve, now.Like, 'a unified scientific method' and the issue of 'scientific authority'.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

You've gone unnecessarily out on a limb here, but it's not too late to climb back.

No climbing back, I'm afraid. Time to replant the tree.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

So "Science doesn't produce absolute truth therefore the Koran is equally valid" can be argued against because religious arguments do not hold the same predictive and explanatory power as scientifically arrived at ones.

[my bold]This is what I'm trying to explain.If science does not produce 'certain' knowledge (and science already tells us that it doesn't), this lets in the social aspect.Once this is done, it's as 'scientifically valid' to start from the Koran, which will 'explain and predict' from a 'Muslim science' perspective.That's our problem, in a nutshell. We have to find a social basis for 'Communist science'.There are no bald 'scientifically arrived at ones'. That is to posit a socially-neutral method of science. You (and ALB) seem to agree that this doesn't exist, without realising its implications.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

OK apologies….  It's an honest question I mean no harm by it.

Right. I accept your apology, and I apologise for flying off the handle. I'm afraid I'm fed up going round in circles, and was starting to assume that you were being entirely destructive of the discussion.

DJP wrote:

Let me rephrase. Seeing as you've said that "science is ideology" and "science does not produce truth" on what basis do you hold your acceptance off communism as a possible practicle reality? I.e on what grounds do you justify your ideology.

The answers to this can only follow an established cognitive method, in my opinion. You're correct to raise this question, and others that you've raised before, but my answers will be based upon my (and your) understanding of the scientific method. Thus, that has to be addressed first.

DJP wrote:

Oh dear. Myself and others have repeated stated we do not hold this position yet you keep claiming we do….

The litmus test of this, though, is my question about the 17th century sun/earth realtionship. To argue that it was 'untrue', because we now know the 'truth', is not possible.The only answer we can give is that "it was 'true' then', but it's 'untrue' now, and in the future we recognise the possibility that it could be 'true', yet again".This argument only makes sense if 'truth' is related to 'knowledge', and thus 'scientific truth' can change – it might be very, very, very, very (ad infinitum) unlikely, but we can't be 'certain'.If 'truth' is related to the 'object' alone, we have 'discovery science', which is produces 'Truths', which are thus eternal.And remember, for the method I have outlined, 'true knowledge' is related in some way to the 'object', it's not simply whatever anyone wants it to be.For the sake of my sanity, if not yours, comrade, if you don't agree with my characterisation of 'knowledge' as a social, and thus fallible, product, please, please, please (ad infinitum) explain how you can be certain that the sun didn't go round the earth, as was thought, in the 17th century.By 'certain', I mean 'scientifically, 100%, copper-bottomed, certain', not just the common sense use of that word.In my opinion, it's not possible to be scientifically certain. And the developments of 20th century science support my position, as the bloody religious authorities are also aware.But this doesn't have to lead to us all facing east, or not eating fish or pork, or any of that religious nonsense. We have to address those issues, because if we don't, the religions will.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

But its philosophical importance is that this position undermines the notion of scientific 'certainty'.

I'm curious to know who you think actually holds this position? Some badly written science textbooks perhaps?

You apparently 'hold' that it's 'certain' that the earth goes round the sun. So, end your curiosity, look in the mirror, switch on, start reading more widely, pay attention to what I'm writing, and don't look for 'badly written science textbooks', but search closer to home with your 'badly written posts'.Enlightenment might follow.

[LBird]

DJP wrote:

LBird wrote:

If we believe that humans can collective control the economy, and there will be an end to private property, we must believe that humans have the capacity to collectively control their science.

But why do YOU believe those thing are possible? On what basis? Did Allah tell you? Or you just felt it to be true?

DJP, I've assumed that up until now that you are a comrade and a Communist, and I've been patiently explaining to you, on that basis.I must say, I don't like the tone of your post, and if you don't desist in taking the piss, and engage in a comradely and constructive fashion, things might well change.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Say once, just once, that 'we are not certain' that the earth goes round the sun

As the creationist said to the evolutionist: admit that you are not certain that the theory of evolution is right …. so that creationism can be taught as an equal possibility. See this from an Islamic scholar (a contradiction in terms, I know):http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays-articles/philosophy-theology/has-evolution-been-misunderstood-revelation-science-and-certainty/Here's his opening gambit:

Quote:

Over the past few decades there has been a growing discourse on science, evolution and its compatibility with Divine revelation. This discourse can be summarised in the following way: the theory of evolution has been established as a scientific fact therefore a believer in a particular revealed text, such as the Qur’an, must reconcile evolution with their holy book. If there is no hope for reconciliation there are three main outcomes: the religious text is discarded, evolution is renounced, or a hope for a better understanding of the religious text and evolution in the future. However, in this growing discussion there is a hidden premise. This premise is that science produces certainty, evolution is fact and science is the only way to establish or verify truth claims. This premise is assumed in the popular discussion amongst many religious people, popular scientists and even the media, and by not bringing this premise to the forefront of the debate many Muslims (and fellow theists) have been left confused and disheartened.It is not the scope of this article to enter into a discussion concerning the various approaches taken by scholars and thinkers to reconcile evolution with revelation. What will be discussed is what can be described as a foundational approach to the discussion or what is sometimes referred to as an epistemic approach. We believe that this approach exposes the false assumption that the theory of evolution is a fact, or is certain. Therefore, the need for reconciliation is not entirely necessary. By understanding the scientific method and the philosophy of science, and applying the concepts and principles to evolution, it will be evident that it is not a fact, and thus does not reach the level of certainty. This is also true for many of the intellectual outputs of science[emphasis added].

You're on dangerous ground here. I  suggest a hasty retreat on your part might be advisable.

Look, the Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc., etc., can all understand the developments of science during the 20th century. And it opens up a gap for them to take advantage of.But it's no defence for us Communists to stick our collective heads in the sand and ignore those developments. We have to build a defensible science which is impregnable to their attacks. That 'defence' is not 'science produces the truth'. We, and they, now know that it doesn't. The cat's out of the bag.Our defence of science must rest upon Communist foundations, including the democratic control of all aspects of our future society: economy, polity, science… and ideology (including religion).That's the one thing that neither bourgeois atheists nor religious scholars (of any faith) can accept. But its a certain foundation for science. If we believe that humans can collective control the economy, and there will be an end to private property, we must believe that humans have the capacity to collectively control their science.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

But to deal with your question, I'd say that the theory that the Earth goes round the Sun is very much more "certain", than its opposite (because of its explanatory and predictive power) just as the theory of evolution through natural selection is very much more certain than divine creation. In other words, while science doesn't (can't and doesn't seek to) produce absolute certainty it can produce an acceptable degree, even a very high degree, of "certainty", for all practical purposes.

Well, I agree with this.But its philosophical importance is that this position undermines the notion of scientific 'certainty'.Thus, methodologically, we can see that physics is no different from, say, sociology.This prevents the bourgeois argument that when Communists use sociology to understand the world (including 'science') they are not using 'real' science (which is always claimed to be 'physics', which, in contrast to the mere 'OPINION' of sociology, is held to use a method which produces real 'TRUTH').I've said all along that my purpose with pursuing this line of argument is to provide a unified basis for the sciences – and to me, this includes physics to sociology (and all disciplines inbetween).If we don't do this, any attempt to argue that communists employ the scientific method to analyse and understand society (and its activities like science) is always conter-acted by the argument that 'sociology' (or history) isn't 'really' scientific, because 'science' produces the truth, blah, blah, blah…To finish, your words above, in effect if not in form, agree that it is possible to regard the 'sun going round the earth thesis' of the 17th century as 'true', in its time. This is an argument about 'knowledge' and its historical and social production, not an argument about 'what's most likely'.A second finally – if we accept the common sense belief in science as producing 'truth', why not accept the common sense belief in the market as producing 'free choice'? I always think that it's easier for Communists to come to understand the difficulty and importance of taking this step, because they've already done a similar thing when ideologically ditching capitalism for communism.At root, this is an ideological argument about power in society – who controls 'science'?

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Hold on please. There's a difference between accepting the absolute of the earth going round the sun and accepting the whole field of science as an absolute. Science is in a state of flux and always will be which is itself an absolute and also a certainty, however there are some fields of scientific discovery which we would accept has an absolute and a certainty.

[my bold]'We'?I wouldn't accept this, for one, and I don't think Pannekoek would either, given his now 'famous' quote!Could you describe the method used by those 'scientists' who produce 'absolute and certain' 'knowledge', please, Brian?[ps. hint: you're still using the 'discovery' method, which Pannekoek warns us against]

[Author]

Posts