[LBird]

SPGB Object wrote:

The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

FWIW, I had assumed that 'means and instruments' would obviously include 'science'.The SPGB's emphasis on democracy and 'no leaders' is, to me, one of its most attractive elements.Perhaps someone other than ALB, who's done a sterling job so far in debating with me, could clarify any 'party line' that exists regarding the 'control of science' in a Communist world. If there isn't one yet, fair enough, we can continue to discuss the issue.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Now you're just being silly.

Humour, eh? Doesn't always translate well on the internet. My apologies.

ALB wrote:

…that there should be a democratic vote on whether or not to accept the findings of scientific research. Of course there'd have to be a democratic decision to act on them if required…

Aren't these the same things, in effect?You're saying that the research findings of 'science' (defined as a theoretical/practical human activity) would require 'a democratic decision to act on them'.What is the other sort of 'science' that is going to be 'outside of democratic control'?

ALB wrote:

…but I still don't understand what exactly it is you are proposing.

The same as you? What is the difference between 'accepting' and 'acting on'?Is 'accepting' outside of our controls, but 'acting on' isn't?Who then 'accepts'? Is 'acceptance' a passive non-active mode that Marx warns against? A divisions of society into two parts, the small group of theoretical scientists who define 'acceptable' research results, and a larger group of workers who only get to employ previously sifted research results, in their 'acting on' phase? Isn't this a form of elitism?'Science', in all its manifestations, must be under our human control. Including 'acceptance of research findings'.

[LBird]

LBird wrote:

The ICC/SPGB Joint Scientific Authority…

Perhaps a snappier title would be 'The Mengele Commission', in honour of that other scientist who abhorred democratic interference in his 'scientific' endeavours.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Was that because they [the ICC] don't like the word "democracy" at all and never use it in a positive sense?

To be fair, the suggestion seemed to cause some confusion, and some posters appeared thoughtful about the implications, but for others, the very idea of humans controlling their science seemed to be a completely mad idea!Communism? What next? Free access to our wives, daughters and science?! Good Lord!Bourgeois sensibilities were outraged!Which brings me reluctantly to… [ahem]…

ALB wrote:

I don't understand what you are getting at. Obviously scientific and research establishment will be organised and run, like any other workplace, on a democratic basis, but you seem to be saying more: that the findings of such establishments should be subject to a democratic vote as to whether they are valid or not.

[my bold]Surely 'validity' is a human construct?Or are we going to have a 'Validity Central Committee', to keep those democracy-worshipping masses from poking their ignorant noses into matters that don't concern them?

ALB wrote:

Is that another lead balloon I can see crashing to the ground?

The ICC/SPGB Joint Scientific Authority airship? I hope so!I'll be helping to staff the proletarian 'human science' ack-ack defences: I hope you'll join me, comrade!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

And of course they'll need to be democratically self-organised.

As too will 'science'.When I argued this to the ICC, it seemed to go down like a lead balloon!In effect, I am arguing that 'scientific truth' must be a democratic decision, rather than the preserve of 'scientists', conceived as a separate social grouping from the proletariat. Marx warns about this, too, in his Theses."No omniscient 'Central Committes' in either politics or science", is my starting point. Democracy in science, as in the economy.

ALB wrote:

OK, today, when we're engaged in a battle of ideas with capitalist ideology, the minority of socialists/communists that we are do need a higher level of understanding, but I don't think that the majority that will establish socialism will have to be conscious "Critical Realists" or experts in Marxian Economics or the Materialist Conception of History or in fact even to have read a word of Marx.

You can probably guess that I'd disagree with what you've said, here!A conscious proletariat is going to have to be 'conscious' about lots of things, or we'll continue to have 'minorities' in charge. I'm not convinced that a 'three way' approach is much more difficult (than the seemingly easily understood 'two way') to understand, once explained and discussed.

[LBird]

[repost of post #65 of thread in link]http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/fred/6429/beliefs-science-art-and-marxismIf we accept as a starting point a tripartite schema of object, subject and knowledge, we can try to categorise the three contrasting views of science, reality and truth that I’ve argued we face a choice over, when identifying what ‘science’ is.By ‘object’, I mean a ‘reality’ that exists independently of our attempts to understand it; by ‘subject’, I mean a ‘humanity’ which tries to understand the independent reality; and by ‘knowledge’, I mean a ‘product’ created by the interaction of the subject and object.The first view of science is the outdated 19th Positivist notion that ‘science’ produces the ‘truth’. This is the view of science that is still held by most people, perhaps even most academics and scientists themselves, even though bourgeois thinkers have long since destroyed this ‘common sense’ approach. For this approach, the ‘object’ and ‘knowledge’ are identical. The subject passively observes the ‘object’, and ‘knowledge’ simply appears in the mind of the dispassionate, disinterested, non-ideological, scientist. In this case, ‘empirical reality’ and ‘human knowledge’ is the same thing. The simple ‘experience of reality’ is enough to ‘understand’ that reality. Popper (an active anti-Marxist) condemned this view as the ‘bucket theory of mind’; that objective reality simply pours itself into a waiting, inactive receptacle. This view does not accept our tripartite premise of separate ‘object, subject, knowledge’: it only recognises subject and object. ‘Knowledge’ is a mere copy of ‘object’.The second view of science is the Relativist notion that it all depends upon the active subject. This view accepts Popper’s criticism about ‘passive mind’, and places its emphasis on the ‘subject’ as actively producing ‘knowledge’. As the active, individual subject’s mind ‘creates’ knowledge, the need for an ‘object’ disappears entirely. It’s ‘all in the mind’ of the creative, artistic human. It’s the act of ‘observation’ that ‘creates’ the ‘object’: the ‘object’ has no independent reality. As Paul Feyerabend had it, in the title of his science book, ‘Anything goes!’. Any attempt to appeal to an independently existing measure of that ‘knowledge’ is seen as an outdated, Modernist, authoritarian act by someone attempting to impose their view of a ‘reality’ that can’t be known, by pretending to have a special (party/class/gender, etc.) insight, to which the individual is not privy. Marxism is seen as the main culprit, here. Relativism prevents oppression and domination, by arguing that any individual’s ‘truth’ is as good as anybody else’s ‘truth’. This view does not accept our tripartite premise of separate ‘object, subject, knowledge’: it only recognises subject and knowledge. ‘Object’ is a mere creation of ‘subject’.The third view of science is one I would call Critical Realism. This approach accepts an independently existing object, an active, inquisitive subject, and sees knowledge as a product of the interaction between subject and object. This differs from positivism in that ‘knowledge’ is not identical to ‘object’: ‘knowledge’ is also an independent variable, something actively created by humans by their interrogation of external reality. Thus, depending upon the questions posed by humans, ‘knowledge’ is based upon, but not the same as, the object. ‘Truth’ exists, but it must always be partial truth produced by humans attempting to understand reality. Realism differs from relativism in that the ‘object’ is not created by humans, ‘knowledge’ is based on (and can be compared with for confirmation) a questioning of an independent reality, and that the mind of the subject is not an individual mind, but the socially-created mind of a social individual. This view begins from our tripartite premise of separate ‘object, subject, knowledge’: it recognises object, subject and knowledge as three interacting variables.First view is broadly conservative, the second is broadly liberal, the third, I would argue, is broadly compatible with Marxism.I apologise to comrades for the length of this post, and it can certainly be improved, extended and criticised for shortcomings and mistakes, but I’ve attempted to explain a very difficult and complex cognitive issue so that anyone with a passing interest in all these issues about the nature of ‘science’ stands some chance of understanding and, hopefully, of engaging with them. It’s my opinion that we need a class that is well-educated in the debate about ‘science’. I only hope that I’ve helped, rather than hindered, this process.Last word to Charlie:

Marx wrote:

if appearance and reality coincided, there would be no need for science

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

You seem to be saying more than this: that science is subjective in that the descriptions which scientists give of the external world depend on their "values" and/or class position. Which could suggest that you think that there is no such thing as an objective external world. I don't suppose this is your position but no wonder Ed sees you as an "idealist".

This is the accusation which is always levelled against critical realists who argue against 'objectivism' or positivist notions of science. It assumes that there are only two positions: objective and subjective. So, if one isn't a positivist, one must be a subjectivist/idealist.The basis of the argument, though, is the same as Marx's, above. There are three positions: objectivist/materialist, subjectivist/idealist, and human interactionist/critical realist. He clearly regards there as being three possibilities. I've described this in more detail on the link I provided, but I suppose I need to repost one of my posts here. I will do this in a separate post.

ALB wrote:

I don't see the fact that most people are, from a philosophical point of view, "common sense realists" (i.e think that the world is as they experience it, exists when no-one is experiencing it, and existed before there were any humans) is a problem. This is enough for everyday living and no doubt will continue to be the popular perspective even in socialism. I don't see it as being a pillar of capitalist society.

I was quite shocked by this paragraph, ALB. Since when have 'common sense', 'everyday living' and 'popular perspective' been standards of judgement for Communists? They have traditionally been seen as the preserve of a conservative worldview.Of course, I'm not suggesting that you are a conservative, far from it, but it does display to me the power of bourgeois ideology around these issues. I'll dig out that post I made on the ICC thread, comrade.

[LBird]

Karl Marx, Theses on Feuerbach (extract), wrote:

IThe chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism – that of Feuerbach included – is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed abstractly by idealism – which, of course, does not know real, sensuous activity as such.Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective activity.

[my bold]'Humanity' cannot be removed from 'science'. It's 'method' is not a value-free method of contemplation.If humans are involved, ideology is involved. 'Scientists' are humans, and are not non-ideological beings, but are products of our class-divided society.

[LBird]

Ed wrote:

The truth is not relative to the current ruling ideology it is a constant which exists externally from the individual and society. In this sense I am using truth to mean reality.

But 'truth' doesn't mean 'reality'. 'Truth' is a human, social construct, and has a history (ie. 'truth' changes). 'Reality' is the object at which we aim our questions. That's what's at the heart of this discussion, and of late 20th philosophy of science.To argue that 'truth means reality' is to look towards positivism, which is scientifically discredited.

Ed wrote:

A good analogy for this debate I feel is the old chestnut if a tree falls in the forest with no-one around to hear it, does it make a sound? I would answer emphatically yes it does. I suspect LBird's answer would be "whatever the individual or society thinks at the current time."

You'd 'suspect' wrong. Please read the contributions I made on the site that I linked to earlier. It might give you more of a 'feel' for the parameters of this debate.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Agree that science does not produce "The Truth" but not that it produces "competing truths'. It is more useful to think in terms of science producing a tentative "truth" about some phenomenon, subject to revision in the light of further experience, empirical research and practice. There is only one such tentative truth at any time, which is not a matter of choice or point of view.

[my bold]Any study of the actual practice of science will show that this can be proved to be an untrue statement. Kuhn, Feyerabend or Lakatos show that 'competing tentative truths' just about sums up the actual practice of science.

ALB wrote:

OK, but his theory of human nature is not just a competing truth but is untrue, i.e a faulty theory for prediction, action and problem-solving.

Are you trying to claim that no anthropologists would support Sotionov's position? If some do, and also claim themselves to be doing 'scientific anthropology', how do we decide between these competing claims about 'human nature', if not through our ideological position as Communists? Don't forget, I share your viewpoint, not Sotionov's, but I'm claiming the basis of this is not some long-disproved notion of 'truth from science', but our shared ideological scientific assumptions. All scientists have assumptions – we should expose these through discussion, rather than deny them.

[LBird]

jondwhite wrote:

Just to say this topic has become very interesting.

Yeah, 'science and its method' is 'very interesting' as a topic in its own right.But, further, I think that the topic has some very profound political implications. Perhaps a new thread would be better for that particular discussion?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

That's is more or less what I thought was the dominant "theory of science" today, but isn't it also yours? In which case doesn't it contradict your previous statement:

There’s a difference between the ‘dominant’ theory and the ‘latest’ theory. The latter is what I think we both agree on, but the scientifically-discredited positivist view of science is the view of science that the overwhelming majority of the public still believe. That is, that science produces the truth, that there can only be one truth, that science is socially neutral, etc. So I don’t think that my view contradicts itself. I think the bourgeoisie are happy for people to carry on believing this idea that ‘science’ is a value-free, objective, truth-producing method. For example:

Ed, post #16, wrote:

Which I'm sure you'll agree is not a scientific way to view evidence.

ALB, post #34, wrote:

It can be understood by anyone with an elementary knowledge of the scientifc findings of social anthropology.

alanjjohnstone, post #39, wrote:

Socialists do make assumptions but a phrase out of favour and unpopular these days is that our political ideas is based upon "scientific socialism", we arescientific socialists.

Ed, post #40, wrote:

Absolutely the case for socialism is scientific.

Ed, post #47, wrote:

So yeah I think socialists should endeavour to discard all ideology and only base their theories on the scientific method.

Ed, pos #50, wrote:

When you examine the evidence of the two theories one is either discredited through that process or both are. The discredited theory then becomes unscientific…It is pseudo-science which is biased by ideology, factual science is objective, proven, fact

ALB, post #52, wrote:

Socialism is, as a matter of objective fact not mere opinion, the only framework within which the problems facing the working class in particular (and humanity in general) can be lastingly solved. Socialist theory is a recognition of this objective fact.

I’d argue that the words ‘scientific’ and ‘objective’ are being used in all these posts as a synonym for ‘true’.

ALB wrote:

To tell the truth, I don't think that the "bourgeoisie" has ever held this view or that it is what "positivism" and "empiricism" teach…

On the contrary, the bourgeoisie did hold this view before Einstein, and academics even tried to use this ‘objective method’ to write ‘objective history’, von Ranke’s ‘simply to show how is was’.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke

wikipedia wrote:

While Ranke's method remain influential in the practice of history, his broader ideas of historiographyand empiricism are now regarded as outdated and no longer credible. It held sway among historians until the mid-twentieth century, when it was challenged by E. H. Carrand Fernand Braudel. Carr opposed Ranke's ideas of empiricism as naive, boring and outmoded, saying that historians did not merely report facts — they choose which facts they use. Braudel's approach was based on the histoire problème.[citation needed]Remarking on the legacy of Ranke's dictum that historians should represent the past "wie es eigentlich gewesen" (as it actually happened),[14]Walter Benjaminscathingly wrote that it represented "the strongest narcotic of the [nineteenth] century”

The same criticisms can be made of scientific method, as indeed you’ve already agreed. But this is still the layperson’s view of ‘science’, and ‘science’ is used to avoid ‘human’ problems of ideology, as I think that the comrades’ quotes above confirm.

ALB wrote:

In any event, I think we should avoid general criticisms of "science" like this as this helps intuitionists, primitivists, postmodernists and other irrationalists. Surely, we are in favour of a scientific method (even if not the outdated and rejected one you mention).

Why ‘avoid’ criticism of ‘science’? Surely that really is ‘unscientific’?But, yes, I am ‘in favour of a scientific method’, and I think we all are.But ‘science’ doesn’t produce ‘The Truth’, and it can produce competing ‘truths’, so merely appealing to ‘the scientific method’ does not get us out of our problems with humans and their ideologies.Back to our original issue with Sotionov?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Are you sure that "positivism" teaches that science can discover "Absolute Truth" or that this claim is the dominant one in contemporary theory of science?Ironically, it is Lenin's theory of "truth" (that knowledge is a mirror reflection of reality) that comes closer to this…

Yeah, positivism's view that scientific knowledge is 'True' is much the same, as far as I've been able to discover, as Lenin's 'knowledge as reflection' view.The 'scientific fact' (according to late 20th philosophers of science) is that 'absolute truth' of any part of reality can never be fully known. Humans actively create knowledge by their interaction with the external world.'Knowledge' of a cat is not a 'cat'. Knowledge reflects the questions we ask of reality, rather than reality itself.If anyone's interested in a more in-depth discussion of 'scientific method', I recently contributed to several threads on the ICC's site.One of them is:http://en.internationalism.org/forum/1056/fred/6429/beliefs-science-art-and-marxismThere are others, if anyone wants the links, I could provide them upon request.I hope that providing links to other groups is allowed on this site. If it's frowned upon, my apologies, I'll remove it if asked.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Or at least our view is "truer" (more accurate and so more practically useful) than theirs.

Yeah, I'd go along with that formulation of the problem.'Our view' (the proletarian, Communist perspective) is the better science, because we openly proclaim our 'observational position', rather than try to carry on with an outdated, scientifically disproven 'scientific method' of positivism or empiricism, which claims it can 'know' the external object (ie. reality) completely, absolutely, and thus produce 'The Truth'.Simply put, the reason that the bourgeoisie cling onto this 19th century view, and teach it in schools and through the media, is that this mythical 'scientific method' can serve as an unquestionable authority, much like the market claims that 'There is no alternative'.The 'Market' and 'Science': the twin bastions of bourgeois authority. We need to question the underpinnings of both. We will find humans involved. And where there are humans, there are currently classes.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I suppose it's a distinction between "absolute truth" (true by definition) and "relative truth" (true on the basis of being an evidence-based description that helps humans survive practically in nature and which can be refuted if some other description is put forward which can predict more accurately what will happen and so is more useful).

This is a better way of conceptualising ‘truth’. Although we all (as critical realists) accept that ‘reality’ exists, as an object outside of humans attempts to understand it, the access to that reality is a creative access by humans (as Marx points out in the Theses on Feuerbach). ‘Truth’ is a social creation by humans; that’s why ‘truth’ has a history. What’s ‘true’, according to science, changes over time due to newer human theories and experiment.But I still think that the example I gave, of 1+1=10, helps us to understand that this sum is a human creation, and contains assumptions. ‘10’ here, in base 2 of course, means ‘2’.If I ask what ‘14’ means, no-one can answer that without knowing which base is being assumed.If I’m using hexadecimal (base 16), ‘14’ means ‘20’ (in base 10).Einstein’s example about observation is relevant here. If I’m on a train tossing a ball up in the air, to me it simply goes up and down in a straight line.But for an observer on an embankment watching the train pass, the ball appears to be zig-zagging up and down on a slope, as the train passes. Which is the ‘truth’? The simple answer would be ‘the ball is really zig-zagging, and the person on the train is unawares’. But as Einstein says, the ‘truth’ is simply related to a frame of reference, so there are two ‘truths’ in play. This doesn’t mean the ball doesn’t exist, or that any description will do (post-modernist individual thought), but that the ‘truth’ is an inter-relationship between an object and the observer.This can be confirmed by countering the ‘simple truth’ above, by asking what motion the ball takes if viewed from  a spaceship, and the train is crossing the path of the motion of the earth at right angles. For this observer, the ball is moving with a ‘corkscrew’ motion. This ‘observer position’ can be repeatedly extended, whenever someone claims that their position is the ‘final’ one and produces the ‘Truth’.So, to discuss ‘truth’ in physics, we have to note both the object and the position of the active observer.I don’t think it takes much to transfer this notion of a ‘framework of observation’ to social science, and call it an ‘ideology’. Humans can’t escape ideology. And a further plus is that this singular method helps to provide a basis for Marx’s wish to unite the physical and the social into one human science.

[Author]

Posts