LBird
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Thomas More wrote: “So science, irrespective of class, can be defined as discovery and know-how.”
So, if Fascists ‘discover’ Jews, and have the ‘know-how’ to kill them… that’s ‘science’?
Thomas More wrote: “Reason, irrespective of class, and even of species, is the ability to discern.”
So, if wealthy people can ‘discern’ the poor (and simply accept it as a ‘fact’ and do nothing)… that’s ‘reason’?
Surely such asocial and ahistorical ‘definitions’, which take no account of who defines and does ‘discovery’, who defines and has ‘know-how’, who determines ‘reason’ (and thus ‘what’s reasonable’), and who determines who are the ‘discerners’, is meaningless?
You seem to have a view that ‘discovery’, ‘know-how’, ‘reason’ and ‘discernment’ are universal properties, given to all biological individuals, simply by virtue of them being alive. And that the ‘science’ based on these is thus timeless – there is no need to address historical specificities, changes in social production, or power relationships between opposed social groups.
I must say, I don’t share these assumptions, if they are yours.
I think that both ‘science’ and ‘reason’ change, and that both are socially produced, and we can historically locate when they emerged, who produced them, and the interests behind their production, and the purposes for which they were employed.
So, I don’t regard ‘reason’ or ‘science’ as universal, or the property of each biological individual, but as socio-historical products.
Thus, to defend ‘reason and science’, we have to know what we think that they are, and we have to identify who’s putting them in danger, and why.
I regard this as a political task, because the issue of ‘power’ is central to this process, which is why I ask who, when, where and most importantly why, long before I ask how.
Thomas More wrote “Reason is…”
Thomas, you might be interested to read this article by Loren Goldner:
‘The Renaissance and Rationality: The Status of the Enlightenment Today‘
https://sites.google.com/site/comuneiro/home/the-renaissance-and-rationality
LBird asked: “It’s odd that ‘materialists’ fear that ‘Reason and Science’ are both ‘in Danger’, but won’t discuss just what ‘Reason and Science’ are, where they came from, who created them, and from who or what they are in danger.”
Thomas More answered: “Here’s how reason and science are in danger.”
This conversation, Thomas, is taking a similar route to any other that I’ve had with ‘materialists’.
I ask a question, and the materialists avoid it.
We can see here, I ask ‘what’, ‘where/when’, ‘who’ (on either side), and you answer ‘how’.
And the ‘how’ of the anti-science people is extremely similar, to ‘how’ the materialists answer questions from Marxists. Both anti-science and materialists denigrate their opponents, with personal attacks. ALB’s use of the term ‘weirdo’ for me is one of the milder disgraceful responses. Even when pretending to answer Marxists, he calls them ‘postmodernists’, even though I have specifically, time and again, over years, attacked postmodernism. It’s not an argument by ALB, but simple slander, to muddy the issues. I might add, also a typical method employed by Lenin.
Regarding your latest post, on ‘Reason is…’, I ask, whose ‘reason’, when did this ‘reason’ appear, in who’s interests does this ‘reason’ work, what does this ‘reason’ consist of?
You’re trying to use a ‘common sense’ approach to political and philosophical questions of great subtlety, whereas we need to define what we mean by ‘science’ and ‘reason’, and place these terms in their socio-economic and historical context.
If you’re not interested in doing this, that’s OK, but I don’t think that you’ll get much further in your enquiries, without doing so first, and will fall into the trap of just calling names against the anti-science people. I share your concerns, and I am pro-science – it’s just that the ‘science’ that I’m ‘pro-‘ is democratic science, which I think is necessary for socialism to work.
It’s odd that ‘materialists’ fear that ‘Reason and Science’ are both ‘in Danger’, but won’t discuss just what ‘Reason and Science’ are, where they came from, who created them, and from who or what they are in danger.
Perhaps simple ‘common sense’ informs their claims, and it doesn’t need discussing.
Well, if so, then the subject is certainly a dead-end as far as any form of ‘democratic socialism’ is concerned.
The bogeyman of ‘postmodernism’ seems to satisfy and calm the ‘materialists’ fears. Black Hat / White Hat politics. Boo the baddies, cheer the goodies.
Thomas More wrote: “The diameter of the sun is certainly beyond the control of any human society, even the most democratic.”
But ‘diameter’ is a human construct, and its measurement is a human activity.
For example, any ‘diameter’ would change depending upon the required accuracy and units employed to determine a ‘diameter’.
Thus, ‘the diameter of the sun’ is entirely within ‘the control of any human society’.
The real political question is, who would you have control that ‘diameter’ – an elite, or ‘the most democratic’?
Thomas More wrote: “Science is only bourgeois when it is hijacked to back up bourgeois beliefs and perceptions.”
This statement starts from the ideological assumption that there is an asocial, ahistorical activity called ‘science’ which can be ‘hijacked’.
You’d have to prove this ‘science’ is a universal, absolute entity, not subject to change, and describe the parts which can’t be ‘hijacked’. There has to be an ‘unmalleable essence’ which you can appeal to, and ‘restored’, after it has been rescued from the ‘hijackers’.
History can easily demonstrate the origins and development of any ‘science’ that you can identify, how it changes over time and who made these changes.
Thomas More wrote “L. Bird, are you not confusing social reality with natural?”
It’s very apt that you’ve asked this question, Thomas, because one of the key ideological beliefs that was introduced by the bourgeoisie was the separation of ‘social’ and ‘natural’.
This is reflected in the separation of arts/science, fact/value, truth/opinion, ‘material/ideal’, etc., and is a dead end which has been causing concern even to their thinkers for a long time.
It’s a reflection of class society, and the determination of an elite to keep the power of ‘nature’ in their undemocratic hands, by presenting ‘the world’ as outside the reach of democratic controls.
Thomas More wrote: “Of course science will always have problems because it is open-ended and enquiring, which ideology is not.”
I’m afraid I disagree with you here, Thomas.
‘Science’ is as ideological as any other human activity.
Bourgeois ‘science’ emerged in very specific socio-historical conditions, and was built upon bourgeois ideas, concepts, interests and purposes.
We’d need to rethink what we socialists mean by ‘science’, and certainly introduce democracy to the social activity.
Thomas More wrote: “I believe science in socialism would be open to all, and scientists today are inaccessible to the masses, which has fuelled in part the populist anti-science movement of the conspiraloons.”
I agree, Thomas. But, in political terms, what does ‘open to all’ mean to you? Where would ‘power’ lie, in this openness? Who would have the power of ‘education’?
As a democratic socialist, I would answer ‘open to all’ implies democratic control of science – ie. its theories, methods, concepts, universities, professors, etc. would be within the open power of all.
The masses would control science, not an elite (which is what the ‘materialists’ argue, as did Lenin).
Thomas More wrote: “L.Bird, Einstein didn’t believe in external reality?”
Of course he did, and I do too, Thomas. It’s a myth expounded by ‘materialists’ that their political opponents don’t. Lenin smeared his opponents by lying, and it seems to be a key part of the materialist method – personal abuse and untrue smears, anything but engagement with critics.
The fundamental question is (and has been since Kant in the modern period (if we ignore Protagoras and Ancient Greek thinkers for the moment)) ‘Who creates this ‘external reality’?‘.
The Idealists answer ‘God‘.
The Materialists answer ‘Matter‘.
Marx, who reconciled Idealism and Materialism (which was the contemporary task of German Idealism, which he solved) into Social Productionism, answered ‘Humanity‘.
Any ‘external reality’ that we know, we create by our conscious activity, and so, we can change it. ‘External Reality’ is a social product, and changes.
Only the third ideology is suitable for democratic socialism, because both ‘god’ and ‘matter’ supposedly have the divine power of ‘creation’, and are under the control of an elite of priests or scientists.
Marx argued for ‘Entausserung’ (‘Externalisation’, or ‘Production) of our own ‘nature’. That’s why ‘production’ figures in all of his key theoretical terms, like Mode/Means/Forces of Production.
So, Thomas, who or what produces your ‘external reality’? The answer has political implications.
Bijou Drains wrote: “As far as I can tell he is the only living person who interprets Marx in the way he does. That’s not to say he is not an affable at times interesting contributor, and he does have a sense of humour and irony, however he is not representative of our views.”
Thanks for the nice personal assessment, BD!
But.. you’re wrong again. I’ve posted dozens of names of authors since Labriola in 1896 (the earliest I can find, if we don’t include Marx himself “All I know is that I’m not a Marxist”). These cover not just Marxists/Socialists, but philosophers of science, like Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, and scientists like Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, and more recent, Rovelli.
So, lots of living and dead people think that science has problems, and lots of living and dead socialists think socialism must be democratic, including its science.
Much of this happened before the SPGB was born in 1903, so just why it comes as a surprise, and worse, as an attack, beats me! 😛
But of course, I certainly don’t ‘represent the SPGB’s views’. God forbid.
Thomas More wrote: “So what he says about Marx isn’t true?”
No, it’s entirely true. I can give you the quotes, if you wish (although I’ve given many quotes from many thinkers in the past, and they’ve had no effect upon the ‘materialists’ – it’s almost like a cult).
Bijou Drains wrote: “…we do not close down those who we don’t agree with but attempt (sometimes very frustratingly) to engage them in debate”
Your memory seems to be letting you down once again on this thread, BD.
I’ve been banned for a time, for the very thing ALB has done – personal abuse. The only difference is, I was returning it, not initiating it, like ALB.
Still, I’ve learned. The SPGB bans those who respond to SPGB members’ abuse, so I don’t do that any more, and have to grin bear ALB’s insults. The power of the party, you see.
As for ‘frustration’, it’s all mine! The SPGB, you included, refuse to engage in a discussion about ‘science’, and simply accept the bourgeois version.
Well, it’s your party.
Thomas More wrote: “I now know the view of the SPGB.”
No, you’ve got the wrong end of the stick, Thomas.
I’m a democratic communist and Marxist, very critical of the SPGB’s ‘materialism’ (which they share with Lenin), and the SPGB appears to agree with you.
They too, sadly, are unable to engage in an informed discussion about 21st century science, and appear to be stuck in the pre-Marxian 18th century.
ALB’s insulting reply, above, seems to be the heights that their ‘intellectuals’ aspire to.
ALB, of course, knows all about these political and philosophical issues, but won’t defend his beliefs.
Whenever he’s tried in the past, I’ve been able to prove him wrong, about Marx, Engels, Bogdanov, Pannekoek, etc. and physics, maths, philosophy, logic, so he’s given up being openly criticised, and turned to abuse. Just as Lenin did, to his critics, in his Materialism and EmpirioCriticism.
The ‘materialist method’, apparently – personal abuse.
Thomas More wrote: “So socialism will change the laws of physics, the orbits of the planetary spheres, gravity, and biological descent through modification?
These things are bourgeois and not valid once one embraces socialism?”Well, if not democratic humanity (‘socialism’), who will change all these things?
Pannekoek, for example, mentioned that the so-called ‘laws of physics’ are a social product, and Marx held that our task is to change ‘nature’, not to ‘contemplate’ it.
Of course, all the examples that you mention have changed, many times, throughout history, as different social classes have built a ‘universe’ in their interests, to their purposes. And, of course, each has claimed that their ‘universe’ is the one ‘True’ universe. The bourgeoisie, of course, are no different.
It always surprises me that socialists seem to have no actual knowledge of physics, mathematics, logic, chemistry, etc. and how they actually originated and developed, and just where they are now.
It’s almost as if these socialists believe the ruling class idea that the ‘Universe’ is just sitting there, waiting to be discovered, and that the bourgeoisie already know how to do this magic trick, and simply contemplate ‘what exists’.
I’m not sure of your political view of ‘science’, Thomas, perhaps you do want to ‘contemplate’ what is ‘valid’, but personally I’m with Marx on this issue, and want to change ‘Our Universe’.
Plus, ‘validity’ is a judgement, and thus contains an ethical element, and, within a socialist society, only the masses, not a self-selecting elite, will determine it.
Our political choice is ‘Who changes the laws of physics?’ Either an undemocratic elite or a democratic majority. I know which I think socialism involves.
The unchanging universe is a conservative construct. Why would socialists start from that premise, in their science?
