robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hi Meel Here are a few links that might be of interest regarding the impact of computer technology On children http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=45&articleid=205§ionid=1343V on virtual realityhttp://aeon.co/magazine/science/can-we-tell-if-reality-is-a-computer-simulation/ on social networking http://news.softpedia.com/news/Social-Networks-Influence-How-We-View-the-World-181632.shtml on the workings of the brainhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-565207/Modern-technology-changing-way-brains-work-says-neuroscientist.html And on how computers are beginning to think like humanshttp://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429932.300-computers-are-learning-to-see-the-world-like-we-do.html Hope this all helps….
Even the Daily Mail is having a go http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2169403/Bob-Diamonds-spoilt-brat-daughter-Nell-super-rich-elite-shame.html.
Vin wrote:robbo203 wrote:So answer the question LBird: would just anyone be allowed to fly a plane regardless of experience or qualifications? Yes or No? No beating about the bush, please. Lets have a straight answer for once. And, no , nobody is "separating society into a two". I can do things in my line of work which I bet a university trained nuclear physicist wouldn't have a clue about. And I'm a horny handed son of toil and proud of it.. What is your expertise BTW?Robbo, this question was asked of LBird at the start of the thread by myself and others. His reply to you and Dave B is the only answer we are going to get.
Yes I know, Vin, but in the naive hope that I might get a straight answer to a straight question I persisted in asking the question but to no avail. Its like trying to get blood out of stone as I'm coming to realise. And he is at again. "since 'truth' is a social product, that the 'truth' of any scientific knowledge should be decided by society, using democratic means"This is ludicrous. Because something is a "social product" does not necessarily mean it should be subjected to "democratic control". That is flawed logic. My toothbrush is a social product. Does that mean 7 billion inhabitants on planet earth should democratically vote on whether I should be allocated a toothbrush and when I might use it. Of course not. LBird is absolutely clueless about what democracy is supposed to be for. Ditto scientific knowledge. How in hell's name are 7 billion people expected to vote, not just on one scientific theory, but thousands upon thousands of them? This is beyond insane. I sometimes wonder if LBird even has any inkling of what he is saying or is it just a knee jerk mantra in his case. How is what he proposes even remotely possible in a logistic sense and what is the point of voting on a scientific theory anyway. LBird never ever answers these questions and he wonders why no one takes him seriously. Quite apart from anything else how does he imagine one would be able to vote on something without knowing what it is you are voting on in the first place. There is no way any one individual no matter how how brainy or highly trained can grasp more than a small fraction of the sum total of scientific knowledge. Ergo short of suggesting we should become omniscient overnight what he proposes is out of the question The irony is that he throws a hissy fit when asked a simple question: would just anyone be allowed to fly a plane regardless of experience or qualification. Yet in his fantasy world all 7 billion of us are supposed to eminently qualified, not only in the mechanics of flying a plane, but in every conceivable branch of science in order to "democratically" vote on the truth of scientific theories. Anthing short of that is advocating "elitism" in his book (another term – like democracy – he doesnt understand)How ridiculous.
LBird wrote:Fuck off, you knob.I can't get any clearer.Oh dear, someone has had his feathers ruffled hasn't he? So I take it that means you can't provide a straight answer to a straight question or, more likely, deign in your superior wisdom not to give one. This from the hypocrite who charges others with being "elitist". Ho humFirst warning: 7. You are free to express your views candidly and forcefully provided you remain civil. Do not use the forums to send abuse, threats, personal insults or attacks, or purposely inflammatory remarks (trolling). Do not respond to such messages.
LBird wrote:Dave B wrote:Against this is the non macroscopic idea of; would planes be flown by a democratic committee or decisions about how to put out a fire not be left to the expertise of the trained fire fighters etc?This sort of 'question' when trying to discuss the philosophical issue of the democratic production of knowledge, is similar to the 'question' of 'why are you Commies going to make us all wear the same blue boiler suits, and be forced to share our underpants?', when trying to discuss socialism.The problems are contained in the question, which is made by those who've already made their minds up about the issues at stake.Ah well, let's just leave it all to the 'elite experts'. Separate society into two.The fact that Marx, in the Theses on Feuerbach, disagreed with this, is neither here nor there, eh?And bollocks to philosophy, Marx's or anyone else's, and stick to 'facts' and the 'real world'. And those nice disinterested scientists and their neutral method.
So answer the question LBird: would just anyone be allowed to fly a plane regardless of experience or qualifications? Yes or No? No beating about the bush, please. Lets have a straight answer for once. And, no , nobody is "separating society into a two". I can do things in my line of work which I bet a university trained nuclear physicist wouldn't have a clue about. And I'm a horny handed son of toil and proud of it.. What is your expertise BTW?
stuartw2112 wrote:I think Meel's concerns are to the point – these are the kinds of things we should think more carefully about, and not try to sweep under the carpet.Robin presents the SPGB case, which I presume he reiterates for the benefit of other readers and not for me! But yes, I'm afraid I do rather find Mises' argument persuasive, nor do I think the example of the Soviet Union can be so glibly swept under the carpet, along with all other difficulties, and made to vanish with a magic wand called "abundance". I've just this moment finished reading Red Plenty by Francis Spufford, so that's where I'm coming from. (Don't worry – I have no intention of becoming another McDonagh and boring the arse off everyone with talk of tons of rubber and tons of steel. And yes, I've read your detailed and in its own way impressive rebuttal of the argument Robin. It's just where I'm at at the moment and would be happy to hear from anyone who has any sympathy with the Mises' position – it was not unknown within the SPGB when I was a member.)Hi Stuart. Well , my feeling is that Hayek rather than Mises is of more interest to us with the former's emphasis on the "knowledge problem" in a modern economy and the dispersed nature of economic information. Both, of course, take for granted that socialism would be a centrally planned economy in the classic sense of society wide planning and their whole critique is essentially based on this assumption. As I have long argued, if you are going to start off on this basis then this ipso facto precludes the very mechanism that allows you to overcome the objections raised by the so called economic calculation argument. I don't think either of these two anti socialists ever seriously considered socialism from the standpoint of being a system that entailed a feedback mechanism where there is necessarily a degree of decentralisation. They did of course refer to small scale communistic experiments that involved the absence of money but this is not the same argument at all; it is an argument against autarky. I am actually quite sympathetic to the sentiments you express here that the problems that socialism will face, certainly to begin with, cannot just be "made to vanish with a magic wand called "abundance"". This is precisely why I feel more emphasis needs to be placed on the "demand" side of the supply- demand equation and why I would endorse your "Zen approach" to the realisation of abundance by "demanding less". I've tried to illustrate this by showing how a socialist society would sever the link between status acquisition and material consumption, thereby rendering much of what we "demand" today quite superfluous. It is capitalism that by its very nature necessitates and artificially maintains, scarcity.I don't think the position of the SPGB is much different, frankly. Although I seem to recall one or two conversations with individuals members who take an extreme cornucopian position – that socialism will produce a "superabundance" of everything – I don't think this is reflected in the official party position. I remember reading one of Hardy's articles – I think it might have been on "Marx's conception of socialism" – in which he quite blatantly stated that workers certainly in the developed world might well have to accept a cut in living standards initially to raise the standard of living elsewhere, I don't have a problem with this approach and it ties in with my argument that socialism is in part an ethical approach not just a question of "self interest". Apart from anything else there is much more to life than just the so called "standard of living". In my book, quality of life counts as least as much, if not more
Meel wrote:I do think that our human nature was forged through a process of natural selection over countless millennia – and that one aspect of this nature is that we are inherently capable of violent behaviour as well as cooperative behaviour. I think this is different from saying we are naturally warlike, and I think it is important to make the distinction.Hi Meel,Yes I agree. You might say, then, that what we can say about "human nature" is that we are highly adaptable, not that we are either inherently violent or inherently peaceful ("cooperative" is perhaps not quite the right word in this context as an antonym of "violent", since wars themselves can be a very cooperative business!). My main argument was really to warn against the kind of crude sociobiological claim certainly expressed by people like E O Wilson – though I agree, not Stephen Pinker – that war is "embedded" in our nature. This is even weaker than the argument that we are inherently violent since war is a very particular form of violence that entails inter group conflict and there is no evidence that war in this sense existed much before the rise of agriculture 10,000 years ago. That is when territory became an important consideration. With hunter gatherers, being essentially nomadic, the notion of territory simply had no meaning. Can I recommend this link to you and others on this forumhttp://www.nonkilling.org/pdf/nksocieties.pdfI would particularly recommend chapters one and three…
Meel wrote:I would like to think that we are able to move towards a saner society, where the means of producing and distributing wealth are no longer controlled by a small elite. I do not think that creating such a society is dependent on showing that HG bands were peaceful.HGsFirstly, we cannot project the behaviour of current hunter gatherers backward in time, whether this behaviour is peaceful or warlike, so the enterprise is doomed from the start. We simply cannot know what their behaviour was like, save inventing a time machine and travelling back a few thousand years….. Therefore, I would contend, we need to think more about what humans are like when they live in larger groups, with many unrelated members of both sexes – and with several possessions. So – HG behaviour seen from this angle is irrelevant.I agree with a great deal of what you say, Meel, though I don't think the question of hunter gatherers is quite so irrelevant as you perhaps suggest. True, there are basic differences between a HG way of life and any conceivable way of life for the majority of us in the world we inhabit today. There is no going back to a prehistoric world in which small nomadic bands of people acquired their means of subsistence in the form of an "immediate return" system of needs satisfaction Today of necessity we live in a "delayed return" system which requires the development of an immense technical infrastructure to support a global population that is now in the region of 7 billion people.All the same , I think the question of how our remote ancestors lived in the past is relevant to socialists today if only because it is inextricably bound up with the question of "human nature" which presents itself as a formidable barrier to the realisation of socialism itself. The human nature argument asserts that the nature of human beings was forged through a process of natural selection over countless millennia and that one aspect of this nature is that we are inherently warlike. If we are inherently warlike that would amount to saying that a united socialist world is an impossibility since such a world would sooner or later fracture into competing entities prepared to wage war against each other as a manifestation of our in built disposition to wage war against each other. Moreover, to wage war effectively requires an authoritarian power structure or chain of command which runs completely conter to social character of a socialist society. One of the ways in which to combat this myth is to argue that our prehistoric hunting and gathering forbears were in fact not warlike at all. There were, quite likely, acts of individual violence but that is not the same thing as war which is by definition a collective enterprise I don't agree that we cannot know anything about what happened in the remote past – short of inventing a time machine – and it should be mentioned that this has not stopped the advocates of the human nature argument saying a lot about what THEY believed happened in the remote past. As socialists we have to confront what they have to say since what they say is at odds with the kind of world we desire. We can know something about what happened in the past even it is based on informed guesswork. The two main sources of information are1) the archaeological record2) contemporary HG groupsNeither of these support the thesis that our prehistoric ancestors were warlike. The conflict avoidance mechanism that you refer to whereby the unrestricted freedom to roam wherever they wished, eliminated any conceivable reason for intergroup conflict is a key intellectual tool in our toolbox of concepts that would allow us to understand how our prehistoric forbears lived. That conflict avoidance mechanism needless to say, is today being increasingly undermined in the modern world as hunter gather groups find themselves hemmed in more and more by farmers, lumber companies , mining corporations and state authorities promoting a propertarian outlook at odds with the basic communistic worldview of the hunter gatherers I should also mention that the claim that human beings are naturally warlike is bound up with the social darwinist perspective of people like William Graham Sumner in the late 19th century. Sumner put forward the thesis that "in-group amity necessitates out-group enmity". In other words, for a community to flourish , it requires an external enemy to unite and fight against – social cohesion calls for conflict directed outwards towards other groups. This is an argument also put forward by people like Samuel Bowles today – that warfare has been a great socialising force amongst human beings. But the findings of anthropologists contradict this view. These findings show that HG bands did not and, even today , largely do not relate to each other antagonistically, that these relationships are often bound together by extensive networks of gift exchange and it should also be said of kinship relationships as well. Hunter gatherers had far more reason to cooperate with each other than go to war with each other and if there is anything to be said about "human nature" it is probably that
stuartw2112 wrote:Marxian socialism instead tries to have its cake and eat it too – promising material abundance, organised industrially but without markets, but anyway the result, we are promised, will be less materially motivated people, dedicated to the common good. The trouble with this approach is the problem of economic calculation and the warning of the Soviet Union.I'm not quite sure what you mean by this Stuart? Surely you are not suggesting that you have bought into the Misesian nonsense about socialism's alleged inability to make economic calculations in the absence of market prices? As for the Soviet Union, well, I don't think you will find many here advancing authoritarian state capitalism is either a desirable objective in itself or a necessary means to socialism itself. On your other point about Sahlin's two routes to affluence, I have some sympathy for what you say about the Zen route of "demanding less". But that does not require billions of people signing up to a political (spiritual?) programme that would guarantee them lower material living standards.. The point is that people's real needs can be adequately met today if you eliminate capitalism and the massive – indeed growing – diversion of resources and labour away from the gratification of those needs that capitalism necessitates. Most of the economic activity that capitalism generates today is socially useless and does nothing materially to enhance the welfare and wellbeing of individuals; it simply exists to keep the system ticking over on its own terms. Think of the banking sector. It is a complete and utter waste of resources, resources that could be used to increase socially useful productive output in a non market socialist society. This incidentally links up with the point about "economic calculation" and the supposed advantage that market capitalism has over socialism in being able to efficiently allocate resources. "Efficient" from what point of view? But to return to your Zen approach to the question, I think the point needs to emphasised that a great deal of what we are supposed to "need" boils down to, what I think it was Marcuse said was "false needs". Marcuse's point was that the generation of false needs was absolutely indispensable to capitalism and its competitive grow-or-die outlook. Literally billions and billions of dollars are spent on advertising to get us to feel dissatisfied with our lot. Even the millionaire with his or her luxury yacht is conditioned to feel inadequate in the face of rivals with even more financial clout. In socialism, the link between wealth consumption and social status will completely disappear. This is because free access to the means of living completely undermines and renders dysfunctional such a mode of status differentiation. The only logically conceivable way to acquire the respect and esteem of your fellows in a socialist society would be through your contribution to society ., not what you take out of it.A Zen approach to wealth consumption will be the natural outgrowth of the kind of social relations that will characterise a socialist society; it wont need some kind of mass evangelical commitment to consume less. The whole concept of "standard of living" is questionable anyway since the way in which it is calculated is on the basis of per capita GDP and a huge chunk of what constitutes GDP today is precisely all that structural waste – such as the banking sector – which socialism will eliminate
alanjjohnstone wrote:i watched this video from the website Robbo recommended another video from. I thought it worth sharing, as are many on that website…well worth exploringhttp://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/we-are-built-to-be-kind/Hi Alan, As I can't see Youtube on my old computer could you possibly summarise what the video had to say? Cheers R
LBird wrote:robbo, I know you're not going to read anything I write, and that's a shame, because I could help you to start to get to grips with some difficult philosophical isues that have dogged science throughout the 20th century, but why not have a read of someone else's views on these matters, like the McCarthy book I've recommended, above?The fact that you (and the others) can see that there is something to what I'm saying, even if you don't agree with where I think it takes us as socialists, means that you owe it to yourself to dig deeper into 'democratic science', especially given the time that you've spent arguing with me.I don't have any problem with "digging deeper", LBird – you would do well to take your own advice to heart – but what I do have a problem with, as does seemingly everyone else on this list is your irritating habit of misrepresenting what others say and your point blank refusal to answer the questions put to you – "why is it necessary to vote on scientific theories?", "how is it remotely possible that anyone, even the most gifted scientist alive, could acquire such a comprehensive grasp of the totality of scientific theories as to be able knowledgeably vote upon them?", "how is the popular participation of the global public – 7 billion individuals – in the process of voting upon literally thousands upon thousands of scientific theories going to be organised in practical terms?". Your refusal to answer these questions demonstrates to me that you are arguing in bad faith. Yet again all you have done here in your latest missive is to deflect attention from this huge whopping great hole in your argument, by affecting an air of weary resignation that you have tried assist what you call the "ignorant lot" on this list reach a "deeper understanding" of the complexities of "philosophical issues" involved but have failed. Do you have any inkling just how smug, supercilious and patronising you come across as being and why you rub people up the wrong way? I guess not. Even now you presume to tell me "I know you're not going to read anything I write". I can assure you LBird I go through everything you write with a tooth comb before I respond to your nonsense.I doubt very much that the McCarthy book you recommend says anything along like what you have been proposing at all. I suspect by the term "democratic science" in this instance is simply meant a wider involvement of the public in science , a much greater effort to make science accessible to the lay person and so on. That I can fully endorse and if that is all you were suggesting then there would, quite simply, be no argument between us.But we both know – don't we ? – that that is world way from what you have actually been proposing: that the global population should be able to vote on the totality of scientific theories . That is a proposal that to date you have made absolutely no attempt to substantiate as being remotely credible
stuartw2112 wrote:Thanks Robin, will leave it there. Just to be clear, if it's not already, I'm not arguing that violence is inborn and hence inevitable. I'm a pacifist! But if you're going to be a pacifist, it is no help to pretend you're not violent – can't see it arise in you, see your (probably inborn) tendency to violence rise up from potential to the danger zone of realisation. To see this, you don't need any scientific or anthropological theory. You can just pay attention. (Unles of course it's just me – perhaps I have the warrior gene!)All the bestHi Stuart This might be of interest. Came across it on the Money Free Party FB site. Unfortunately I can't see Youtube on my antique computer but the write up sounds juicy…http://www.filmsforaction.org/watch/peace-code-in-the-human-brain-robin-grille/cheers
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:The only inference one can draw is that once a scientific theory has been determined by means of vote to be "true" by the global working class (7 billion people), then according to him, no criticism of the theory will be permitted.[my bold]I'm replying to this one allegation because it's a bare-faced lie, and robbo knows it.I've constantly argued that 'truth' is a social product, just like a 'policy', and must be voted upon.We scientists know that 'truth changes': what's 'true' one year, is often not true, the next. I've given lots of examples in the past of this.So, in fact, my position is the exact opposite of robbo's lie.
Well, what is the point of voting on the "truth" of a scientific theory in that case if it is not to shore it up against critical assault? I cannot think of any possible reason, can you? I've asked you umpteen times to supply a reason but as usual you have just run away from the question. If you have some other reason as to why a scientific theories must be voted upon well then spit it out – tell us what is! And, while you are about it, also tell us how you propose to organise literally multiple thousands of plebiscite among a global population of 7 billion every year relating to all those new scientific theories that come on stream. Or what makes you think that anyone on earth, let alone the majority, are capable of understanding the totality of scientific theories in order to competently vote upon them which you insist must be done. Why don't you answer these questions, LBird? Why do you constantly evade them? All you ever seem to do is patronisingly affect a air of weary resignation that you have "tried to help others on this forum see the light" but have failed. Your whole approach reeks of elitism – how dare this ignorant rabble question my superior judgement by asking such questions as the above and I will demonstrate my superiority by refusing to answer them! What a hypocrite. I did not say., by the way, that you ever said the reason why scientific theories "must be voted upon" is to ensure that criticism of theories shall not be permitted thereafter. I said that that this is an inference to be drawn from your insistence that such a vote must be taken. There is a difference between drawing an inference and making a bald statement to that effect, you know…. And if as you say the truth changes, then that makes your proposal that scientific theories "must be voted upon" by the global population even more ridiculous!. So now in addition to all those new theories coming on stream, all 7 billion of us may well be revisiting those old theories time and time again to vote once again upon them. Will any of us ever have time in between swotting up on the latest theory in microbiology doing the rounds and trudging off to the polling booths, to actually get down to produce our means of subsistence? I doubt it
LBird wrote:The real truth about robbo's elitist perspective is that it holds that 'truth', once 'known', can't be changed. That ideological belief is the basis of the power of elite experts.Except, of course, that this bears no relation whatsoever to anything I have ever said or suggested. I have actually explicitly stated that the "truth" is only ever provisional and advanced this as a further reason as to the pointlessness of voting upon it!So having accused others of bare-faced lies, it appears you are the elite expert on this forum in the concoction of bare faced lies
LBird wrote:robbo is opposed to democracy, hides his ideology, wants the 'language of maths' to be continued, doesn't want to make science and its explanations open to all, and won't have 'truth' examined and determined by humanity.More lies from LBrid. I've said quite explicitly that I support democratic decision making where it is needed but not where it is not needed. I have said quite openly where I thought it is needed – in relation to practical decisions that affect our lives. I have also argued that this needed to be tailored to circumstances. Some decisions are local in nature; others global. The former will tend to exclude in de facto terms everyone else in global society if only because of the sheer overwhelming number of such decisions that have to be made every single day. The citizens in the borough of Islington cannot possibly be aware of the issues facing the citizens of some suburb of the city of Kisangani, statistically speaking. Here's another question for LBird – does he think the global population must be involved in deciding whether a new library should be built in Islington. Yes or no. LBird? I mention this becuase this is precisely the same reasoning that informs my approach to science which stupidly LBird characterises as "elitist". Its got nothing to do with elitism , a word which LBird seems not to understand. Its about the social division of labour. You cannot possibly become a competent neurosurgeon as well as a competent structural engineer, competent marine biologist or competent in all of the thousands upon thousands of other occupations. A degree of specialisation is unavoidable. LBird's view of the world is utterly childish and behind the mantra of his supposed commitment to democracy, he has no grasp whatsoever of the actual complexities we are dealing with
LBird wrote:robbo wants elite experts, who pretend to have a politically-neutral method (one not related to society or history) to tell us 'The Truth', in a language of heiroglyphs.More lies from LBird. I have never once claimed that experts employ a politically-neutral method. Oddly enough that is the one thing I do agree with LBird upon – that science can never be value free. However unless you are actually engaged in serious research on, let us say, the dynamics of cell division in microbiology, how are you going to be able to tell others what the "truth" is? Does it worry me that in de facto terms only a small minority are in a position to competently tell me what is going on in the process of cell division. Not at all. That gives them not one iota of more social power over me in a communist world where democratic decision making will apply where it is needed – in the practical decisions of daily life – and not where it is not needed , in the production of truth in science.. The latter is just a crackpot idea and I cannot help noticing that apart from just regurgitating the same old tedious mantra times and time again, LBird has not been able to advance a single credible argument to support this idea of his. He has run away from every question that has been asked of him because he knows that to even attempt to answer them will expose him as a complete buffoon .
LBird wrote:robbo203 wrote:The only inference one can draw is that once a scientific theory has been determined by means of vote to be "true" by the global working class (7 billion people), then according to him, no criticism of the theory will be permitted.[my bold]I'm replying to this one allegation because it's a bare-faced lie, and robbo knows it.I've constantly argued that 'truth' is a social product, just like a 'policy', and must be voted upon.We scientists know that 'truth changes': what's 'true' one year, is often not true, the next. I've given lots of examples in the past of this.So, in fact, my position is the exact opposite of robbo's lie.
Well, what is the point of voting on the "truth" of a scientific theory in that case if it is not to shore it against critical assault? I cannot think of any possible reason, can you? I've asked you umpteen times to supply a reason but as usual you have just run away from the question. If you have some other reason as to why a scientific theories must be voted upon well then spit it out – tell us what i!. And, while you are about it, also tell us how you propose to organise literally multiple thousands of plebiscite among a global population of 7 billion every year relating to all those new scientific theories that come on stream. Or what makes you think that anyone on earth, let alone the majority, are capable of understanding the totality of scientific theories in order to competently vote upon them which you insist must be done. Why don't you answer these questions, LBird? Why do you constantly evade them? All you ever seem to do is patronisingly affect a air of weary resignation that you have "tried to help others on this forum see the light" but have failed. Your whole approach reeks of elitism – how dare this ignorant rabble question my superior judgement by asking such questions as the above and I will demonstrate my superiority by refusing to answer them! What a hypocrite. I did not say., by the way, that you ever said the reason why scientific theories "must be voted upon" is to ensure that criticism of theories shall not be permitted thereafter. I said that that this is an inference to be drawn from your insistence that such a vote must be taken. There is a difference between drawing an inference and making a bald statement to that effect, you know…. And if as you say the truth changes, then that makes your proposal that scientific theories "must be voted upon" by the global population even more ridiculous!. So now in addition to all those new theories coming on stream, all 7 billion of us may well be revisiting those old theories time and time again to vote once again upon them. Will any of us ever have time in between swotting up on the latest theory in microbiology doing the rounds and trudging off to the polling booths, to actually get down to produce our means of subsistence? I doubt it
LBird wrote:The real truth about robbo's elitist perspective is that it holds that 'truth', once 'known', can't be changed. That ideological belief is the basis of the power of elite experts.Except, of course, that this bears no relation whatsoever to anything I have ever said or suggested. I have actually explicitly stated that the "truth" is only ever provisional and advanced this as a further reason as to the pointlessness of voting upon it!So having accused others of bare-faced lies, it appears you are the elite expert on this forum in the concoction of bare faced lies
LBird wrote:robbo is opposed to democracy, hides his ideology, wants the 'language of maths' to be continued, doesn't want to make science and its explanations open to all, and won't have 'truth' examined and determined by humanity.More lies from LBrid. I've said quite explicitly that I support democratic decision making where it is needed but not where it is not needed. I have said quite openly where I said it is needed – in relation to practical decisions that affect our lives. I have also argued that this needed to be tailored to circumstances. Some decisions are local in nature; others global. The former will tend to exclude in de facto terms everyone else in global society if only because of the sheer overwhelming number of such decisions that have to be made every single day. The citizens in the borough of Islington cannot possibly be aware of the issues facing the citizens of some suburb of the city of Kisangani, statistically speaking. Here's another question for LBird – does he think the global population must be involved in deciding whether a new library should be built in Islington. Yes or no. LBird? I mention this becuase this is precisely the same reasoning that informs my approach to science which stupidly LBird characterises as "elitist". Its got nothing to do with elitism , a word which LBird seems not to understand. Its about the social division of labour. You cannot possibly become a competent neurosurgeon as well as a competent structural engineer, competent marine biologist or competent in all of the thousands upon thousands of other occupations. A degree of specialisation is unavoidable. LBird's view of the world is utterly childish and behind the mantra of his supposed commitment to democracy, he has no grasp whatsoever of the actual complexities we are dealing with
LBird wrote:robbo wants elite experts, who pretend to have a politically-neutral method (one not related to society or history) to tell us 'The Truth', in a language of heiroglyphs.More lies from LBird. I have never once claimed that experts employ a politically-neutral method. Oddly enough that is the one thing I do agree with LBird upon – that science can never be value free. However unless you are actually engaged in serious research on, let us say, the dynamics of cell division in microbiology, how are you going to be able to tell others what the "truth" is? Does it worry me that in de facto terms only a small minority are in a position to competently tell me what is going on in the process of cell division. Not at all. That gives them not one iota of more social power over me in a communist world where democratic decision making will apply where it is needed – in the practical decisions of daily life – and not where it is not needed , in the production of truth in science.. The latter is just a crackpot idea and I cannot help noticing that apart from just regurgitating the same old tedious mantra times and time again, LBird has not been able to advance a single credible argument to support this idea of his. He has run away from every question that has been asked of him because he knows that to even attempt to answer them will expose him as a complete buffoon .
stuartw2112 wrote:Thanks Robin, good points well made!On your first, I think you're just playing with words. No one I've ever read on the subject has made your distinction that, to count as human nature, something must be irrepressible. In that case, eating and sex are not part of human nature!Your points about war are well made, but I'm not sure what they amount to. Chimps, for example, engage in one-on-one violence, and collaborate collectively to inflict violence to the extent that they're capable of such cooperation. Perhaps humans, building on their natural capacities, go to war, ie organise their inborn individual violence collectively, simply because they can. As with any inborn part o our nature, no doubt circumstances play a big part. It's hardly a surprise that collective violence is more likely if you have to defend your territory thn if you wander free in a forest of abundance. As for the warrior gene, it's a shorthand for a statistical phenomenon – I don't think anyone knows precisely what the gene does except to predispose its carriers to violence and psychopathic behaviour. But that's what "gene for" means.Hi Stuart Well, statistically or socially speaking, eating and sex are "irrepressible" in the sense that if we didn't do these things, we would cease to exist as a species. In that sense these things are naturally selected for – that is to say, are part of our human nature. Can the same be said of violence – let along violence in the guise of war. I don't think so. This is more obvious in the case of war in the sense that there is evidence to show that human societies have indeed lived without war but the same is true of violence in generalI just don't buy the argument that we have an "inborn individual violence" and if we did have such a thing then we would need somehow to express it in the same way as we need to have sex and eat. i.,e. that such a thing is irrepressible and ever present. I agree that we are capable of violence, just as we are capable of being peaceful and in a sense these two capabilities cancel each other out such that neither can really be said to be part of our inborn human nature. However the capacity to respond violently to a given situation is not the same thing as having an inbuilt disposition to behave violently which implies that it would happen anyway without any external trigger simply by virtue of being "inborn"
