robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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 best
Hi 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"
Hud955 wrote:There is no obvious reason why people wouldn't choose to organise themselves in a variety of ways, using different decision-making processes at different levels (local, regional, global etc), in different circumstances and for different purposes. There is no need to imagine they would be constrained by any of the limits that capitalism places on our own imaginations. For fast, perhaps urgent decision-making then a straight vote might be sought of whatever section of the population will be affected by the decision, and the rules set for the assessing the outcome might be different depending on the circumstances. The vote might be direct or a delegated one. For slower, more considered decision making, much broader forms of social choice might be adopted which consider the needs of minorities as well as majorities. And at more local levels communities may seek simple consensus, using a variety of available techniques and skills.Yes, this is a very good point Richard. LBird's strange obsession with democracy for the sake of it and democracy, moreover, implemented by the entire working population everywhere and at all times is absurd. We have been focussing on area of "truth production" – that is to say, the development of scientific theories. I see absolutely no point in subjecting scientific theory to a vote to determine its " truth "and despite constantly being prodded to come up with a reason, LBird has supplied none. 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. That is ridiculous and antithetical to everything that the scientific endeavour is supposed to be about – above all, self critical. It also , moreover, assumes that 7 billion would have a close familiarity with each of the thousands of scientific theories that are developed each year in order to knowledgeably vote on all of them. That is also ridiculous and it is not "elitist" to say so – no individual can possibly assimilate the totality of scientific knowledge out there, no matter how gifted a scientist this individual may be. The sheer growth in scientific knowledge and the further development of a complex social division of labour is making this more and more true . We cannot all – in a social sense – become competent neurosurgeons which takes years and years of study and if we did each individually strive to become this (which, I guess, is theoretically possible in an abstract sense) – who is going to be the competent structural engineer, the competent agricultural scientist , the competent marine biologist etc etc. LBird typically has no answer to these questions. You have drawn attention to another another area, however – what we might call the area of "material production" where unlike in the case of truth production, democratic decision making will indeed have a role to play precisely because it involves practical decision that affect us in our daily lives. However, even this needs to be qualified in various ways.Firstly , you have to differentiate between decision making at various levels – local, regional and global – as you have done. LBird's utterly crude knee jerk and mantra-driven approach to the subject shows that he has not thought about the subject at all. If the global working population – all 7 billion of us – is to be the sole agent of all decision making in a communist world then this by definition rules out any kind of decisioonmaking at the sub global level. Why ? Because this would be "elitist" in LBird's fantasy world. If only local people vote to build a local hospital in their locality this means the vast majority of the world's population are ipso facto excluded from that decision. But there are millions and millions of such decisions that need to be taken every single day. Is the global working class going to have consider each and every one of these decisions? Is it possible? Of course it isn't. So by reduction ad absurdum LBird's whole argument must be completely rejected as utter drivel. Secondly, I would suggest that the great majority of decisions that will be made in a communist world at every level simply do not require democractic decision making anyway. They can be and will need to be taken on a spontaneous albeit it within a framework democratically decided upon. Does Joe Bloggs really need to authorised by a democratic mandate to take a stack of pallets with his forklift from the loading bay to the back of the factory? Is a special meeting going to be convened to discuss this burning question? Of course not. The notion that life in communism will be an endless rounds of committee meetings and mass assemblies – a caricature which LBird is obsessively feeding with his preposterous folly – actually makes a laughing stock of communists and makes it harder for us as communists to put forward the case for a sane society.Logically speaking, when it comes down to it, the logic of what LBird is arguing for is classic central planning – the idea of a single society wide plan covering the totality of production inputs and outputs which plan would be democratically decided upon, in LBird's viuew, by the global population. The idea is a complete non starter at so many different levels and if it were even attempted, it would simply end up with power being totally concentrated in a tiny technocratic eliteThough he will not thank me for saying so, LBirds real ideology behind the bluster that "I am a Democratic communist" is a kind of totalitarian Leninism
stuartw2112 wrote:This is what I meant when I said Robin was in danger of making his socialism a hostage to fortune. Violent and warlike tendencies almost certainly are a part of our human nature. And it's also why I said I was relaxed about it. Because whatever the case is, whatever our human nature turns out to be, we are more than capable of moulding human institutions, including those involved in war, to engineer the happiest outcomes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014kj65RThats an interesting post, Stuart, for which thanks. My observations on the above snippet are two fold.Firstly, I think all we have the potential to be violent but I don't think that is the same thing as saying that "violent tendencies are part of our human nature". "Human nature" to me suggests more than just potential; it suggests an irrepressible and ever present aspect of our behaviour and it is for that reason that i don't think one can say violent tendencies are part of our human nature – anymore than pacific tendencies, for that matter. So it depends on what you mean by "human nature", I guess. Secondly, you have to make a distinction between violence in general and war which is particular form of violence that is, of its nature, a collective enterprise. This is something that gets to the heart of what this thread is all about. There is no convincing evidence that wars actually happened in the sense of systemic intergroup lethal conflict much before the advent of agriculture some 10,000 years or so ago. I wont rehearse the arguments behind this claim as they have already been made at length at various points in this long thread. Even in the case of contemporary hunter gatherer groups where the mechanism of conflict avoidance (that would have functioned in the case of prehistoric HG groups) has been considerably undermined by contact with "civilisation" and by significant restrictions on the traditional freedom to roam, we find that, overwhelmingly, violence is an individual affair i.e. one on one violence (see Soderberg and Fry's recent survey) Thus, if war is a pretty recent phenomenon as far as us human beings are concerned, there would simply not be enough time for "warlike tendencies" to have been naturally selected for. For that reason too, as well as the above, it is simply not possible to say warlike tendencies are part of our human nature and the notion that some of us possess a so called "warrior gene" seems to me to be just a piece of poetic licence
LBird wrote:It's much easier to label the unknown as 'trolling' or 'dishonesty', rather than question some of your own dearly-held ruling class ideas, like the issue of science, truth, academics and democracy.Ah well, Hud, back to good, old fashioned, 19th century, academic and scientific 'honesty' for you.Quite frankly, mate, you're just like most other academics that I've met: they shit themselves when confronted by self-confident workers who are Communists, and who insist upon undermining their 'authority' in the eyes of the other students.But, but… I'm a professor! I know things you don't! I can't accept that I've spent my whole career following the wrong method in my search for 'Truth'! I've written PAPERS! Who are you, anyway, you working class guttersnipe?!Says the man who earlier said this….
LBird wrote:But no, you have to join the ignorant gang, who don't like philosophical 'kind of games'.Perhaps you should just stick to your simplistic world of 'evidence', and let it take you where it merely goes.As a method, it's laughable that educated people should still think that it's a legitimate method.What a hypocrite! And yes, LBird, the fact that you are pathologically dishonest in your gross misrepresentation of others has been pointed out to you time and time again but like a typically pathologically dishonest individual you are in complete denial over this.
LBird wrote:Hud955 wrote:Just stop playing these games, LB, and answer the question! Either that, or tell us you can't.Your one-sided condemnation of me, and ignoring of robbo's avoiding answering why he is contradicting himself, just shows me that I'm going to have the same problems with you as with the others.
Has it not occurred to you that it might be you who is the problem, LBird? Or is it a case of everyone else walking out of step, bar you? And what "contradiction" are you referring to anyway?
LBird wrote:If you seriously were interested in discussing, you would have either been even-handed asking us both to 'answer the question', or you could have simply ignored robbo's confused views, and concentrated on our discussion.There is nothing "confused" about my views. I've stated very clearly what they are. I've asked probing questions of you several times which you have declined to answer, preferring to scuttle back to the comfort zone that is your own little worldview which you shore up against rational assault by erecting a wall of impenetrable dogma, tediously and endlessly regurgitated. You are the political equivalent of a doorstopping Jehovah Witness rep, frankly.And you apparently have no scruples about dishonestly misrepresenting what others say. You portray me (and others here) as "elitist " for the sin of having simply stated that as mere mortals none of us , including the most brilliant scientist alive, is capable of familiarising themselves with the details of each and every single scientific theory doing the rounds. Its just not humanly possible! I know logic is not your strong point but if what I say is true then it follows logically that for any given scientific theory (and there are thousands upon thousands that are churned out every year) there is only likely to be a relatively small percentage of the population who are likely to be intimately acquainted with the details of the theory in question. Is this an unreasonable proposition? I don't think so. If you say it is then what you are saying in effect is that we are all capable of knowing EVERYTHING in the world of science. In other words we are all capable of a kind of godlike omniscience. Is this what you are claiming? I dare you to put your money where your mouth and admit it because ,as far as I can see, that follows quite logically from your criticism of my position . My position – I repeat – is that for any given scientific theory there is unlikely to be any more than a small minority who are acquainted with the details of the theory itself.Is this an elitist position? NO IT IS NOT!!! You don't appear to understand what "elitism" means just as you do not understand what democracy is about either. My position would be "elitist" if I were to insist on placing barriers on others, not familiar with a particular scientific theory, becoming familiar with that theory.. But I have gone out of my way to oppose the idea of any sort of barrier whatsoever being placed in front of individuals that would prevent them from acquiring the necessary understanding to be able to competently critique the theory in question. I say let people become whatever they want to become, pursue any interest they wish to pursue. I have also gone out of my way to oppose your stupid idea of subjecting a scientific theory to a "vote" in order to determine its "truth". If anyone is potentially an elitist it is you because your idea of "voting" on scientific theories would mean in effect that some people not familiar with the theory could in theory be prevented from voting. I reject the whole idea of voting on the theory. I' ll say nothing here of the utter stupidity of your idea of 7 billion people voting on the thousands upon thousands of scientific theories that come on stream every year though clearly , it would seem, you are just too embarrassed to face up to what it is you are actually proposing in practical sense. Having to descend from the clouds so to speak and put actual flesh on the bones of what you saying terrifies you which is why you run away from every question that it is ever thrown at you. You are the quintessential idealist with your head completely in the clouds and without a clue when it comes to putting theory into practice…
LBird wrote:But no, you have to join the ignorant gang, who don't like philosophical 'kind of games'.Perhaps you should just stick to your simplistic world of 'evidence', and let it take you where it merely goes.As a method, it's laughable that educated people should still think that it's a legitimate method.What a hypocrite!!! And particularly in view of what LBird has said on the "Chamsy" thread – viz
LBird wrote:Sadly, now lost in the SPGB, if YMS, robbo and their 'elite, expert, academic' cadre, who will tell us dumb workers the Truth, are anything to go by.Yes, LBird it seems the only one here who considers himself to be several notches above the "ignorant gang" and part of the elite of "educated people" is your good self! LOL
LBird wrote:CP, if you replace robbo's 'science' with 'means of production', you'll start to appreciate the dangers of robbo's stance, for anyone who seeks democratic control of the means of production, ie. socialism.The elitists, like robbo, will simply use the same arguments about us controlling production: they'll say that 'it is totally impracticable in order to vote', when we 'don't know what we are voting about'. And 'the LOGISTICS'! Heaven, however will the "dirty, thick one's" manage that! How can they PRESUME to know?Yes, the 'democratic control of production': "It's nuts, frankly!"Ha! Replacing "robbo's 'science' with 'means of production', indeed! This shows the desperate lengths to which LBird will go save face and evade answering the questions I posed, questions which expose his position for the utter folly it is . I was specifically NOT talking about controlling the means of production; I have no problem with the idea of "democratic control of the means of production", broadl;y speaking. I made it absolutely clear that I was talking specifically about workers voting on the merits of scientific theories to determine their "truth" – a suggestion that you yourself, might I remind you, specifically proposed. I also made it absolutely clear that democracy is about practical decisions that affect us, and decisions relating to managing the means of production would clearly come under this rubric. The "truth" of scientific theories, however, would clearly notLBird's all too transpent attempt to dishonestly smuggle in the suggestion that what I am saying is equivalent to denying workers can democratically control the means of production shows that he is rattled, not thinking clearly at all, has his back to the wall and will grasp at even the flimsiest straw to get out of the ever deepening hole he has dug for himself. Oh and the jibe about "logistics" – well, go on LBird, I dare you – EXPLAIN the logistics of your harebrained scheme whereby you propose to organise a democratic vote on each and every scientific theory that is churned out – multiple thousands of them every year – by the entire worlds population of 7 billion inhabits. We are all ears, LBird, just waiting to hear this earth shattering explanation of yours that will enlighten us unelightened ones. You basically want everyone to metamorphise into some kind of all knowing god , with a working knowledge of every scientific theory going and then, on top of that, to be able to depatch 7 billion voting papers to the citizens of Planet Earth (or Planet GaGa land) as the case may be) multiplied by the number of new scientific theories – thousands of 'em – that come on stream, each and every year. (I take it you are indeed a fully paid up citizen of planet Gaga despatched as an emissary to explain the merits of your higher so called democratic communist civilisation to us humanoids. At least you are certainly not from this planet, good ol' Mother Earth)
LBird wrote:The clincher, from the elitist perspective. 'So, what exactly is the point of the vote in the first place?' Why give it to workers? Or blacks? Or, god forbid, women!More diversionary nonsense from LBird. And you can't even get your basic argument straight, your thinking is so screwed up. I am not talking about who should be "given" a vote and you know damn well restricted electorates is not what I am talking about. I am saying why vote at all on the question of the truth of some scientific theory? What exactly is the point of it? Are you intending for example that once a vote is taken, people should not be allowed to question this democratically decided upon "truth"? Or what? You just dont say. You waffle on aimlessly and pointlessly compleley lost in your own little world of mindless mantras. I cant make up my mind whether your head is stuck in the clouds or up your own backside.Instead of getting into tizzy you could at least have made some minimal effort to try to explain what that point was but no. All too predictably you did not. And you wonder why nobody here takes you seriously any longer!
Capitalist Pig wrote:I don't really understand how scientific theories can be ideologically endorsed. Its like saying that scientists should embrace pseudoscientists. But I don't know maybe I just need to read his post hehe…Wel,l LBird's position is that science can never really be "value free" and that the data that the scientist gathers to support his or her theory or hypothesis necessarily involves selection which in turn involves ideology – our particular set of basic assumptions we make about the world around us. Ideology is the prism through which we inescapably view the world, in other words. Although LBird seems to think he is the only one here promoting this particular view of science and society in general he is not. His constantly going on about it is only a cover to hide from scrutiny the much more questionable aspect of what he is saying – which is that because science is ideologically informed, so to speak, that the "workers" by which he means everyone – not "workers" in the class sense – should have a say in determining what is "scientifically correct" or "scientifically true" I think that this is a ridiculous idea, not because I take an "elitist view" of science – to the contrary I believe that if anyone wants to become, say, an astrophysicist that there should be absolutely no barriers placed in the way of him or her becoming an astrophysicist. It is ridiculous, rather, because it is totally impractical to expect everyone to know everything in science in order to vote on whether each and every scientific theory is true of not. How can you possibly vote on something when you you don't know what it you voting about? (This is to say nothing of the logistics of organising many thousands of separate worldwide votes for the many thouisands of scientific theories that appear each year). I know myself next to nothing about astrophysics, for instance. I would not dare to presume that a certain theory in astrophysics was true or false. But LBird expects everyone to know everything that there is to know so that everything in science can be voted on by the entire global population to determine the truth of each theory.. Its nuts frankly. That apart , I don't see the need to vote on a scientific theory at all. The popularity of a theory among the voters doesn't necessarily make it true in some absolutist sense and, more to the point, it is not going to convince those who think it is not true from continuing to believe it is not true. So what exactly is the point of the vote in the first place?
Capitalist Pig wrote:too many words…what are we talking about lolIdeology, CP , ideology One of the people on this list, LBird, thinks scientific theories should be ideologically endorsed by the workers (7 billion of us) by means of a democratic vote to determine whether such theories are true or not. It is a dotty idea, of course, even if what LBird is also saying – that there is no such thing as a "value free science" – is true enough in itself. However, saying science is not value free is no justification whatsoever for what LBird is proposing and I for one am waiting to hear his response to post number 8 on this thread. I will bet money on him once again evading these questions but let us see . I may be proven wrong!
LBird wrote:But, you can't give an accurate of my position 'LBird is in favour of democracy in truth production', because you can't imagine that this is possible, whereas I agree that your position is, not only entirely possible, but the one taken by the bourgeoisie and academics.We are all waiting with bated breath to hear why you think "democracy in truth production" is either 1) necessary2) practically possible for a global population of 7 billion Stop evading these questions, LBird. Answer them – if you can…
LBird wrote:You'll 'pooh-pooh' democracy in social production. You won't have 'truth' elected. You want elite control of science. Oh yeah, and you want 'free association', not 'workers' power'.This is oh-so-predictable. Once again and for the umpteenth time, how are 7 billion workers going to democratically determine the "truth" of multiple thousands of scientific theories by means of a vote as you have explicitly advocated? HOW? HOW? HOW? What are the ACTUAL REALISTIC PROPOSALS you have in mind by which you imagine this absolutely surreal and fantastic state of affairs can ever be put into effect ? Stop, for once, perpetually running away from this question and answer it directly And, while you are about it, please explain why it is according to your "mystical holistic" ideology you feel some strange compulsion for all 7 billion of us to vote on the merits of all these thousands upon thousands of scientific theories? Assuming your batty idea was even remotely possible – what then? The "workers" have given their stamp of approval to some obscure esoteric theory of cell division in microbiology, presumably having swotted up on the details in the months leading up to the Big Vote. 68.76% of the workers decide the theory is OK, the rest give it the thumbs down. Are you then going to forbid any expression of criticism of the theory that the 68.76% have just voted in favour of? If not then what was was the whole point of that whole costly resource-consuming time-consuming exercise? All of which goes to show you dont understand what democracy is for at all, do you? I'm all in favour of democracy but where it is needed – in practical decisionmaking -not where it is simply not needed. It is stupid fetishising democracy for its own sake. Next youll be having 7 billion workers collectively decide where we each live, what clothes we wear, what thoughts we think , what music we listen to what books we should be allowed to read etc etc etc. If rejecting that makes me an "individualist" in your eyes then so be it. I would far sooner be that than live in your fascistic Orwellian utopian nightmare misnamed "democratic communism" Your totalitarian "workerist" ideology is the exact opposite of a self-critical open-minded undogmatic approach that is supposed to be the hall mark of scientific endeavour where "the truth" is something that is never absolute but only provisional. In practice. moreover, it is your approach, not mine, that will lead to scientific elitism because by default the sheer impracticality of what you propose will concentrate power in the hands of the few. Because in practice there is no way all 7 billion workers are going to be able to do what you suggest and if you think otherwise then prove it and stop pretending that you have already done so! If anyone is simply giving " knee-jerk reactions, based upon their own existing and unacknowledged ideologies., it is you LBird. You fail to realise that behind your claim to be a "democratic communist" is a much more sinister ideological thought process. Time for you to start acknowledging this hidden ideology of yours!
I think LB's basic problem is that he has fallen into the trap of holistic thinking which people like Emile Durkheim had been accused of falling into by his detractors – namely of reifying "society", of giving it an objective existence over and above, and independently of, the individuals comprising it. Hence, the latter's talk of "social facts" as having a thinglike quality about them. They externally impose themselves on individuals and Durkheim claimed to have demonstrated this in the case of his famous study of the pattern of suicide. For instance, if you were a Protestant you were statistically more likely to commit suicide than if you were a Catholic. But , of course, society or indeed "class", cannot exist apart from the individuals who comprise it – anymore than mind can exist apart from the brain. Which is not to say the brain determines what goes on in the mind or individuals "determine" society, which is crude reductionism. What we can say is that the latter supervenes on the former. Society/class depends on individuals but cannot be entirely explained in terms of its individual constituents. This is "emergence theory" which, to me at least, is a plausible middle ground position between the crude reductionism of atomistic individualism and the methodological pitfalls of a thoroughgoing holism. The practical implications of LB's commitment to the latter are revealed in his often asserted and frankly absurd suggestion that the the "truth" of scientific theories should be determined by the working class as a whole by means of a democratic vote since, according to him, the only alternative to this is to subscribe to an elitist view of science where the truth is determined by a tiny minority. I have repeatedly challenged him to show why it is even necessary to subject scientific theories to a democratic vote – the democratic procedure is something that is more applicable to the implementation of practical decisions , not the merits or otherwise of sciejtific theories – and how it is remotely possible for the working class as a whole to familiarise itself with the fine grained details of literally thousands upon thousands of scientific theories that are churned out every year in order to competently vote upon them. Of course the idea is absurd. Not even the most gifted scientist alive would be capable of comprehending in detail more than a small fraction of the totality of scientific theories generated yet LBird expects all 7 billion of us to go much further than this gifted scientist and knowledgeably vote on the whole lot! Refusal to fall in line with his surreal recommendations for a future communist society is to risk being accused of endorsing an elitist view of science based on a "bourgeois ideology". This constant mantra of his – that he is a "democratic communist" and his opponents are, inadvertently or otherwise, exhibiting their attachment to a bourgeois ideology – is his get-out clause by which he deftly evades all serious discussion of the practicalities of what he is proposing. I have not been able to pin him down on this point but you might have better luck Richard
Hud955 wrote:Hi Robin, this will have to be a very short answer (for me), as I am in the last stages of preparing for my holiday. It is nearly thirty years since I read Evans Pritchard so I don't recall much about the Nuer, but here are some things to consider. You can tell me if they fit what you know about them. Egalitarianism seems to be closely related to and consequent on the way in which societies obtain their means of life. It is principally found among hunter gatherers, both immediate and delayed return, though it does extend to some pastoralists and herders and even some horticulturalists where finely balanced factors may tip them either way. It needs to be noted, however, that delayed return hunter gatherers, although they generally retain a largely egalitarian structure including the use of demand sharing, do tend to have some status relations and sometimes chiefs. Structurally induced warfare on the other hand seems to be related primarily to delayed return systems and so includes states, tribes and delayed return hunter gatherers. In other words delayed return hunter gatherers do sometimes make war, though less on the whole than tribes and states. If I recall (correct me if I am wrong) the Nuer have a delayed return system so the fact that they make war would not be entirely surprising. There is another big factor to consider, and that is the relationships of a group to other societies. Warlike behaviour may not arise from the internal structures of a group; it may arise from the need to respond to external conditions. Even immediate return hunter gatherers are known to have developed a warlike culture in circumstances where they are subject to attack or have been predated, often by slave traders and colonial and post colonial states. And that is especially the case where they are hemmed in by the territorial claims of neighbouring peoples and cannot therefore flee. I think much of this is the situation with the Nuer.Either of these conditions my therefore apply.Just an afterthought…. With the Nuer being a tribe – or rather a collection of tribes – and subject to both inter and intra-tribal violent conflict as well as conflict with neighbouring peoples like the Dinka – I think both these conditions you specify above would apply, Richard. In other words, there would be both external pressure in the form of the encroachment of outsiders, whether it be Dinka or some other Nuer tribe , as well as internal pressure arising from a developed sense of territoriality cum property that goes with being a mainly pastoralist society in respect of grazing rights and the ownership of cattle. Simple hunter gatherer bands, as you say, being "immediate return" societies – they could immediately appropriate the fruits of nature wherever they went – had no sense of territoriality and therefore no reason to defend (or enlarge) "their" territory. The very idea of "their territory" would have been meaningless to an essentially nomadic people. So they wouldn't have seen any problem with outsiders "intruding" on their traditional hunting grounds. Indeed, they sometimes collaborate with outsiders in organising joint hunting trips. Always at the back of their minds, one supposes, would be the idea that you can always just move on if localised resources got scarce. This conflict avoidance mechanism would have operated from the get go – or at least up until the point some 10.000 years ago when the first signs of sedentarisation, agriculture and hence a sense of territoriality began to develop. It was probably an important factor in the determing the pattern of human migration in prehistoric times out of Africa. Up until then the human population on planet earth was no more than 15 million at most according to one estimate I came across. Meaning there was more than enough space for everyone to roam around in. Climate change and widespread environmental scarcities would have been the key variable in bringing about a change in the mode of subsistence In other words, for the vast majority of our time on this planet there was no reason for nomadic groups to go to war with each other. If wars have only occurred recently, along with a sense of territoriality ingrained in an agricultural and pastoralist way of life, this is simply not enough time for war to have been "naturally selected for" as a fundamental human attribute amounting to an evolutionary adaptation In other words, E O Wilson's claim that “war is embedded in our very nature" must be dismissed as bunkum. One-to-one violence may well have occurred in our prehistoric past but, even with this, there are strong grounds for thinking this would have been relatively subdued due to the deterrent effect of immediate retaliation and because of the awareness of the complete interdependence among group members. This is to say nothing of the possibility of groups simply fissioning or breaking up should social tensions within the group reach unacceptable levels. However, one-to-one violence is not the same thing as war and the evidence suggests overwhelmingly that what violent deaths did occur within hunter gatherer band society were the result of the former not the latter…..
