robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
lBird’s latest charm offensive…
Anyone who refuses to sign up to his “democratic social productionism in science” must be a closet dictator.TWC
If anything is a recipe for a fascist dictatorship its LBird’s abomination of a scenario dressed up as “democratic social productionism” in science, truth, maths et al. Its amusing that he prattles on about Marx but is reduced to complete silence when asked to show where Marx supported the crackpot and insanely impractical idea that tens of thousands of scientific theories should be subjected to a democratic vote by the whole population
LBirds view of democratic socialism is a complete distortion (or perhaps I should say abortion) of democracy. This is not what democracy is about. What he is calling for is more suited to hierarchical ant colony than a democratic human society
Imagine if 8 billion of us were asked to vote on some “Truth” (yes “truth” is also something that would be subject to a democratic vote according to LBird). Since, it would be wildly optimistic to suggest that anything more than 0.00000057 percent of the global population would even bother to vote in such a ludicrous referendum what would happen once the “democratic will of the people” had been asserted. Would those of us who disagree with this ..er. .”socially approved” version of this particular truth, be rounded up and incarcerated? If not what was the point of the exercise?????
The whole point of democratic decision-making is to arrive at decisions that are inherently implementable. So your local community decides between two of three options for building a new local school or hospital. It selects one and rejects the rest and goes ahead with implementing this democratic decision
How is a democratic vote on some obscure scientific theory which most of us have never heard of – the mating habits of aphids, say – going to be enforceable? If it is enforced this will spell the end of science as a self critical enterprise. We will back to the days of the Holy Inquisition, when a tiny elite – and of necessity it will be a tiny elite because the vast majority are not going to bother to vote on the matter – will determine what ideas are deemed to be socially acceptable and the rest of us will just have to conform whether we like it or not
Talk about 1984 and all that..
The active, conscious subject creates its object for itself. There is no ‘nature’ outside of human conscious activity, outside of humanity’s social production.
But social production entails other people and we cannot access directly what is going on in the minds of other people. Therefore, according to this argument, humanity’s social production must bear the same relation to human conscious activity as “nature” inasmuch as both are objects that the conscious subject creates for itself. So how then can it be the case that social production ‘creates’ nature when society (which consists of other people who are objective to us) is not something that “thinks” or possesses consciousness and therefore is logically incapable of utilising or deploying human conscious activity to create nature as an object for itself.
So it turns out that LBird is basically an extreme individualist since it is only the individual – not groups – that is capable of experiencing consciousness which then creates “nature” – meaning of course the concept of nature – as well as the concept of “social production”
The fact that science. a social product, has been able to date the extinction of the dinosaurs to 66 millions year ago – long before there were any human beings around (which self evidently demonstrates that their existence was not dependent on human consciousness) – is of no concern to our ultra individualist, LBird, who thinks there is is no ‘nature’ outside of human conscious activity which only the individual is capable of engaging it by virtue of possessing that organ called a brain
But then presumably there is no ‘brain’ outside of human conscious activity either according to lBird’s way of thinking…..
How much physics do we all need to know before we can start the revolution? How about chemistry, biology, quantum mechanics, musical theory and the rules of football? Do you have an estimate of how long it will all take? Please tell.
Its pointless trying to reason with our feathered friend, Rod. Its like arguing with a Jehovah Witness. He says truth, maths, scientific theories et al will all be subject to a democratic vote by everyone in socialism – an insanely impractical and pointless idea – and then claims he wants “to engage with the question of by who and how are the practical limits set, which will then lead to what they are”. Which basically means he has already decided on behalf of humanity that there will be no limits. He has already decided on behalf of, and without consulting, humanity that scientific theories need to be voted upon and without even explaining WHY such a vote is needed. Some “democrat”!
As a member of humanity, its within my rights to say 1) I see absolutely no point in voting on the question of whether or anti matter exists 2) I am not qualified to express an opinion one way or another on the question of whether anti matter exists since I am not an astrophysicist and don’t pretend to be. But according to LBird I am not allowed to say these things because that would be “undemocratic”. In the name of his “democracy” I cant express an opinion
LBird’s model of “democracy” is not a recipe for human society but for an ant colony or a beehive. Paradoxically and by default it would lead to a fascist totalitarianism in which an elite will effectively govern in the name of the people
Did this ‘in itself’ tell you that, or are you keeping quiet about where you got the concept of ‘in-itself’ from?
Groan. You never will get it, will you, LBird? Forever diverting the discussion away from any consideration of the practical limits of democratic decision making into Kantian philosophising. While that may be interesting in its right , it not what concerns me here. What me concerns here is only the former
Since you are clearly not interested in engaging with the question of what are the practical limits of democratic decision-making, I am not going to waste my time any longer trying in vain to engage you in constructive debate on this question. It is obviously pointless.
So cling on to your crackpot little idea about scientific theories being subject to a democratic vote by the global population, safe in the knowledge that no one is going to bother now to argue you out that idea. You have the complete right to be a batty as a moorhen if you so chose. I wash my hands of you…
You apparently want Marxists and democrats to simply and uncritically accept your ‘case’ as a ‘fact’, which just happens to be there, and doesn’t have any social producer.
More lies from our feathered friend…
I haven’t ever denied the reality of “social production” and “social producers”. All I have pointed out is the fact that something is a “social product” does not in itself make it a suitable candidate for being subject to a democratic vote. Democracy is crucial to socialism but there are limits to how far you can push or extend democratic decision-making – unless you want to seriously propose the global population should have a vote on what I have for breakfast (as I think BD mentioned, breakfast also being a “social product”, incidentally) in which case be my guest and go ahead and argue this point. Since you have already made yourself look utterly foolish there is little to be lost in plumbing new depths of folly.
It is not me, LBird, but you that wants us “Marxists and democrats” to uncritically accept your insane idea that the tens of thousands of scientific theories should each be subjected to a democratic vote of world’s population. It is totally impractical and serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Yet you have the nerve to call us “uncritical” when you have never made even the slightest attempt to defend this idea against criticism but have consistently sought to steer the line of argument away from , or around , this idea to deflect any criticism of it.
There is a limit to my patience. As I said, arguing with a brick wall becomes a bit pointless after a while – not to mention dull as dishwater. I had hoped in your case a chink of light might have opened up through a gap in that wall but sadly it seems to have been made up of solid brick throughout.
‘per se’ is a political opinion, robbo.
Who determines ‘per se’, and how?
FFS. Whatever the case, you still misrepresented me since I explicitly said “who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE” to the question of whether scientific theories should be democratically voted upon by the global population
Now deal with the arguments that demolish your crackpot non-Marxian idea about the need for scientific theories to be democratically voted upon by the global population.
If you can’t defend this idea or are unwilling to do so then at least have the grace to say so. Its pointless arguing with a brick wall
robbo203 wrote: “…LBird, Who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE …”
Neither I nor Marx share that political opinion, robbo.
Once again, LBird, you misrepresent me
I didn’t say the question of “who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE” per se
I said it has ” ZERO RELEVANCE to the question of whether scientific theories should be democratically voted upon by the global population.
Can’t you read properly? You are going from bad to worse
Marx did not argue that scientific theories need to be voted upon. This is entirely, and utterly uniquely, your point of view. You alone, as far as I know, are the only person probably in the entire universe to hold this crackpot idea
Yet you seem incapable or unwilling to defend it and have studiously evaded answering any question concerning this crackpot idea of yours
So (yet again), “‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so?“. Once we have the answer to this ‘perfectly OK’ question (the ‘who’ and the ‘how’), discussion about the ‘why’ (and the ‘whether’ and ‘should’) will progress rapidly. In fact, the ‘who and how’ answer will determine the ‘why/whether/should’ answer.
BS, LBird, Who socially produces scientific theories has ZERO RELEVANCE to the question of whether scientific theories should be democratically voted upon by the global population. You are warbling on irrelevantly to distract attention from the fact that you are incapable of explaining WHY such a global vote should be held or HOW it is even logistically possible to organise.
The really funny thing about all this is that you were the one complaining that the rest of us here don’t “engage” with your ideas but you have flat out refused to engage with the above point from the get go
Who precisely is involved in the social production of scientific theories is not of any great interest to me. I know I haven’t contributed anything to the development of string theory in astrophysics. I doubt if you have either. No doubt a number of people with some familiarity with astrophysics would have contributed to this theory. In that sense it is socially produced. The same would be probably be true of other scientific theories even if a different set of people would likely have been involved
But so what? Even if the entire global population was engaged somehow in the development of string theory , how would this justify the need for a democratic vote on it?
Now kindly answer this question and also answer the question I posed earlier: when did Marx suggest that scientific theories require a democratic vote by the global population???
Citations please and no dodging the question any more….
I agree, robbo, perfectly OK.
So, ” ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so?“
LBird why do you point blank refuse to answer the point I made, viz
It is perfectly OK in itself to ask ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so but what is NOT OK is to use the excuse that scientific theories are social products to justify the crackpot idea that these theories – tens of thousands of them – should be voted upon the global population
I am not so much concerned here with the academic question of who socially produces scientific theories as whether those theories should therefore be voted upon
Please answer my direct question as to why you think they should be voted upon – what purpose would a vote serve – and also why you consider Marx felt they should be voted upon as well. Citation needed
Your silence on this matter will finally confirm you haven’t got a clue about what you have been gabbling on about for so long….
I think ‘it is entirely acceptable’, and since we agree that ‘scientific theories’ are ‘social products’, to ask ‘who’ socially produces, and ‘how’ do they do so.
No LBird you are misrepresenting what I said
It is perfectly OK in itself to ask ‘who’ socially produces scientific theories and ‘how’ do they do so but what is NOT OK is to use the excuse that scientific theories are social products to justify the crackpot idea that these theories – tens of thousands of them – should be voted upon the global population
Contrary to what you claim, I have no problem with recognising Marx’s theory and practice are inseparable. But nowhere in Marx’s theory that, I am aware of, is there any suggestion that the scientific theories should be validated by a democratic vote of the global population. Democracy will of course be an integral part of socialist society but not to the ridiculous extent that you posit.
Once again you have dismally failed in your desperate efforts to substantiate your non-Marxist gloss on what you call “Marx’s theory” by failing to provide even a single citation where Marx suggested anything so daft as voting on scientific theories!
I’m trying to discuss Marx’s politics and philosophy, about our social production… whereas you want to ask ‘simple, straightforward questions’ which will supposedly require ‘simple, straightforward’ answers.
OK, LBird, since you are so obsessed with Marx, tell me then – when did Marx ever come up with such a crackpot idea that the global population should be enabled to democratically vote to validate tends of thousands of scientific theories? It is not acceptable to give as answer the fact that he considered (as do I) scientific theories to be “social products”, for reasons that have been explained ad nauseum. Citations please!
And while you are at , since you appear to be the only person in the whole wide world to endorse this crackpot idea, which you seem to want to undemocratically impose on the rest of us who see absolutely no need for it, perhaps you can at least explain WHY you think these scientific theories should be voted on (Ill leave the “HOW” to another time)? That is, if you deign to patronise us simple-minded proles with your elite knowledge in response to our simple-minded practical questions….
Not that I am holding my breath in expectation of getting an answer from you. You have an established track record in evading uncomfortable questions, haven’t you?
If only you and the others would engage with what I write, rather than your own illusions, and hidden ideology.
LOL LBird
We should engage with you, according to you,but do you ever reciprocate by engaging with us??? For example, by answering a simple straightforward question which has been asked of you over and over again such as how in practical terms do you propose to organise tens of thousands of global votes on scientific theories and what possible purpose would this serve?
Perhaps you consider that any such explanation that you might give would be too abstruse and complex for us plain speaking proles to comprehend and should be considered only within the illustrious circle of the cognoscenti elite of which you consider yourself a member
No point in casting pearls before the swine, eh?
LBird
Marx never, as far as I am aware, suggested that something like a scientific theory – or “maths”- should be subject to a democratic vote by the global population in a socialist society. This is pure invention on your part, the product of an over fertile imagination
But maybe I am wrong. Maybe somewhere Marx said or hinted at something along these lines in which case perhaps you could provide a quote to show this. In any event if he did say or hint at something like this then I would not hesitate to say that on that occasion he had clearly lost his marbles. Unlike you I am not a Marx fetishist, I don’t hero worship the man. He wrote a lot of good stuff but he also wrote some crap too
I suspect what you mean is that Marx would have thought a scientific theory is a social product in the sense that it is the intellectual outcome of a collaborative effort of many individuals. This is quite true but I remind you once again that just because something is a social product does NOT make it a candidate for democratic decision making
I have given you the example of my laptop. This is a social product in the sense that the labour inputs that went into making involve countless numbers of workers distributed right across the globe who assembled the components, produced the components or produced the raw materials required to produce the components etc etc. All in all we are talking about millions upon millions of workers worldwide.
Do you consider that all these millions of workers should democratically determine every step in the production chain from start to finish. If so how exactly do you propose to do that? That’s not a serious proposition is it?
Same with scientific theories. How exactly do you propose these – theories – tens of thousands of them – be democratically voted upon by 8 billion and what purpose would this serve? You never answer these practical questions, LBird. Why is that?
You are the one insisting that global population MUST democratically vote on these theories without consulting anyone as to whether they might even consider it worth the effort. What if no one considers it worth the effort – which is more than likely (to say the least) – would you still insist that such a vote be held. How would square this with your championing of “democracy”?
Entertain us with another round of ducking and diving and doing anything it takes to avoid answering any serious practical question
But it’s true, alan, even you agree – the official stance of the SPGB is to oppose democracy in: nature, reality, truth, physics, matter, maths, logic, necessity… I’m sure there are others that have been mentioned, and I have forgotten.
You are digging yourself ever deeper into a hole of your own making, LBird. For your own sake stop and think a little before committing yourself to print. You are just making yourself look really foolish
Having declared that it seems to be “the official stance of the SPGB” that it is “opposed to democracy” – an outrageous slander by any standard – you are now hastily backtracking in a desperate attempt to save face by qualifying your comment. Its not democracy as such that SPGB is seemingly opposed to, according to you now in your latest spin on the subject, but democracy in “nature, reality, truth, physics, matter, maths, logic, necessity…”
WTF is all that even supposed to mean, LBird? Are you now suggesting that we have global vote on whether 2 plus 2 is 4???? It was bad enough you trying to suggest the global population should vote on tens of thousands of scientific theories when you have never once explained what is the purpose of such a vote or how you propose to organise the mind boggling logistics of all this voting.
It is not just the SPGB that would reject such a silly idea but, I am completely confident, virtually the entirety of humanity. Yet here you are pontificating in the name of “democracy” about a massively pointless and completely impractical idea that the entire world population must follow through on – simply because, in your opinion, it is essential for democracy that they do so. In other words, it is supposedly essential for democracy because you as a single lone individual, apparently without any support from anyone else, says it is!!
Oh the irony! If people in a future socialist society want to vote on whether 2 plus 2 is 4 let them decide on whether such a vote is necessary. Don’t undemocratically impose this requirement on them. Personally I don’t see the slightest chance of this crackpot idea being taken up but then that’s just me I guess…
