robbo203
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live.
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually, that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are not voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
Democratic communists do not believe that there is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity. Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate
LBird
Lets look at this argument of yours…
You have agreed that in socialism there will be specialists – that is people who have more knowledge in the particular field they specialise in than the general or lay population possesses on the subject. For example neuro-surgeons know a lot more about neurosurgery than you or I.
However, neuro-surgeons are part of the general or lay population when it comes to some other scientific discipline – for example, astrophysics. In that case, it is the astrophysicists who are the specialists or experts, not the neurosurgeons
My profession is landscape gardening and ground maintenance. Though I know precious little about neurosurgery or astrophysics, I warrant I know a damn sight more than probably most, if not all, neurosurgeons and astrophysicists about how to use a strimmer or chainsaw or how to construct a dry stone wall or what plants thrive best in the Mediterranean environment in which I live
We all have our own particular skill set. Specialism is always relative
So, to come back to the point you make, nobody here is saying there “is an ‘expert elite’ of humans who know better than the entirety of humanity”. Actually that is a silly argument since the entirety of humanity includes what you call the so called expert elite.
As I have tried to explain to you several times before – though my explanation seem to have fallen on deaf ears in your case – the very concept of an “expert elite” as some kind of entity separate from the rest of humanity as a whole makes no sense in a sociological sense. It is a complete. Experts outside of their chosen profession ARE LAY PEOPLE LIKE THE REST OF US. It is only within their chosen profession that they can be differentiated from the general population by virtue of having greater knowledge related to this particular profession . But their relation to other experts in other fields is no different to the rest of us. They are us!
You then go one to say “Any elected experts can be removed if they fail to follow their mandate” in socialism. Mandate to do what? What on earth are you talking about?
I can only imagine you envisage some sort of research programme being set up which an “elected expert” is tasked with overseeing and developing. OK this is not unreasonable. I’ve suggested something similar in an earlier post. This is an example of where democratic decision-making can indeed have a role to play in the praxis of science
But note that in this case we are not voting on the validity of some scientific theory; we are voting on the competence of an individual to carry out some research programme he or she has been mandated to do.
Big difference!
Sigh. Once again LBird – of course I hold that communism would be “democratically organised”. I just don’t believe democracy can and should be extended to the origination and validation of scientific theories. Please stop mispresenting me!!!
I think you have a very muddled approach to the whole question of “social production”. The laptop on which I am writing this response is “socially produced”. The components of which it is made each entail complex production chains going back to the extraction of the raw materials from Mother Nature. Each of these production chains involve multiple stages in the process eventuating in the production of those components in question which are then assembled into the laptop I am currently using.
Now all of these production chains or sequences of stages in the manufacture of a laptop, involve directly or indirectly, millions upon millions of workers distributed right across the globe. This is what makes this laptop a product of “social(ised) production”
So then what are to make of your comment:
On my part, as I’ve said, time and time again, ALL SOCIAL PRODUCTION MUST BE DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED. It’s called ‘democratic socialism’, robbo.
Do we take it then that all those millions and millions of workers directly or indirectly involved in the social production of this laptop must , according to you, should exercise democratic control over the entire process – every aspect of it – of producing a laptop from start to finish? That is completely bonkers, LBird, and even you must surely see this. It is totally totally impractical!
So just because something is “socially produced” does NOT automatically require that the process of producing it should be “democratically control”. There are limits – both practical and theoretical – to democracy which you don’t seem to grasp at all
That does NOT mean communism/socialism will not be substantially MORE democratic than is the case today under capitalism. You seem have this very simplistic black-or-white of the world inasmuch as you seem to think that if someone questions the need for democratic decision-making in certain aspects of life this means they repudiate democratic decision-making in toto. That doesn’t follow at all!
At any rate, once again you have wriggled out of directly answering my question of whether you think “scientific theories should all be put to a vote” by asserting:
It depend whether one believes that there is any source of ‘scientific theories’ outside of a humanity which socially produces its theories, robbo.
Since scientific theories are socially produced, and I agree that they are, in that they are product of collaborative effort over time, I take it then that you DO actually literally believe scientific theories – tens of thousands of them every year – should actually be put to a vote. Since humanity as a whole is involved in the production of this knowledge, according to you, one presumes you are saying it is humanity as a whole that should be enabled to vote on these theories
Could you please now directly answer these specific questions so we know more clearly what is going on in your mind:
1) Are you definitively saying that the 8 billion people that comprise humanity should be able to vote on whether, say, the concept of “anti-matter” in astrophysics is scientifically valid?
2) How do propose to organise this global plebiscite on whether the concept of anti matter is scientific valid? What sort of resources will be required to make this happen?
3) What happens if only 0.001 percent of the global electorate bother to cast a vote? Will the vote be declared null and void?
4) What do you propose to do about all the other already established scientific theories – hundreds of thousands of them? Will they also be subjected to a global plebiscite?
5) If more people vote in favour of a particular scientific theory than against it, will the opponents of the theory be required to drop their opposition to the theory and fall in line with the majority opinion? If not what exactly is the purpose of the vote in that case? What in your words, do you hope to accomplish by holding a vote?
I would appreciate a response from you to each of these specific questions
On one side, the materialists’ individualist passive assimilation of knowledge (they play no part in creating the knowledge, and leave that to the ‘experts’), whilst on the other, the Marxists’ social active production of knowledge (they play an inescapable social role in creating the knowledge, and insist that democratic methods must be employed).
Here we go again, LBird. Have you relapsed back into your earlier way of thinking that scientific theories – tens of thousands of them – should all be subject to a vote? What precisely do you mean by “democratic methods must be employed” in the creation of knowledge?
Could you tell us once and for all whether this means “scientific theories should all be put to a vote”
I’ve tried to appeal to ‘democracy’ as grounds for discussion and reconciliation, even my joining, but the ‘materialists’ keep insisting that workers will not be allowed to democratically determine their own truth. The ‘materialists’ claim that there is a small elite, who should be allowed to get on with that scientific task, and people like you should keep their ignorant workers’ noses out of things, like physics, that don’t concern you.
LBird
Just to be clear this is NOT the position of the Socialist Party that you referring to here. The SP does NOT agree with any barriers being putting up to anyone wanting to participate in science and scientific discourse in a socialist society. YOU YOURSELF have agreed that there would be specialists in a socialist society and, by implication, you agree that there would be some people who would know a lot more about a particular subject than others. The layperson may be ignorant of the many of the things to which the specialist is privy but there will be nothing to prevent this layperson acquiring such knowledge if he or she so choses to.
As mentioned earlier, scientific specialists in one particular discipline of science would be part of the lay population as far as other scientific disciplines are concerned. Thus, there would be no “scientific elite” in this particular sociological sense. No individual can ever acquire more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge so it logically follows that, for every scientific discipline, there will necessarily be specialists and lay people.
Nor do we hold that that truth of any scientific theory should be determined by means of a vote – whether by the so called “scientific elite” or the general population. It is absurdly impractical and utterly pointless even trying to “democratically determine” such truth for reasons that have already been clear. Democracy has an important role to play in socialist society but as far as the origination of scientific theories is concerned people will be free to put forward whatever theories they want without being cowed into submission by some officially sanctioned version of The Truth
What is true for me may not be true for you. The point is to have a dialogue, not some ritualistic show of hands, if you really want to involve more people in science. This is what the SP advocates – the removal of barriers to participation and the encouragement of dialogue but without the silly pretence that we are, or ever will be, all equally knowledgeable in every branch of science
There is also this passage from Engels’ introduction to Marx’s “Class Struggles in France” which leaves us in no doubt as to the importance he attached to communist consciousness as a precondition of communist revolution:
When it gets to be a matter of the complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must participate, must understand what is at stake and why they are to act. That much the history of the last fifty years has taught us. But so that the masses may understand what is to be done, long and persistent work is required, and it is this work that we are now performing with results that drive our enemies to despair.
Hi Sympo
No I think that interpretation would be incorrect. You missed the all important qualifier “up to now” in his statement “According to Marx’s views all history up to now, in the case of big events, has come about unconsciously, that is, the events and their further consequences have not been intended”
Marx and Engels saw the communist revolution as signifying something qualitatively different compared with the past – a conscious mass movement. This is clear from this passage in the Communist Manifesto
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority
There is also that famous passage from The German Ideology:
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.
So the success of the communist cause is here dependent on the existence of mass communist consciousness. However, this passage also remind us of what might be called the double meaning of the term “revolution” as both a process and an event. Here the term suggests a process but we tend to think of it as an event – the democratic capture of political to abolish capitalism along with the state.
Both ways of looking at this term are legitimate and, in a way, complementary. Both imply the need for communist consciousness as the precondition for establishing communism
You may disagree with this, but then you have to specify who (and why) an elite should control whatever part of science you wish to preserve from democracy.
Now you are seriously misrepresenting me, L Bird. I have never said an elite would “control” any part of science whatsoever. I simply said there would be specialists in the various branches of sciences. If you say this constitutes an “elite” that’s your interpolation. What is clear is that in a society where the means of living are freely available to all and where labour is performed on a purely voluntary basis, the material basis of political power whereby any one section of society can impose its own will on another will have disappeared
Since you have now explicitly conceded there will be specialists in a socialist society then, if you call these specialists an elite, that puts you in exactly the same position as you imagine I am if you think it is a characteristic of an elite to exercise control to the exclusion of the rest of society. So you’ve boxed yourself into a corner, LBird!
Also, your notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is an ideological one, which is at odds with ‘power’ within science. The notion of ‘uncontrolled’ is used by a hidden elite, to pretend that ‘no-one’ controls social production. It’s a ruling class ideology.
You are not reading what I wrote. By “uncontrolled” I was referring to the process by which scientific theories come to the attention of the public. I hold that this should be a spontaneous process in which anyone should be able to participate – even if in practice it is likely to be the specialists who will most probably be foremost in putting forward these scientific theories because of their greater knowledge of the subject in question
What I have done is simply to reject your absurdly impractical and unnecessary idea that scientific theories (tens of thousands of them!) should be put to a vote to determine whether they are true or not. That’s just ridiculous and its the same kind of thinking that led to Lysenkoism and the suppression of dissident scientists by the authoritarian soviet state (see my previous post)
How you can possibly imagine that the spontaneous and free process by which scientific theories come to the attention of the public implies the existence of some kind of “hidden elite” I have not the foggiest idea. The very fact that it is spontaneous means it is not controlled but is rather self regulating. Democracy I have argued has a role to play in science in respect of the application of scientific theories e,g, technological innovation but emphatically NOT in the origination of these theories
If you want to impose the stipulation that scientific theories should all be subjected to a vote to determine their truth status, this will not only destroy the creative process of scientific enquiry by imposing a Lysenkoist style mass conformity on the thinking of scientists who would be fearful of questioning the “democratically” and dogmatically established TRUTH – it will almost certainly result in the rise of an authoritarian ruling class using the facade of democracy to stamp its own will on society
I’m interested in your view, even though I oppose it. I characterise your view as an ‘anti-democratic’ view of science
Just noticed this comment of yours LBird. This is misleading. It is true that I strongly believe that democracy has no place in the formulation of scientific theory as such. As I suggested above it would actually undermine the process of scientific enquiry were scientist obliged to conform to some officially sanctioned scientific explanation for the phenomena being investigated
Remember Lysenkoism? This is what becomes of wanting to “control” the production of scientific theories , democratically or otherwise:
Lysenkoism (Russian: Лысе́нковщина, tr. Lysenkovshchina) was a political campaign led by Trofim Lysenko against genetics and science-based agriculture in the mid-20th century, rejecting natural selection in favour of Lamarckism and exaggerated claims for the benefits of vernalization and grafting. In time, the term has come to be identified as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable.
More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were dismissed or imprisoned, and numerous scientists were executed in the campaign to suppress scientific opponents. The president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, who had encouraged Lysenko, was sent to prison and died there, while Soviet genetics research was effectively destroyed. Research and teaching in the fields of neurophysiology, cell biology, and many other biological disciplines were harmed or banned.
Other countries of the Eastern Bloc including Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the German Democratic Republic accepted Lysenkoism as the official “new biology”, to varying degrees, as did the People’s Republic of China for some years.
The government of the USSR supported the campaign, and Joseph Stalin personally edited a speech by Lysenko in a way that reflected his support for what would come to be known as Lysenkoism, despite his skepticism toward Lysenko’s assertion that all science is class-oriented in nature.[1] Lysenko served as the director of the Soviet Union’s Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
That said, I also clearly stated that there is a role for democracy in science – not in the process formulation of scientific theories but rather in deciding on the priorities of scientific research
These two things are quite different, LBird and I hope you can appreciate the difference
robbo, you’re arguing that “the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically“. I’m not arguing this, it’s you.
No I am not. On the contrary I made it quite clear that the process of formulating theories should be completely uncontrolled by anyone. That is, it should be spontaneous and free. As I said very clearly I don’t see any point whatsoever in voting on some theory to decide on whether it is true or not (I leave aside the question of how you organise such a vote by “society as a whole democratically”). That is what I have understood you to mean by “control” in the context of scientific theory – that a democratic vote should be taken to determine its truth status which would transform or elevate the theory into a officially sanctioned dogma which “society” (and those specialist scientists in it) would be expected to accept as The Truth.
I thought I had made it pretty clear I am opposed to “controlling” the production of scientific theories in this way. This is totally against the whole spirit of scientific enquiry. What you seem to be advocating is what the Catholic Church did to Galileo in ordering the suppression of his heliocentric view of the universe as heretical
Nor am I suggesting – as you seem to imply – that the task of formulating scientific theories should confined to the specialists in some imperative sense. On the contrary it should be open to anyone to put forward a theory. Its just that in practice most theory formulation is likely to be come from the specialists themselves for the very simple that they tend to know a lot more about the subject they are dealing with than the general public, having had the training
For some balance this is quite an interesting article too. It argues against the notion that sex (or what used to be called gender) is binary on grounds of genetics, neurobiology and endocrinology.
I am no expert on the subject but I am puzzled by the line of argument presented. Surely what above all or most completely defines a female is possession of reproductive sexual organs that enable her to bear children (irrespective of whether these organs malfunction or at not used for this purpose in the case of say a celibate nun)
The article points out that XX individuals (chromosomally female) could present with male gonads while XY individuals (chromosomally male) can have ovaries. But these are very rare exceptions to the rule that surely prove the rule. Assertions about the binary nature of sex are generalisations but you dont say a generalisation is invalid because exceptions can be found to contradict the generalisation. That’s not a reasonable argument. Its like saying we don’t live in a class divided society because some own enough capital that makes it difficult to determine whether they are workers or capitalists
The article also makes this point:
Especially alarming is that these “intellectual” assertions are used by nonscientists to claim a scientific basis for the dehumanization of trans people. The real world consequences are stacking up: the trans military ban, bathroom bills, and removal of workplace and medical discrimination protections, a 41-51 percent suicide attempt rate and targeted fatal violence . It’s not just internet trolling anymore.
I frankly fail to see how describing biological sex differentiation in broadly binary terms leads to the “dehumanisation of trans people”. This is the sort of woolly minded PC nonsense we have had to put with over at the Ultras v Tankies FB group. Human beings are not defined by their sexuality. Their sexuality is but one component part of their self identity, not the whole of it. And nobody is denying transpeople – or at least I am not – their right to express their sexuality as trans people
It is totally possible to see transgenderism as an essentially social construct while at the same time being vigorously opposed to the expression of transphobic prejudices directed against such people. Human beings are social animals and the emergence of a social construct like transgenderism in no way diminishes our humanity
LBird
Ok so you’ve come out and said it clearly – there will be specialists in a socialist society
Good
So on to the next step. You say:
If you argue ‘the specialists themselves should control the social theory and practice of the specialists, not society as a whole democratically‘, that’s fine, it’s a political and philosophical position which I don’t share.
Lets look at this
firstly I don’t really know what you are getting at when you say this. What do you mean by “control”? Theorizing a creative spontaneous process. Trying to control it as the Church did with Galileo – to give my example – is completely antithetical to the very spirit of scientific enquiry which must be open-ended and self critical. You cant have some official dogma being imposed from above to which the scientists are expected to dutifully conform. That’s surely not what you are suggesting is it?
Secondly, since you now clearly agree that there will be a specialists in a socialist society then I assume you agree with the logically corollary of this which is that specialists are privy to information, theories or ideas which are not generally known to the general public. They wouldn’t be specialists otherwise
Now since by definition the general public is not familiar with the substance of these theories known only to the specialists how on earth do you suppose they – the general public – can make a democratic decision as to whether these theories are “true” or not. The idea is ludicrous on many grounds. Democracy depends on information. You cant vote for something unless you know what it is you are actually voting for
See, when you say the theories of the specialists should be “democratically controlled” by society as a whole this sounds very much like you are saying that society as a whole will consider each of these theories in turn and adjudicate on them – determine whether they are true or not. Amongst other things that’s just not possible if you as a lay person are completely unfamiliar with what it is the specialists are talking about
Perhaps what you mean is that society as a whole should “democratically control” the priorities or direction of scientific research – not the actual substance of the theories the scientists come out with. For instance more emphasis should be placed on tackling climate change than space travel
If so, then that is a much more reasonable argument to make but the way you construct your argument makes it very difficult to know what it is you are actually saying. Perhaps you need to clarify this. Do you mean simply that the general public in socialism democratically controls the broad direction in which scientific research is headed rather than the substantive content of scientific theorising??
When it comes to sex/gender i always felt an affinity with Marge Pierce’s book, ‘Woman on the Edge of Time’ where differences are so blurred that sexual identity became an irrelevance. Isn’t socialism ultimately about unisex?
Alan
I am not quite sure what you have in mind by this last comment. I cant honestly see sexual identity ever becoming an irrelevance. It is so closely bound up with our own sense of ourselves. We are biological beings as well as social beings and, as such, are subject to biological urges that push us in some directions rather than others albeit mediated as ever by social context. For the majority of us, we do tend to discriminate as to whom we find sexually attractive which then shapes our own sense of sexual identity in particular ways
For me transgenderism is a social construct – which doesn’t make it any the less valid. It is only in the very basic biological sense that transwomen cannot be considered women because they lack the reproductive organs that define a woman and enable her to bear children. This is hardly controversial and no trans-woman would disagree with this statement. Controversy only arises in the context of particular situations such as the examples we have already referred to like sporting events , the use of public toilets, prisons and the behaviour of prison inmates etc etc, It is in these particular situations that I think there is some reason to be concerned as the links Jordan has supplied demonstrate
In general though I think this whole issue has been blown way out of proportion and is a fuss about nothing really – or, at any rate, is just fuss over the meaning of words. Like I said the word “gender”, a few decades ago meant something quite different to what it means today and if you are going to define gender as a social construct as tends to be the case today then there is little argument that the “gender£ of a transwoman is a woman. On the other hand if you define gender as it used to be defined as a biological construct – so only females can bear children, males cant – then a transwoman clearly is not a woman
Pick your own definition and run with it
There is quite a useful explanation here which puts the matter in context and addresses the question of what might be called exceptions to the rule
https://web.stanford.edu/~eckert/PDF/Chap1.pdf
But while we think of sex as biological and
gender as social, this distinction is not clear-cut. People tend to think of gender as the result of nurture – as social and hence fluid – while sex is the result of nature, simply given by biology. However, nature and nurture intertwine, and there is no obvious point at which sex leaves off and gender begins. But the sharp demarcation fails because there is no single objective biological criterion for male or female sex. Sex is based in a combination of anatomical, endocrinal and chromosomal features, and the selection among these criteria for sex assignment is based very much on cultural beliefs about what actually makes someone male or female. Thus the very definition of the biological categories male and female, and people’s understanding of themselves and others as male or female, is ultimately social. Anne Fausto-Sterling (2000) sums
up the situation as follows:labeling someone a man or a woman is a social decision. We may use scientific knowledge to help us make the decision, but only our beliefs about gender – not science – can define our sex.
Furthermore, our beliefs about gender affect what kinds of knowledge scientists produce about sex in the first place. (p. 3)Biology offers up dichotomous male and female prototypes, but it also offers us many individuals who do not fit those prototypes in a variety of ways. Blackless et al. (2000) estimate that 1 in 100 babies are born with bodies that differ in some way from standard male or female.
These bodies may have such conditions as unusual chromosomal makeup (e.g., 1 in 1,000 male babies are born with two X chromosomes as well as a Y, hormonal differences such as insensitivity to androgens (1 in 13,000 births), or a range of configurations and combinations of genitals and reproductive organs. The attribution of intersex does not end at birth – for example, 1 in 66 girls experience growth of the clitoris in childhood or adolescence (known as late onset adrenal hyperplasia)Well, I’ve never ‘tried to get around this point’, robbo!
My whole point is that it’s a political and philosophical stance that I don’t share, and that I argue Marx didn’t, either.
Your political and philosophical ideology separates society into two (‘specialists’ and ‘us’), and takes present social production (‘they have’ and ‘we don’t’) as eternal.So are you now backtracking on your earlier position when you seemed to agree there would indeed be specialists in a socialist society in the sense of individuals who have undergone intensive training over a long period of time to equip them with the particular skills required to accomplish certain very complex tasks?
Take for example a neurosurgeon. If you are saying there will be no specialists in a socialist society then presumably you mean
1) there will be no neurosurgeons in socialism – a very bad idea particularly for people in need of neurosurgery!
or
2) We will all be neurosurgeons – also a very bad idea for reasons that are all too obvious
I frankly don’t care what Marx had to say on the subject. Some of his observations relating to the emergence of the “polytechnic worker” able to perform any task society required was complete baloney. You cannot operate a large scale complex modern society without some degree of specialisation, some division of labour. The difference in socialism is that 1) it wont be a coerced division of labour and 2) it will be less well defined in the sense that everyone, specialists included , will be able to undertake a greater variety of jobs. That is to say there will be a greater tendency towards generalist work – work that anybody can do
So, if you argue that ‘theories’ will not be subject to democratic controls, you must specify to whose control they will be subject. This is a political (and thus philosophical) question.
Why does the formulation of theories have to be “controlled” in the first place??? Whats with this control freakery? Why cannot people just contribute spontaneously and freely to scientific discourse as and when their thought processes dictate and voluntarily engage with their peers as and when they see fit? Why should this be seen as a problem? Subjecting these thought processes to any control let alone democratic control will kill off scientific curiosity and scientific theorising. Its what the Catholic Church did to Galileo. Is this what you want?
Ironically, robbo, I see this as an argument for the democratisation of science.There are, even at present, no ‘specialists’ who can out-think the rest of society. This will be even more the case in the future.
No, you are missing the point. The rest of society does not know about neurosurgery than the the community of neurosurgeons themselves. I wouldn’t know where to begin if I were given a scalpel and confronted with someone’s exposed brain. Nor would you. Nor would 99.99% of the population. We have no choice but to put our fate in the hands of specialists like neurosurgeons if we need a brain tumour removed.
My point is that the neurosurgeons, though being specialists in their own field , are complete lay people like the rest of us when it comes to some other field or scientific discipline. They would be just as incapable of deciding whether the theory of anti-matter in astrophysics was true or not as the rest of us. No one individual can know more than a tiny fraction of the sum total of human knowledge and yet you are expecting everyone in society to pronounce in the virtues of every scientific theory that arises in society and put it to a vote.
This is simply no possible by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is it needed. Democracy has a role in the practical application of scientific theory in the form of technological innovation but emphatically not in the formulation of scientific theories themselves
Any knowledge of the history and social importance of ‘science’ makes me wonder how you can assume those three beliefs: ‘practice’ (no, it’s a ‘theory and practice’), ‘obscure’ (no, this is a conscious product of bourgeois science, to hide it from the majority), and ‘no practical impact’ (no, the impact on society of science is enormously important).
LBird
I didn’t suggest the impact of science on society was not enormously important. That’s not my argument. Scientific research for example leads to technological innovations which often have significant practical impacts on society – which impacts, I agree, should be subject to some measure of democratic control
But we are not talking the application or implementation of such innovations, we are talking solely about the development of scientific theories themselves which you want to subject to democratic control. I would argue this is neither desirable – it would inhibit scientific enquiry and investigation as well as serve no purpose – nor is it remotely practical. How can 8 billion people vote on some arcane theory such the concept of anti- matter when the overwhelmingly majority of us know little or nothing about this concept? How do you even go about organising such a global plebiscite anyway for this and thousands and thousands of other scientific theories anyway
You say
I would regard Marx’s ‘revolutionary science’ as a fundamental part of democratic socialism, the theory and practice of which would be taught through a democratic education system, to enable all to understand and participate in this ‘science’.
I am not opposed to the idea of a broad brush approach to raising people’s interest in science and encouraging them to become more scientific literate but at the end of the day its still going to be the specialists who are going to be, perforce, the ones who will be involved in expanding the frontiers of science, rather than us, if only because they have the necessary expertise and training to do so in their specialized field of science and we don’t. There is no getting around this point however much you try to, LBird
For the general population, and even the scientists themselves, large chunks of science will inevitably remain obscure if only because the whole body of scientific knowledge has grown so huge and complex that no one individual is capable of absorbing anything more than a tiny fraction of it.
