Wez
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
‘But, to return to the subject of the thread, what is the evidence that current medical practice is not appropriate to deal with the pandemic? It’s not the bogey of “capitalist medicine” which once got a mention here before being slapped down, is it?’
ALB – At the risk of repeating myself I’m only trying to explain why some are dubious and even suspicious about the vaccines. As for my sympathy for a ‘notorious critic of science’ all I can say is that his work is quoted in many serious philosophical studies of science and he has mainly been branded as notorious by those who fear any alternative to their faith systems. Don’t forget that many on the Left regard us as notorious renegades but that doesn’t make them correct does it? I recommend you read some of his work and make up your own mind.
ALB – What do you think of the use of science in the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, psychology etc.? None of them seem favourable to socialism as far as I know.
Don’t know where my last post went so I’ll repeat it:
MN – Absolutely.
Alan – You know, as well as I, that ‘common sense’ arguments tend to legitimize prejudice and ideological conditioning. Many would regard it as common sense that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder or that slapping a child provides it with a moral compass. Indeed most would say that the case for socialism was against all common sense.MN – Absolutely.
Alan – You know, as well as I, that common sense arguments tend to legitimize prejudice and ideological conditioning. For instance the idea that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder or that slapping children provides them with a moral compass. Most people would regard the case for socialism as ‘against all common sense’.‘Someone here expressed sympathy for this sophism and had to be called out.’
ALB – Blimey – I hope you don’t mean me! I’m simply calling for the same skepticism in this matter as we use in all of our analysis. ‘Science’ is not what most people think it is and contains a great deal of ‘speculation’.
Alan – preserve us from ‘common sense’ since this is usually just another word for ignorance.
MS – This debate is about ‘coronavirus’ and about the reason why many are distrustful of their governments and their experts when it comes to information about the virus. Governments have lied so often in the past that people are rightly very skeptical about what they are told. For us this is both a good and bad thing – good in that people are no longer prepared to swallow any propaganda that comes from their governments and bad in that it creates conspiracy theories that lead to movements like QAnon and anti-vaxxers etc.‘In any event, philosophers have nothing useful to say about the coronavirus vaccines and their efficacy.’
Would it be ‘true’ to say that, for you ALB, philosophers have nothing useful to say about anything?
He most definitely was not an ‘anti-science philosopher’ – talk about tabloid journalism. What he was against was all the hype and myth that surrounds science notably the idea that there is a universal ‘method’ that, like a magic spell, can be used to discover truth.
‘A community of philosophers’ is rather like the concept of ‘herding cats’. I had been reading a lot about the philosophy of science and then I came across Feyerabend and the subject changed for me entirely.
‘If there are any specific philosophical criticisms of science that Wez would like to raise I’d be interested to hear them.’
Are you familiar with Paul Feyerabend’s philosophical work? The above quote is from a Wikipedian summary of his perspective. Of all of the philosophers of science he is the most challenging. His book ‘Against Method’ is thought provoking and provocative and I highly recommend it. I don’t agree with everything in it but I do like his iconoclastic destruction of some of the myths that surround the discipline of science.
TM – I must admit that comrade Shannon’s style is rather combative and perhaps this has influenced my responses to him. I call for a truce.
‘I’m surprised by your naïve belief in the ‘international scientific community’ which you seem to have elevated into a religion.’
How is that an insult? It is an impression. I found this quote which summarizes some of the ideas of Paul Feyerabend who I admire as a philosopher of science:
‘ Feyerabend challenges what he sees in his view as some modern myths about science, e.g., he believes that the statement ‘science is successful’ is a myth. He argues that some very basic assumptions about science are simply false and that substantial parts of scientific ideology were created on the basis of superficial generalizations that led to absurd misconceptions about the nature of human life. He claims that far from solving the pressing problems of our age, scientific theorizing glorifies ephemeral generalities at the cost of confronting the real particulars that make life meaningful.’I simply urge us not to put aside our usual skepticism for this particular issue. Again I’m surprised by your naïve belief in the ‘international scientific community’ which you seem to have elevated into a religion. Do you really believe that scientists are not subject to the same ideological and financial pressures as the rest of us? Most do not get their information from such rarified scientific sources. You almost seem to be stating that science is perfect and exists outside of the capitalist context – well that’s ok then, we’ll leave the revolution to them. I admire science as much as you do and I’m no antivaxer but experience tells me we should always be skeptical in all areas of information within this political context and science is no exception. Our case depends on a critical assessment of everything and anything in the knowledge that the profit motive always lurks somewhere in the background. I hope you will respond to this in a comradely way and do not insult me again.
‘that capitalism was a progressive social system’
I can agree with that if you emphasise the word ‘was’ – it certainly isn’t today.
‘I’m against truculent denigrations and blanket dismissals.’
How can you possibly characterise my position like that? I simply asked you if you denied the existence of a scientific establishment and if you trusted information within a capitalist context. Who am I denigrating or dismissing? I think it is very dangerous for us to suddenly put aside our skepticism. It wasn’t that long ago that scientists were assuring us that ‘mad cow disease’ could not be passed on to humans.
‘So science = establishment does it?
And capitalism corrupts everything, does it?’
Of course – hasn’t that been our case for 100 years? ‘Nuanced analysis’ is an argument our opponents have always used against, for instance, our view of the class struggle. Do you deny the existence of a scientific establishment or that capitalism effects all aspects of life? I don’t doubt that great scientific work is being done but often this is despite capitalism rather than because of it. Would you say that our sources of information are always reliable within a capitalist context?
