Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Further from, the ICSU:
Quote:Science is the attainment of knowledge through research — the systematic exploration and explanation of the unknown. The scientific process is based on the formulation and testing of hypotheses by the generation of verifiable evidence from observations and experiment s.Now, there is nothing thee that I think LBird can dispute (or indeed has disputed) as the definition of science. The question seems to be what is "systematic" and where do the hypotheses come from?On the question of the relation of consciousness to data. ISTR a, funnily enough, empirical proof that we live ina world constructed by our minds. Apparently (I think I read this in Pannekoek's Anthropogenesis) the strength of light from a distant star striking our retinas is less than the energy is takes to transmit the energy to our brain down our nerves (much less to process the data and create an 'image' in our minds). This means our bodies and our brains are putting nergy, and structure and ifnormation into the system, we construct our data as much, if not more, than we passively receive it. If this is true in daily life, it is true in science.Now, we, as human beings, are pretty much biologically identical, but the brain, like a muscle, can be trained and developed in particular strengths, and will gain habits of thought and connecting ideas.
Just loking at an ISCU publication, on the principle of Universality (one of their key principles) I found this quote:
Quote:Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right s states that, ‘everyone has the right to…share in scientific advancement and its benefits.’ Access to scientific data, information and research materials is essential for scientist s and for those wishing to benefit from the products of science. This is acknowledged in recent UNESCO and OECD guidelines on access to information and data.In practice, there are many obstacles to providing universal and equitable access to these fundamental building block s of science. These may be technical, such as poor internet access for on-line resources; financial, such a s charges for scientific journals; or security-related, such as access to certain categories of equipment or materials. In some instances the obstacles are the result of the behaviour of the scientific community it self and it s reluctance to share data and materials. Comprehensive solutions are needed to address all these issues, and developing such solutions is a long term process involving many stakeholders and interests. At the level of individual scientist s, when discrimination is preventing access, it is a clear breach of the Principle of Universality and appropriate interventions, on a case-by-case basis, can be effective.As they also note, some of those obstacles are commercial. This illustrates the case that socialism can benefit science, by removing the barriers of national and commercial competition, and creating a space where we can realise the true benefits of scientific co-operation. http://www.icsu.org/publications/cfrs/freedom-responsibility-booklet/ICSU-CFRS-booklet.pdf
OK, more entertaining.Socialism, as we understand it is the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments of producing and distributing wealth by, and in the interests of, the whole community.People would work according to their own self-defined abilities, and take according to their self defined needs. It would be, necessarilly, a free association of producers.So, in order to fulfil these requirements, there must be freedom of expression and conscience and freedom of association. Minorities must have the opportunity to try and become majorities: a vote is not the end but the continuation of an argument.Say, if a group wanted to re-form the Flat Easrth society, then the socialist commonwealth would have to allow them the resources and opportunities to put their case. It would be expected that internally the New Flat Earth Society would be democratic and open (possibly as a condition for being recognised and having access to offices, and sundry bits of equipment to allow them to keepo running, porobably communesurate with their size). The majority would be under no obligation to put the views of the NFES to a vote, but they would have the opportunity to state their case.Likewise the 10,000 Hours of Planetology Research Society:(Membership restricted to those who could demonstrate 10,000 hours of research and study in the field of planetology). Again, it would be run democratically by it's members (and may actually be smaller than the NFES).Now, there would be rare large scale Equipment Providers, much like the CERN Accelerator, The Planetary Satelite Network, and Radio Telescopes (and also smaller chemistry labs) etc. Now, just as people will have to prove they can dive, in socialism, before they can work as a Deep Sea Diver on the Oil Rigs, so too will the (lets call them universities) place rational restrictions on the use of scarce and delicate equipment. We could speculate that 'bids' to perform research would be submitted, with recommendations by societies and known experts. Maybe something like the Gale Shapley Stable Matching Algorithm might be used to score the applications to play with the toys. Maybe Juries of non-experts would assess the bids, in the light of evidence.Plans for new such researches would have to be published, debated and developed, and incorporated into whatever production plans we make for production, in order to build such massive and complex research projects. Much as we assume the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) would provide some sort of worldwide co-ordinate for agriculture and agricultural expertise, so a worldwide physics, chemistry and general science council would be needed to co-ordinate and advise. Maybe suceeding from the ICSU (International Council for Science and Understanding ) that currently exists.In any case, in a public discussion, people would pay more heed to the 10,000 Hours of Planetology Research Society than the NFES (possibly).In this story, there is no need for a vote to settle whether the world is round or flat. The NFES would be free to continue its researches, and to be resourced from the common stores. They could even sail to antatctica looking to the Ice Wall around the Earth, if they want.
Oh, quick post on social production of knowledge. This podcast from The bbc is useful: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/maths/maths_20100929-2330a.mp3
Quote:06 The Mathematicians who helped EinsteinWed, 29 Sep 10Duration:14 mins Seeing in four dimensions. Professor Marcus du Sautoy on the pioneers who pushed mathematics into new dimensions and the strange new geometries they created. Emeritus Professor Roger Penrose confirms that even Einstein sometimes struggled with his maths.As it notes, Gauss Riemann and several others thought of Non-euclidean geometry at the same time, and without their maths (their concepts) Einstein could not and modelled relativity.
1) I simply note where I mentioned the etymological meaning of "truth" as "loyal", thus truth is simply a denotative statement loyal/correct/corresponding with the observable data. I have also said that all denotative utterances are performative (and contested/contestable).2) Rocks cannot speak, but there is much we cannot say about them, even in their muteness. We cannot say they do not have density, mass or three dimensions. If a rock is grey, we cannot say that it is yellow. We can refine that colour denotation by instead of saying "grey" saying that the rock reflects light waves of XX herz. Once measured, we cannot say that the rock has a resistance of X if the measurements say Y. Yes, density, mass and dimensions are concepts, but they are concepts that have been debated, defined and refined through an endless process of speech acts. The rules of the language game of science are stricter than the language game of an argument down the pub.3) Socialism is not an ideology. The idea that ideology is the one true universal truth (which seems to be the premise of Lbirds position) is itself an ideological act. By this idea ideology stops being the means by which the ruling class ideas are dominant (note, not only and not uncontested) ideas and becomes an inhrent trait of human society. This was a popular dodge by Leninists, such as Althusser, as it justified dictatorship to giude the unconscious masses who could not free themselves from ideology (some of them ended up returning to Heelian idealism since history becomes the history of ideology, not lived human exprience). If we think of ideology as the process by which we mis-recognise ourselves, or dissociate ourselves from our lived experience, then it's opposite is when our conscious being is in accord with our livde experience, i.e. our consciousness is true to our lived experience.4) The religious are much more likely to win any scientific votes.More entertaining post later.
Final wee point, then AFK for the rest of the day. I'd argue that socialism is not an ideology. I'd suggest that socialism is the truth, based on a clear and accurate apprehension fo the world, and that ideology is the process of mystifications and obfuscation of the world as it lies.
Oh, and Weltanschauung:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_viewI prefer the German original because 'World view" doesn't quite capture the whole of the concept.
I asked how LBird was defining ideology, because it was a key part pemises of the proposition they were putting forward, and I'm aware from previous conversations elseplace, that if you don't tighten up on the meaning of 'ideology' a lot of time and effort can be wasted.A quick story about ideology: I was chatting with a rep. from a French book firm, Aux Amatuers des Livres I pointed out to her that 'The Book Amateurs' would be a bit of an off putting name in English, and she looked surprised: "Don't you have things like Wine Amateurs in England?" she asked, and, indeed we don't. Amateur is almost exclusively a perjorative term in English, the antonym of professional. Indeed, the Latin root is someone doing something for the love of it. Now, the word has evolved, I'd suspect mostly through sport, and th whole "Gentlemen v. players" thing where amatuerism was associated with class, and aristocracy, with the working class professionals being looked down on. It's last positive refuge is in the amateur detective, but only because of Sherlock Holmes.Now, this perjorative sense fits into a complex of pressupositions, predispositions and ideas, but I wouldn't call those ideology. I would call the class dynamic that created those sets of ideas ideology, the process of makign the ideas of the ruling class the dominant ideas, but not the ideas themselves.Just back to linguistic register. Latin was once a hugely progressive force, it enabled scholarship across national linguistic barriers, the role now played by English. It wasn't the rarified language of academia that kept working class kids out, it was the economic basi of the system whereby they wouldn't even get an education in the first place. For science to remain international, it has to use language differently than everyday meanings.
Unless you define which of the six or seven meanings of ideology you mean, I can't answer your question. In your statements above you use it in ways which could imply two distinct meanings(a system of ideas or a weltangschauung). All I can say is that all Yorkshiremen are liars.
My peers depend on who and where and when I am. They are the people I can communicate with directly and indirectly. By co-operation I mean co-operation, and its conditions will differ based on the mode of production and the exigencies of the society I inhabit.I don't know what you mean by ideology, I suspect we disagree in our definition of it, and thus I cannot answer that question.
LBird wrote:FFS, 'who' determines, and 'how', the human judgement of 'reliable'?What's the matter with your ability to read, YMS? I've been asking this for a year now, and you won't answer.I don't recall seeing that question before.We come back to the key point that it is knowledge generated with others in mind, not for myself. There is not one way of defining reliable: history of success, evidence opf the process used to gain the knowledge, reputation of the producer, etc. are all factors that a rational agent would bear in mind. Of course, that means that we are constantly refining the means by which we communicate reliability and deepening shared knowledge. We all have to make up our own minds, in co-operation with our peers.
DJP wrote:The trouble is there is no singular "science" or "scientific method".Exactly, there is whatever works to produce and corroborate knowledge, reliable knowledge.
LBird wrote:Marx claims that science lies in the interaction between 'data' and 'discourse'.Unclipped sentence wrote:Science doesn't lie in the data, but in the discourse between scientists, as they try and extend their sense perceptions (and their understanding of these perceptions).the two above sentences are identical. Once again, we see Marx agrees with me. We bring scince back to sensuous human behaviour, real people in action, because their knowledge exists for me, and my knwoledge exists for them as well.
SP,Mathematicians disagree strongly about what cannot be proved, but once something is proven, it stays proven: the proof of an infinite number of primes remains true. DJP correctly spotted my naughtiness in introducing truth in a deductive sense when what we're talking about natural sciences we're talking about inductive proof, which is prone to Hume's Black Swan.Anyway, back to socialism. Whilst I think Rovelli's almost Holmesian notion of expanding on what is theoretically established is interesting, he notes otehrs are trying different routes. This is fine, because there is no one scientific method. If we get to our materialist roots, we come back to science being reliable organised knowledge.Reliable brings up a number of features. It means that knowledge is confirmed by the senses and ideas of other people. Science doesn't lie in the data, but in the discourse between scientists, as they try and extend their sense perceptions (and their understanding of these perceptions).People who talk to each other a lot, and who share a detailed common understanding will naturally develop an efficiency in communication, a jargon, because to not do so would be cumbersome. Why use three words when a single made up word (neologism) will do the job just as nicely. Of course, translating between these registers is a skill additional to the basic skill set of a scientific practitioner.
