Is science the only liberating force?

[Beeth]

Religion and arts are escapes from reality, whereas philosophy twists and distorts reality. Science alone considers reality as it is, which is perhaps why there has been real, tangible progress - curing diseases, making machines to simplify labor, and much more.

Is science therefore the only liberating force?

[roy]

science isn't always liberating. people have used science to do and justify absolutely atrocious things. anything can be used for or against 'liberation'.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Religion and arts are escapes from reality, what
whereas philosophy twists and distorts reality. what

[Beeth]

science isn't always liberating. people have used science to do and justify absolutely atrocious things. anything can be used for or against 'liberation'.

I am not talking about that. I am just saying by its nature science liberates because it gives humanity real benefit in the form of medicine, food, machines, clothing, shelter etc. real, tangible, measurable progress, unlike religion or art where everything revolves around a subjective, feel-good factor.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Religion and arts are escapes from reality, whereas philosophy twists and distorts reality. Science alone considers reality as it is, which is perhaps why there has been real, tangible progress - curing diseases, making machines to simplify labor, and much more.

Is science therefore the only liberating force?

I don't understand. You talk of 'liberating force' in a philosophical context yet criticise philosophy within said context.

Science is simply logic, interpretation, explanation and proof. It can be, and is, applied to almost anything that is not in direct opposition to one of these four acts.

[black magick hustla]

well science is a very complicated thing, is more akin to a community and culture than a way of doing things and it's effect on humanity is complicated. In the west, people who were "scientfically minded" were more or less more progressive than lets say, the assholes in the Church. After all it was the people who drafted the encyclopedia the same people that were down to making the heads of kings roll. But also a lot of bad things have been done by "science". 19th century enslavement of virtually most corners of the earth by european capital was sanctioned by "science". However, virtually all the revolutionaries, up to the mid 20th century were more or less "scientifically inclined" and many scientists were inclined to progressive causes. It made a lot of sense because in the minds of a lot of people, science could be used to dispel the "deadweight of past generations" like superstition, that were used by the ruling class to weight down the underclasses. I would say that in periods of heightened struggle, science is factionalized, and there are some aspects of it that become revolutionary etc.

[cynicles]

Science relies on philosophy, I'm not sure the op knows what philosophy actually is.

[Thirsty Crow]

Religion and arts are escapes from reality, whereas philosophy twists and distorts reality. Science alone considers reality as it is, which is perhaps why there has been real, tangible progress - curing diseases, making machines to simplify labor, and much more.

Is science therefore the only liberating force?
I don't think it's so useful to reduce religion and art to escape from reality.
For instance, religion and religious practice might be a way of socializing - bringing members of a community together (especially when coupled with charity work which by itself is not religious inherently). Also, art can also exhibit a special epistemological funcition - for instance, the 19th ct. realist novel.

And science is not a liberating force by itself. It needs the global working class in order to become just that, and in fact, this class is the most potent (in its potential, not in actuality!) liberating force.

[Mr. Natural]

Beeth, Science and philosophy are a natural unity. One informs the other. Science provides the "facts" that philosophy interprets.

Marx was a scientific philosopher who emphasized material relations and organization and looked toward the creation of a scientific socialism. Here he is in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts: "Natural science will in time subsume under itself the science of man, just as the science of man will subsume under itself natural science: there will be one science."

Here is Engels at Marx's funeral. "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx discovered the law of development of human history ..." And: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force."

A most worthwhile book is Helena Sheehan's Marxism and the Philosophy of Science (1985).

IMO, attempts to divorce science and philosophy are as bankrupt as efforts to split Engels from Marx.

My red-green best.

[Rafiq]

Morever, even more ridiculous is to pressupose that a "Liberating force" which manifests itself into a mode of thought even exists.

But in regards to the arts and religion, it's exactly the opposite. They do not exist "escaping reality", rather, they are shaped by existing reality, they are reflections of what we call "reality".

[#FF0000]

I like what William Gibson said about science being the big 'liberating force' but being 'aimed' by ideology, you know?

[Ocean Seal]

No, science is not liberating because you cannot consider reality for what it really is without delving into the realm of philosophy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Morever, even more ridiculous is to pressupose that a "Liberating force" which manifests itself into a mode of thought even exists.

But in regards to the arts and religion, it's exactly the opposite. They do not exist "escaping reality", rather, they are shaped by existing reality, they are reflections of what we call "reality".
Again, yours is only a diametrical reversal of the one sided, and very flawed, notion of the person you are arguing against.
Tell me, how are atonal classical music, Kafka's novels, jazz, and detective fiction, all of these, reflections of existing reality?

The answer is easy to anticipate: complex social reality gives birth to different reflections.
And that is, by itself, true, but that is a banality and misses out on what constitutes art as art, the ways it is a specific practice in human society. The theory of reflection is rather a very poor collection of tautologies and ambiguities, not because it is wrong in most of its assertions, but because it rests on shaky, at best, philosophical assumptions.

And again, this simple and innocent notion can't account for the differences and specificities, and functions as an overriding construct which doesn't permit more appropriate procedures of investigation. The easiest thing is to say that, ultimately, everything is shaped by existing reality; too bad that doesn't tell us almost anything about concrete stuff.

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree that art is dependent on its social context - both the social context of the author and receiver, irrespective of the historical period of the receiver and its difference from the author's.
Art doesn't exist in a vacuum, a product of pure imagination or what have you.

But again, this doesn't mean that works of art are unmediated, direct, ultimately innocent results of the existing reality. That's the point, to examine this mediation and its effects and results.

And you miss the point by arguing that art cannot constitute a form of "escape". It can and it did/does, be it from the perspective of the structural properties of the work itself, or the perspective of the reader (reader response). And that's not all, of course. The real effect and practice is more complex than that.


No, science is not liberating because you cannot consider reality for what it really is without delving into the realm of philosophy.
Which aspect of "reality" science can't account for? Why is philosophy, as an inherently speculative discourse and practice suited better for it?

[Ocean Seal]

[QUOTE=Menocchio;2502329
Which aspect of "reality" science can't account for? Why is philosophy, as an inherently speculative discourse and practice suited better for it?[/QUOTE]
The aspect that changes "reality" to reality. The notion of reality must be defined in at least some kind of idealist fashion, also the notion that science is "liberating" is not an argument founded in science, but rather philosophy of science.

[Beeth]

Consider the last 500 years. Consider the achievements of science during those years and contrast them with those of non-scientific fields, such as religion. That's the answer.:)

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

"Free your mind!" "The truth sets you free!" all words you have to look out for, esoteric fascist lure. Regarding the question; yes, "science" can be a force to make workers class conscious... to liberate themselves.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Religion and arts are escapes from reality, whereas philosophy twists and distorts reality. Science alone considers reality as it is, which is perhaps why there has been real, tangible progress - curing diseases, making machines to simplify labor, and much more.

Is science therefore the only liberating force?

The issue of science in capitalism is an interesting one in my opinion. First, as Menocchio said, I think it's workers who are the only real liberating force who can not only liberate themselves but can also liberate science itself from the shackles of the capitalist organization and application of science.

This is because science has a contradictory role in capitalism. On the one hand, in order to make profits there needs to be a certain level of specificness and accurateness in science. As William Blake suggested in some of his poems (as my sly rebuttal to your argument about art:p) in capitalism, science is used to dissect: to break apart the world and help our rulers separate it out into all it's useful (profitable) bits.

The contradictory part comes in at least two related ways as I can see it:

1) While advancing science capitalism narrows the focus of scientific research away from "discovery for the sake of knowledge or usefulness" to science that advances capitalist aims even when that also means hindering science. For example all the research and development into Viagra-type products vs. less profitable but more urgent issues; medical and technological patents and copyright (i.e. private ownership by large corporate institutions) preventing other people from advancing on the work previously done by others; the internet is another example, we can share information more easily and freely but are prevented for doing so this to it's full potential not by limited technology or science but by the relations in society.

2) So capitalists need science to be 100% accurate in order to create better methods of production and distribution and new ways to extract resources and so on. However, science and the scientific method are also a threat to minority class rule because of it's objective nature constantly exposes the lies and myths of capitalist ideological constructions. So as much as science reveals objective truths about the world, the focus of science can still be ideologically entangled both at the level of assumptions of researchers and professors and through more direct meddling like the Koch brothers making money on oil and funding anti-climate change research. Scientists themselves might have the best intentions, but if they want to research genetics they are going to find more support and funding by some pseudo-science "search for the laziness/alcoholism gene" than from just doing pure research.

Typically, the further away from applied sciences that are more mechanical in nature, the more ideological tinting comes into play. So "soft-sciences" are often much more entangled with ruling class ideas. Even things like anthropology is funded often with an ideological bent to show how war or competition or other negative aspects of our system are "natural".

Marx talks about how the rise of new class systems of relations initially can advance things in society, but then these relations, once entrenched, then act as a fetter of further developments. I think these contradictions above are examples of this.

The working class as an oppressed class however needs and can use objective information to arm itself. As the rulers of society, workers would also have less need to control science because working class interests (as a majority class as a class that doesn't need to oppress subordinate classes to enrich itself) are straight forward and do not need elaborate justifications like the capitalists use "nature" and the feudal system used "divine will" to justify inequality and exploitation. Further as a non-exploiting ruling class workers (and then even moreso as classes are organically "withered away") can have a more "universal" view of the world since their interests are not separate and opposing to anyone else (other than initially the deposed ruling class and their supporters). So in this way, I think class-liberation will end up also liberating science as well as history and art and literature from ideological entanglements.

[Thirsty Crow]

The aspect that changes "reality" to reality. The notion of reality must be defined in at least some kind of idealist fashion, also the notion that science is "liberating" is not an argument founded in science, but rather philosophy of science.
You're not making any sense whatsoever. I don't know what this "aspect that changes 'reality' to reality" is. No wonder as philosophy is little more than a specific manipulation of language.

Also, the assertion that the notion of reality must be defined in at least some kind of idealist fashion is laughable, and of course, it is not backed by either evidence or rational argument.

[black magick hustla]

The aspect that changes "reality" to reality. The notion of reality must be defined in at least some kind of idealist fashion, also the notion that science is "liberating" is not an argument founded in science, but rather philosophy of science.

that is not how words are used. people understand adjectives like "real" or nouns like "reality" without having to extrapolate them from their context and muse about it.

[Luís Henrique]

Religion and arts are escapes from reality, whereas philosophy twists and distorts reality. Science alone considers reality as it is, which is perhaps why there has been real, tangible progress - curing diseases, making machines to simplify labor, and much more.

Is science therefore the only liberating force?

Nope... the only liberating force is proletarian organisation to uproot capitalism.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

that is not how words are used. people understand adjectives like "real" or nouns like "reality" without having to extrapolate them from their context and muse about it.

This.

...if they are not stuck into some debased "philosophy of language" that attributes a "real" non-distorted meaning to words, contrary to what happens in actual conversation.

Like:



You must be kidding...

(and I don't mean that you are under some compulsion, urgency, requirement, or imperativeness to make a joke - nor do I think I am making a non-sence sentence in any way...)


Actually, in normal conversation that's what "must be kidding" would mean.:rolleyes:

Luís Henrique

[roy]

I am not talking about that. I am just saying by its nature science liberates because it gives humanity real benefit in the form of medicine, food, machines, clothing, shelter etc. real, tangible, measurable progress, unlike religion or art where everything revolves around a subjective, feel-good factor.

i know what you mean, but science doesn't only enable us to have these things you've mentioned. i don't think chemical warfare is terribly liberating, for instance. and if 'feeling good' isn't liberating i don't know what is.

[Beeth]

i know what you mean, but science doesn't only enable us to have these things you've mentioned. i don't think chemical warfare is terribly liberating, for instance. and if 'feeling good' isn't liberating i don't know what is.

Politics is responsible for that. All I am saying is that other fields promise freedom, happiness, and whatnot. But usually they deliver nothing, or what they deliver is soon eclipsed by science. For instance, god, spirituality etc. gave people hope and the illusion of happiness. LSD, otoh, could do a much better job, with minimum effort, without the baggage that comes with religion etc. etc.

[Buttress]

If art isn't liberating, why do I feel so liberated by art?

[roy]

Politics is responsible for that. All I am saying is that other fields promise freedom, happiness, and whatnot. But usually they deliver nothing, or what they deliver is soon eclipsed by science. For instance, god, spirituality etc. gave people hope and the illusion of happiness. LSD, otoh, could do a much better job, with minimum effort, without the baggage that comes with religion etc. etc.

when i offer an example of something negative as the result of science, you blame politics. this is precisely my point. people do these things using 'science' and 'politics'.

also, what is liberating for one person may not be liberating for another. the concept of 'liberation' isn't a precise thing that physically exists and can be measured.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Do art, philosophy, and science have to be mutually exclusive?

[Lynx]

Manufacturing technology or any specific application of knowledge is a liberating - or repressive - force.

[Beeth]

If art isn't liberating, why do I feel so liberated by art?

For the same reason that people feel liberated by religion or opium - illusions, placebo, and the rest.

[Beeth]

when i offer an example of something negative as the result of science, you blame politics. this is precisely my point. people do these things using 'science' and 'politics'.

also, what is liberating for one person may not be liberating for another. the concept of 'liberation' isn't a precise thing that physically exists and can be measured.

Liberating people from the pain and sweat of labor. A washing machine or vacuum cleaner - in short, the fruit of science - does a much better job at easing our pain by reducing labor time, strain of physical labor etc. Does art or philosophy help in such practical ways?

[ckaihatsu]

Religion and arts are escapes from reality, whereas philosophy twists and distorts reality. Science alone considers reality as it is, which is perhaps why there has been real, tangible progress - curing diseases, making machines to simplify labor, and much more.

Is science therefore the only liberating force?





I am not talking about that. I am just saying by its nature science liberates because it gives humanity real benefit in the form of medicine, food, machines, clothing, shelter etc. real, tangible, measurable progress, unlike religion or art where everything revolves around a subjective, feel-good factor.





I don't think it's so useful to reduce religion and art to escape from reality.
For instance, religion and religious practice might be a way of socializing - bringing members of a community together (especially when coupled with charity work which by itself is not religious inherently). Also, art can also exhibit a special epistemological funcition - for instance, the 19th ct. realist novel.

And science is not a liberating force by itself. It needs the global working class in order to become just that, and in fact, this class is the most potent (in its potential, not in actuality!) liberating force.





I don't understand. You talk of 'liberating force' in a philosophical context yet criticise philosophy within said context.

Science is simply logic, interpretation, explanation and proof. It can be, and is, applied to almost anything that is not in direct opposition to one of these four acts.





Liberating people from the pain and sweat of labor. A washing machine or vacuum cleaner - in short, the fruit of science - does a much better job at easing our pain by reducing labor time, strain of physical labor etc. Does art or philosophy help in such practical ways?


The ironic paradox to all of this is that science, since it is inert (a body of knowledge and know-how), can provide guidance only once a certain *initiative* has been consciously decided-on -- it will always beg the *human* question, since no other life or force employs it.

And, once a person or society has reached a certain level of comfort and convenience the *technical* realm is no longer helpful and the *human* question must be addressed: * What's worth doing...? *


Humanities - Technology Chart 3.0

http://postimage.org/image/6psghrjot/


Worldview Diagram

http://postimage.org/image/axvyymiy5/


philosophical abstractions

http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/

[Philosophos]

Religion and arts are escapes from reality, whereas philosophy twists and distorts reality. Science alone considers reality as it is, which is perhaps why there has been real, tangible progress - curing diseases, making machines to simplify labor, and much more.

Is science therefore the only liberating force?

There are not good or bad things, people are making them that way. Science created cures for diseases but also created the atomic bomb with the things that come with it.

Art on the other hand is an escape from reality but at the same time it can start a revolution because it inspires people. There were many artists killed for these reasons by kings and dictators.

Philosophy can twist reality but there were some philosophers who made great progress with some human natured questions. After all philosophy is pure human thinking.

As I said in the begining humans make everything good or bad. You can have a knife so you can cut your food easily or you can have your knife and kill someone.

[roy]

Liberating people from the pain and sweat of labor. A washing machine or vacuum cleaner - in short, the fruit of science - does a much better job at easing our pain by reducing labor time, strain of physical labor etc. Does art or philosophy help in such practical ways?

these things are good, yes, and in that way it's entirely reasonable to interpret science as a liberating force. i've merely been saying it's neither an exclusively liberating force nor is it the only liberating force. if someone find liberation through art, philosophy or religion, well that's that. if that's what balances your life and makes you happy, i'd say it is rather practical.

[Thirsty Crow]

If art isn't liberating, why do I feel so liberated by art?
In what way do you feel "liberated"?
I stated, though not here, that art is a kind of an escape for me so I can speculate on a possible analogy here. Most important is the escape from the overbearing pressure of everday obligations and practices which, if uninterrupted, can bore me to death. In this way art consumption can be "liberating" - offering a break, a surprisingly fresh and new world (which I primarily find in literature). But the trick is (if it's not the issue of a critical work broadly situated in the realist mode) that I usually try not to confuse this literary world for a viable one, if you catch my drift, and at the same time try to extrapolate on some of the consequences of the presented world and its connotations.

Am I on the right track here?

Which ties in with this:


For the same reason that people feel liberated by religion or opium - illusions, placebo, and the rest.
Again, I don't think it's useful to destroy the difference between art consumption and religion the way you do. Sure, art can also function in a similar way to religion - but it needn't.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Personally, I've found that art isn't so much an escape as it is an expressive means of articulating concepts and cultivating the habit of skillful work. Isn't any more "practical" labor a kind of art in itself when it is practiced deliberately and with mindfulness?

[Sea]

and if 'feeling good' isn't liberating i don't know what is.Feeling good can be the result of liberation, but to say that feeling good should be the aim and means isn't liberation, it's hedonism.


science isn't always liberating. people have used science to do and justify absolutely atrocious things. anything can be used for or against 'liberation'.There's so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to start. For one, you imply an established morality for these atrocious things to violate by their virtue of being bad as well as a conflict between fact (as established by science) and said morality.

Specific to your statement that people have used science to justify atrocious things, you assume that the science was just that and not flawed, not pseudoscience nor lies. Take the so-called scientific racism for instance used to "justify" imperialism. You presuppose that this scientific racism reached valid scientific conclusions and that if it did, it somehow could justify imperialism. It didn't, but for the sake of argument let's suppose that it did reach valid conclusions, or that some other scientific knowledge should be used to rightly justify wrongdoings to the masses as you seem to think is possible. Science can't justify wrongdoings as you imply. Valid science can falsely justify, by means of propaganda and distortion of scientific fact, wrongdoings. But this is not valid justification. False conclusions gained by pseudoscience can be applied to a logical and valid justification, I suppose, but the reality which this justification is based on is no reality at all.

On top of all this, you assume such a thing as a justifiable atrocity exists in the first place!

As if this isn't enough, you go on to falsely place the blame on scientific fact rather than on those who misuse it and their motivations -- primitivist ramblings, no more no less!

Your statements are tantamount to blaming the fact that people must work to survive for the horrors of capitalism!

[roy]

Feeling good can be the result of liberation, but to say that feeling good should be the aim and means isn't liberation, it's hedonism.

i didn't say it should be anything. this whole liberation thing is just a loose concept is all.


There's so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to start. For one, you imply an established morality for these atrocious things to violate by their virtue of being bad as well as a conflict between fact (as established by science) and said morality.

ok, next time i make ethical judgments without clarification, i'll put up big disclaimer so that nobody thinks i'm implying established morality.


Specific to your statement that people have used science to justify atrocious things, you assume that the science was just that and not flawed, not pseudoscience nor lies. Take the so-called scientific racism for instance used to "justify" imperialism. You presuppose that this scientific racism reached valid scientific conclusions and that if it did, it somehow could justify imperialism. It didn't, but for the sake of argument let's suppose that it did reach valid conclusions, or that some other scientific knowledge should be used to rightly justify wrongdoings to the masses as you seem to think is possible. Science can't justify wrongdoings as you imply. Valid science can falsely justify, by means of propaganda and distortion of scientific fact, wrongdoings. But this is not valid justification. False conclusions gained by pseudoscience can be applied to a logical and valid justification, I suppose, but the reality which this justification is based on is no reality at all.

i didn't think i'd have to clarify this, but what i actually meant is that 'science' has been used to back up claims like 'this ethnicity is better than that ethnicity'. i didn't say it was correct and i didn't in a million years think that anyone would assume i did. i'm sure you didn't anyway. you're just nit-picking.


On top of all this, you assume such a thing as a justifiable atrocity exists in the first place!

As if this isn't enough, you go on to falsely place the blame on scientific fact rather than on those who misuse it and their motivations -- primitivist ramblings, no more no less!

Your statements are tantamount to blaming the fact that people must work to survive for the horrors of capitalism!

no, i don't think a justifiable atrocity exists and i didn't say that i did. you obviously realise this and you're just being tedious. i'm missing the part where i explicitly said 'scientific fact justifies genocide'. to take literal interpretation to the nth degree and assume that was my meaning is just downright odd.

and 'primitivist ramblings'? seriously?

[Sea]

i didn't say it should be anything. this whole liberation thing is just a loose concept is all.]Yes you did, you said that feeling good is liberating.


i didn't think i'd have to clarify this, but what i actually meant is that 'science' has been used to back up claims like 'this ethnicity is better than that ethnicity'. i didn't say it was correct and i didn't in a million years think that anyone would assume i did.If you agree it's not correct, why do you blame science?


no, i don't think a justifiable atrocity exists and i didn't say that i did. you obviously realise this and you're just being tedious. i'm missing the part where i explicitly said 'scientific fact justifies genocide'. to take literal interpretation to the nth degree and assume that was my meaning is just downright odd.First you say science has been used to justify atrocities. You use this to criticize the idea of science as a liberating force assuming that science can justify atrocities, otherwise the criticism is moot.

See what I mean? If you don't think science can justify atrocities, how the hell has it been used to do just that? This is hardly nitpicking.

[Mao_O]

Hang on I thought they say that about technology, not science? The only group that I've know to tout science as a liberating force of some kind are those Richard Dawkins-following, IQ-obsessing, self-congratulating bourgeoisie atheists. Who's been keeping your company?

[roy]

the point running through everything i've said it's all about how people use science, religion, whatever. i'm not blaming science in itself since that would be really silly.

and yeah i said feeling good is liberating. it's as liberating a thing as anything, but i didn't say it should be an 'aim' of anything. people can aim for whatever want. come to think of it, though, isn't 'feeling good' the round about point of everything? that's off-topic though sorry

and i think we agree that science isn't 'bad' so yeah

[ckaihatsu]

come to think of it, though, isn't 'feeling good' the round about point of everything?


'Feeling good' is for pussies.


x D

[Strannik]

I think that science, art and philosophy can't be held apart like this. They are different practices for finding out about external and internal "actualities". Science is usually about thruth of physical world and art about truth of emotions and motivation, but this does not mean that science can't be used for learning about emotions, or that physical world can't be explored through art. You just get different kind of knowledge.

Importance of philosophical knowledge has been declining as we learn more about the world, but I don't think it will ever disappear completely - philosophical speculation can be thought of as a tool for dealing with the unknown and immeasurable and I'm not sure if they will ever be absolutely gone from personal or social experience.

Now religion seems to be something that has been merged with ideology by now? Isn't it practically a primitive justification and explanation for existing world and social structure?

[Rafiq]

Again, yours is only a diametrical reversal of the one sided, and very flawed, notion of the person you are arguing against.
Tell me, how are atonal classical music, Kafka's novels, jazz, and detective fiction, all of these, reflections of existing reality?

The answer is easy to anticipate: complex social reality gives birth to different reflections.
And that is, by itself, true, but that is a banality and misses out on what constitutes art as art, the ways it is a specific practice in human society. The theory of reflection is rather a very poor collection of tautologies and ambiguities, not because it is wrong in most of its assertions, but because it rests on shaky, at best, philosophical assumptions.

Before I am to type a response, I would like to make it clear that indeed, I do recognize that my assertion (That it is the opposite, they are reflections, as opposed to a means to escaping reality), was made indeed as a reversal, strictly on grounds for provocation. I do not at all hold that all remnants of the Bourgeois superstructure are direct "reflections", if that means anything. Though, what I intended on getting at is, what you said, Kafka's works, Jazz music, fiction, are not only constrained by the existing "reality" set forth by the capitalist mode of production, they are offspring, and if a reflection of anything, they are an ideological reflection of an existing class whose relations are either exclusive or are a key component of the capitalist mode of production. This can manifest itself in several different ways, with influences from, perhaps, different classes. But something, for example, Jazz, cannot be interpreted precisely as they appear. What was great about the cultural Marxists of the 60's, of the Frankfurt school (despite their vulgarizations), was there ability to interperat bourgeois society and precisely attribute cultural constructs, a class character, even constructs such as Jazz. Again, I do agree that this notion of "reality" can mean several different things, though, what I was getting that is something like Religion does not exist abstractly from our existing reality, rather, our conception of religion and the way we interact with it is a product of existing reality.


And again, this simple and innocent notion can't account for the differences and specificities, and functions as an overriding construct which doesn't permit more appropriate procedures of investigation. The easiest thing is to say that, ultimately, everything is shaped by existing reality; too bad that doesn't tell us almost anything about concrete stuff.


Again, I say that part of the post was for mere provocation for the OP. It is absurd to dismiss parts of the superstructure as direct reflections, as both Marx and Engels pointed out, although the relationship forms bourgeois society, culture, and it is indeed reducible to such a relationship, it exists in a very complex and dynamic way.


Don't get me wrong. I totally agree that art is dependent on its social context - both the social context of the author and receiver, irrespective of the historical period of the receiver and its difference from the author's.
Art doesn't exist in a vacuum, a product of pure imagination or what have you.


"What have you attribute to me"? I think it's blatantly obvious that I don't hold that art is a product of "pure imagination".


But again, this doesn't mean that works of art are unmediated, direct, ultimately innocent results of the existing reality. That's the point, to examine this mediation and its effects and results.

And you miss the point by arguing that art cannot constitute a form of "escape". It can and it did/does, be it from the perspective of the structural properties of the work itself, or the perspective of the reader (reader response). And that's not all, of course. The real effect and practice is more complex than that.


Again, of course they are not "direct" reflections. But, surly you do hold that art has a class character, no? Such is the conviction of every Marxist.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Art is not an escape from reality! It is a reflection of it!

[ckaihatsu]

Art is not an escape from reality! It is a reflection of it!


It can be both, and also a critique of it.


Art doesn't exist

http://www.revleft.com/vb/art-doesnt-exist-t140803/index2.html

[Prometeo liberado]

Science may be a barometer, better yet a map if you will. How we choose to interpret it, be guided by it, is up to us. Man is the sole liberating force just as man is the only force which can enslave man. IMO.

[zoot_allures]

Religion, art and philosophy can be used as a means of liberation - there are plenty of people who've been inspired by these things to fight against injustice. Of course, they can also be used as a means of oppression. But then, so can science - see S J Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" for a good discussion of an example of this.

I'm not at all convinced that science "considers reality as it is", nor do I think it necessarily should do. In the realism/antirealism debates I don't come down hard on either side; rather I think that different sciences have different approaches and have to be interpreted in different ways. There isn't one interpretation that's right for all science. But this is a more esoteric philosophical question; it has little to do with liberation, in my view.

At the end of the day, science is a human activity and like all human activities it's not "objective" nor is it detached from culture and ideology. All of humanity's flaws are as clear in science as they are anywhere else. Science - like religion, art, philosophy and pretty much everything else - is a liberating force if people use it as a liberating force. Ultimately, the part that matters is people and what they fight for.

[Marxaveli]

Religion, art and philosophy can be used as a means of liberation - there are plenty of people who've been inspired by these things to fight against injustice. Of course, they can also be used as a means of oppression. But then, so can science - see S J Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man" for a good discussion of an example of this.

I'm not at all convinced that science "considers reality as it is", nor do I think it necessarily should do. In the realism/antirealism debates I don't come down hard on either side; rather I think that different sciences have different approaches and have to be interpreted in different ways. There isn't one interpretation that's right for all science. But this is a more esoteric philosophical question; it has little to do with liberation, in my view.

At the end of the day, science is a human activity and like all human activities it's not "objective" nor is it detached from culture and ideology. All of humanity's flaws are as clear in science as they are anywhere else. Science - like religion, art, philosophy and pretty much everything else - is a liberating force if people use it as a liberating force. Ultimately, the part that matters is people and what they fight for.

No, science is objective, or at least it should be. If it isn't objective and is converged with ideology, it is no longer science - it is philosophy or idealism, which is why science and religion will never be compatible. One of the whole points of being a Marxist is to view history scientifically to understand what we must do to change the course of the future. Yes, science can be misused, and has been, but when it is such, it is again, no longer science anyways, but pseudoscience - Hitler and his eugenics program being the best example of course.

[zoot_allures]

No, science is objective, or at least it should be. If it isn't objective and is converged with ideology, it is no longer science - it is philosophy or idealism. One of the whole points of being a Marxist is to view history scientifically to understand what we must do to change the course of the future.
I don't believe it's even possible for it to be objective or detached from ideology.

I'm not a Marxist, so that's of little concern to me.

[Marxaveli]

Not only is it possible, it MUST be so. If science wasn't objective or detached from ideology, we'd still be living under the rule of the Catholic Church and geocentric philosophy, and an absolute monarchy. So yes, it can be objective and detached from ideology, and in fact it must be so, or it isn't even worthy of being called science. You can believe what you like but historical facts are historical facts.


I'm not a Marxist, so that's of little concern to me.

:rolleyes: Except Marxism is objective and scientific.

[zoot_allures]

Not only is it possible, it MUST be so. If science wasn't objective or detached from ideology, we'd still be living under the rule of the Catholic Church and geocentric philosophy, and an absolute monarchy.
Well, it isn't, so that conditional must be false.

However, I'm interested in why believe it. Why exactly would we still be living "under the rule of the Catholic Church and geocentric philosophy" if science wasn't objective & detached from ideology? I'd appreciate it if you could explain your reasoning there.


Except Marxism is objective and scientific.As I said, I'm not a Marxist. I don't consider it objective; I'm happy to consider it a science.

[Marxaveli]

Science can be tested and falsified because it is objective, ideologies cannot be because they are completely subjective. The minute you inject ideology into science, it is no longer science. Do you think Galileo and other astronomers during that little historic change called the Scientific Revolution used subjective methodology and idealogy to conduct their tests? I think not. Example: It is scientific fact that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the reverse as geocentric theory believed.

http://utistickyuubi.blog.com/files/2012/07/Science_vs_faith.png

If it weren't for objective, scientific testing and empirical observations, geocentric philosophy would have never been questioned, and the church would have retained its hegemony over society. The Scientific Revolution wasn't the only thing that led to a loss of power for them, but it certainly played a huge role. People started becoming atheists in droves, and other revolutionary ideas such as the concept of "free will", self-determination, and liberty developed and led to the Enlightenment, which further disrupted the power of the Church and monarchs, via such events as the French Revolution.

Science is, and has to be, objective, or it isn't science. It's that simple.

[zoot_allures]

Science can be tested and falsified
So much for modern science, then. The primary program in theoretical physics since the 80s has been string theory - despite the fact that it makes extremely outlandish claims and provides very few testable predictions. Worse, it was arguably "falsified" with the discovery of dark energy, since all the known string theories at that point required a cosmological constant of zero or less. Or maybe you wouldn't consider string theory to be part of science?

Knock-down falsifications are rare in science, and justly so, since if we took falsification as a strict rule it'd be pretty much impossible to do science. Scientists often retain "falsified" theories by simply making ad hoc assumptions and adjustments (or sometimes by just ignoring the problem). Science as we know it wouldn't exist without this.


Do you think Galileo and other astronomers during that little historic change called the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution used subjective methodology and idealism to conduct their tests? I think not.Galileo was a propagandist whose arguments were not as rational or powerful as you seem to be assuming, and the geocentric system had much in its favour. Incidentally, the Pope actually supported Galileo's work and had authorized the publication of the "Dialogue". The problem was that he ignored the Pope's request to present both views equally, and he seemed to be pretty much taking the piss out the Pope and misreprenting the geocentric arguments.

Not all scientists have the same values. Some put great weight on simplicity and mathematical beauty, others value explanatory power, others might be more swayed by experimental results, etc. Who's right? We can't say until after the fact, and it always depends on the context. There is no One True Method, nor is there some sort of algorithm we can use to figure out what the right methods in some particular case might be.


Example: It is scientific fact that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the reverse as geocentric theory believed.Well, it's not technically true that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Rather, both the Earth and the Sun revolve around the barycentre of the solar system. Anyway, what does this have to do with anything? I've never denied that science doesn't generate truth.

I've seen that image plenty of times; personally I'm not interested in simple-minded propaganda like that.


You haven't answered my question. You've repeated your belief that science needed to be objective & detached from ideology in order for the grip of the Church to be lessened, but I'm still unclear as to why you believe that. What is it about objective, non-ideological science that allows it to achieve this, and why shouldn't subjective, ideological science make the same achievement?

[Marxaveli]

So much for modern science, then. The primary program in theoretical physics since the 80s has been string theory - despite the fact that it makes extremely outlandish claims and provides very few testable predictions. Worse, it was arguably "falsified" with the discovery of dark energy, since all the known string theories at that point required a cosmological constant of zero or less. Or maybe you wouldn't consider string theory to be part of science?

I do not know enough about string theory to comment on that, but either way, it really isn't relevant to what I am arguing.


Knock-down falsifications are rare in science, and justly so, since if we took falsification as a strict rule it'd be pretty much impossible to do science. Scientists often retain "falsified" theories by simply making ad hoc assumptions and adjustments (or sometimes by just ignoring the problem). Science as we know it wouldn't exist without this.

Regardless of how rare they are, they happen, and just the fact they can happen is all that needs to be said. Ideologies cannot be falsified (they can be discredited though), because again, they are subjective. Science can be falsified, regardless of how rarely, and therefore it is objective.


Galileo was a propagandist whose arguments were not as rational or powerful as you seem to be assuming, and geocentric system had much in its favour. Incidentally, the Pope actually supported Galileo's work and had authorized the publication of the "Dialogue". The problem was that he ignored the Pope's request to present both views equally, and he seemed to be pretty much taking the piss out the Pope and misreprenting the geocentric arguments.

You are an Idealist. Geocentric arguments were the dominant view of the time, why would galileo represent the dominant ideology of the time when he scientifically disproved that geocentric theory was correct, regardless of where he stood on the issue? Thats like asking scientists of today to represent Creationism fairly within their field, which would be an absurd notion since science and religion are not compatible. There are plenty of scientists who are also religious, but all the good ones know better then to mix the two.


Not all scientists have the same values. Some put great weight on simplicity and mathematical beauty, others value explanatory power, others might be more swayed by experimental results, etc. Who's right? We can't say until after the fact, and it always depends on the context. There is no One True Method, nor is there some sort of algorithm we can use to figure out what the right methods in some particular case might be.

Your incoherent observation is noted. You are not arguing science vs other frameworks. No scientist worth his salt injects his personal values, moralism, or ideology into his work. And this should especially be true of those who work in fields of the hard sciences. The soft sciences are a bit more flexible obviously.


Well, it's not technically true that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Rather, both the Earth and the Sun revolve around the barycentre of the solar system. Anyway, what does this have to do with anything? I've never denied that science doesn't generate truth.

But you deny that it's objective, or that it can and should be. If science wasn't objective, all knowledge we have about the world and its material processes would be meaningless, and this is the exact problem that faith based and other ideological explanations have. They cannot be explained by empirical observation, or be tested and falsified.


I've seen that image plenty of times; personally I'm not interested in simple-minded propaganda like that.

translation: it is an inconvenient truth to my argument, so I will just dismiss it.



You haven't answered my question. You've repeated your belief that science needed to be objective & detached from ideology in order for the grip of the Church to be lessened, but I'm still unclear as to why you believe that. What is it about objective, non-ideological science that allows it to achieve, and why shouldn't subjective, ideological science make the same achievement?


Because subjective ideological "science" is slanted based on a certain worldview to achieve a personal agenda, where as actual objective science is NOT. Again, I'll use the example of Social Darwinism, which was the ideological backbone the Nazi's used to justify their eugenics program and the mass extermination of Jews, as well as the racist reasoning used to justify the suffering of blacks and other minorities in American society. This is not science, it is PSEUDOSCIENCE based on ideology, and an ideology that was very handily discredited at that.

[zoot_allures]

I do not know enough about string theory to comment on that, but either way, it really isn't relevant to what I am arguing.

Regardless of how rare they are, they happen, and just the fact they can happen is all that needs to be said. Ideologies cannot be falsified, because again, they are subjective. Science can be falsified, regardless of how rarely, and therefore it is objective.
It's absolutely relevant, given your comments about testability. One of the primary frameworks of one of the most highly-regarded "hard sciences" provides very few testable predictions.

Just because something can be falsified, doesn't mean that it's objective. I'm not sure why you're assuming it does mean that.

Science isn't one thing, it's many. Sure, knock-down falsifications do happen very occasionally, but if you subscribe to dogmatic falsificationism, you'll be forced to accept that the vast majority of what is usually considered science, is not science - just because in most cases, science doesn't actually proceed in accordance to such rules.


Geocentric arguments were the dominant view of the time, why would galileo represent the dominant ideology of the time when his views scientifically disproved that geocentric theory was correct? Thats like asking scientists of today to represent Creationism fairly within their field, which would be an absurd notion since science and religion are not compatible. There are plenty of scientists who are also religious, but all the good ones know better then to mix the two.Firstly, that analogy makes very little sense even by your own argument, since creationism is not "the dominant ideology of the time". The dominant view in the field of biology is the modern evolutionary synthesis. And if somebody were to attack the MES, we'd all expect them to at least represent it accurately.

Anyway, Galileo did not "scientifically disprove" geocentrism. He offered some good arguments against it, but they were hardly decisive. He was attempting to defend extremely radical views using new and rather questionable technology (the telescope), his ideas seemed to contradict what everyday observation made obvious to everyone (if the Earth is moving, we'd be able to feel it!), and he was up against a robust, well-confirmed theory with great predictive power. Many of the greatest minds of the time - Descartes, for example - found his arguments unacceptable.


No scientist worth his salt injects his personal values, moralism, or ideology into his work. And this should especially be true of those who work in fields of the hard sciences. The soft sciences are a bit more flexible obviously.Except that they all do that. They're often quite honest about it, too, if you ever read their own comments.


But you deny that it's objective, or that it can and should be. If science wasn't objective, all knowledge we have about the world and its material processes would be meaningless, and this is the exact problem that faith based and other ideological explanations have. They cannot be explained by empirical observation, or be tested and falsified.It's an objective fact that the Earth and the Sun orbit the barycentre of the solar system. Science is an excellent tool for understanding the objective world. But science itself is not objective; it's a human enterprise, with all the problems - and benefits - that this entails.


Because subjective ideological "science" is slanted based on a certain worldview to achieve a personal agenda, where as actual objective science is NOT. Again, I'll use the example of Social Darwinism, which was the ideological backbone the Nazi's used to justify their eugenics program and the mass extermination of Jews, as well as the racist reasoning used to justify the suffering of blacks and other minorities in American society. This is not science, it is PSEUDOSCIENCE based on ideology, and an ideology that was very handily discredited at that.It's not necessarily used to "achieve a personal agenda" - often people are unaware of their biases and may be taking themselves to be working without biases when in fact they're not.

But even if it was, so what? Our agenda could be to liberate ourselves from the grip of the Church - and we use our subjective, ideological science to achieve that. So I'm still unclear about why science has to be objective to have "liberatory potential".

[Luís Henrique]

Not only is it possible, it MUST be so. If science wasn't objective or detached from ideology, we'd still be living under the rule of the Catholic Church and geocentric philosophy, and an absolute monarchy.

Why?

We have experienced a massive ideological change from feudalism to capitalism. There are many different ideologies; catholicism and geocentrism aren't the only ones.


So yes, it can be objective and detached from ideology, and in fact it must be so, or it isn't even worthy of being called science. You can believe what you like but historical facts are historical facts.

What does it even mean, "to be objective"?

What is a historical fact?


:rolleyes: Except Marxism is objective and scientific.

Source?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

No, science is objective, or at least it should be. If it isn't objective and is converged with ideology, it is no longer science - it is philosophy or idealism, which is why science and religion will never be compatible.

This would negate the scientific character of most of scientific production.


One of the whole points of being a Marxist is to view history scientifically to understand what we must do to change the course of the future.

And what or who does tell us anything about the need to change the course of future? Why do we even need to change it?


Yes, science can be misused, and has been, but when it is such, it is again, no longer science anyways, but pseudoscience - Hitler and his eugenics program being the best example of course.

This is completely ad hoc: whatever we dislike, we merely discard as "pseudoscience". But it also means that everything that is considered "science" at any point of the historical development becomes "pseudoscience" at the minute new discoveries make the old theories unsupportable. Your views means, for instance, that Newtonian physics is "pseudoscience" because it has been superceeded by quantic physics.

But science is certainly a historic process, so your metaphysical view of it must be bogus.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

http://utistickyuubi.blog.com/files/2012/07/Science_vs_faith.png

"Getting an idea" seems to be a central piece of the "Science" flowchart above. It is the only box that has more than two arrows pointing to it.

How does one "get an idea", and how is it possibly an "objective" process (even if you could give a meaningful definition of "objective", which I doubt)?

Luís Henrique

[zoot_allures]

"Getting an idea" seems to be a central piece of the "Science" flowchart above. It is the only box that has more than two arrows pointing to it.

How does one "get an idea", and how is it possibly an "objective" process (even if you could give a meaningful definition of "objective", which I doubt)?

Luís Henrique
Well, the "get an idea" part presumably isn't intended to be the "objective" element, since that part occurs in the Faith box too, and I don't think Rosa was suggesting that faith is objective!

The problem for Rosa's argument is that, even if what follows is an accurate characterization of science, we can ask similar questions about every other part.

Take "does the evidence support the idea?" Well, different scientists have different values. Some scientists may be happy to drop a theory at the slightest hint of contradicting evidence - others will retain a theory in the face of mountains of problems because they feel it has other benefits, like beauty, simplicity, comprehensiveness, novel predictions, etc. We can only judge evidence according to our own values and standards, and an approach that leads to progress one instance may fail in another. There are no "objective" criteria.

As for the Faith box, it's rather obvious that religions do not always "ignore contradicting evidence" and retain ideas forever. To take the example of geocentrism, well, many of the Church astronomers in Galileo's day did modify their position - from the Ptolemaic system to the Tychonic system designed by Tycho Brahe. This system solved some of the problems of the Ptolemaic system but was better suited both to common sense and to the Aristotelian worldview of the time than was Copernicanism. Another obvious example is the Church's position on witchcraft. Religions clearly modify their views as science and society develop.

[Luís Henrique]

Well, the "get an idea" part presumably isn't intended to be the "objective" element, since that part occurs in the Faith box too, and I don't think Rosa was suggesting that faith is objective!

Indeed, but the argument seems to be that "science is objective", not that "science has objective and subjective elements". Rosa's~Dream in fact seems to be claiming that "science is not "subjective".

But, as you say,


The problem for Rosa's argument is that, even if what follows is an accurate characterization of science, we can ask similar questions about every other part.

And,


Take "does the evidence support the idea?" Well, different scientists have different values. Some scientists may be happy to drop a theory at the slightest hint of contradicting evidence - others will retain a theory in the face of mountains of problems because they feel it has other benefits, like beauty, simplicity, comprehensiveness, novel predictions, etc. We can only judge evidence according to our own values and standards, and an approach that leads to progress one instance may fail in another.

And even more, directly below "get an idea", there is a box labeled "perform experiment". But what experiment? An experiment cannot be "performed" before it is designed, and it cannot be designed unless there is an actual theory about what the available facts mean.

And two more boxes down, there is "theory created". But how does one create a theory, and how does it relate to the "idea" in the primordial box on the top of the flowchart? The experiment merely promotes the "idea" into a "theory" merely by not contradicting it? Or is the "theory" a further elaboration of the initial idea? If the former, the "theory" was in fact created in the first step, before the experiment, and is therefore "subjective"; if the latter, the creation of the "theory" is a second, or third, or fourth, "subjective" step.

In fewer words, science is a very "subjective" process. Or, more probably, the disjunction "objective"/"subjective" isn't as useful as people commonly believe (the "'evidence' does not support the 'idea'" of labeling processes "objective" or "subjective" (though this doesn't need empirical observation to be established; the very notion of that disjunctive is self-contradictory)).

But you go too far here:


There are no "objective" criteria.

There are no "objective" criteria in the sence that "objective criteria" is a misnomer, and there is no actual disjunction between "objective" and "subjective". But science is about the world, not merely about our minds, and the world will assert itself into scientific reason. Never mind how elegant, or simple, or comprehensive the idea that the speed in which objects fall to the ground is somehow correlated to their weight may be, it is false; calling this an "objective criterium" may be a bad idea, but it does not mean that the idea is rejected solely on scientists' "subjective" whims.


As for the Faith box, it's rather obvious that religions do not always "ignore contradicting evidence" and retain ideas forever. To take the example of geocentrism, well, many of the Church astronomers in Galileo's day did modify their position - from the Ptolemaic system to the Tychonic system designed by Tycho Brahe. This system solved some of the problems of the Ptolemaic system but was better suited both to common sense and to the Aristotelian worldview of the time than was Copernicanism. Another obvious example is the Church's position on witchcraft. Religions clearly modify their views as science and society develop.

Indeed, that is more a caricature of "faith", or of religion, as it is "subjectively" imagined by someone with the shallow knowledge of sociology of religion that characterises, for instance, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins. A better discussion of "faith" would have to recognise that religion, unlike science, is not a discourse (or a method to elaborate discourses) about "physical reality". Sacralising positions about the material world may be a necessary part of priestly stupidity, but is not a necessary part of religion as such.

Luís Henrique

[zoot_allures]

The subjective/objective distinction is fairly important to me, and for me it pretty much mirrors the mind-dependent/mind-independent distinction. For technical reasons, I define it in the terms of subjective, with "subjective" referring to what it's like to be a particular thing. I didn't really want to get into all that here though.


But science is about the world, not merely about our minds, and the world will assert itself into scientific reason. Never mind how elegant, or simple, or comprehensive the idea that the speed in which objects fall to the ground is somehow correlated to their weight may be, it is false; calling this an "objective criterium" may be a bad idea, but it does not mean that the idea is rejected solely on scientists' "subjective" whims.I think you misunderstood my point. Nothing I've said implies that science isn't about the world, or that the world doesn't influence science.

We can use many different criteria for judging a theory (simplicity, elegance, predictive power, ethical implications, etc). Now, different scientists will value each criteria differently, and this will strongly influence their assessment of the theory. The world may well "assert itself" but for almost every theory there are anomalies and failed predictions (examples: Dayton Miller generated anomalous results re relativity theory that were largely ignored until the mid-50s; quantum field theory appears to predict a cosmological constant over 100 orders of magnitude greater than what is actually possible), and it's up to us to figure out just how important they are. And conversely, for almost every apparently refuted theory we can find surprising evidence in its favour (for example, Michel Gauquelin and John Addey's work in astrology).

Everybody has different standards. The point is that only in retrospect can we say who had the "right" approach. There are many ways of doing science, and there are no supermen or gods out there to tell us what the next step at any point should be.

[ckaihatsu]

It's worth noting that 'science' is a very broad, all-encompassing term that roughly equates to 'veracity'.

It may be helpful to consider the context of time and scale for any given example (past-present-future, and theory-instance).

Much theory about the physical world may be deemed acceptable if it doesn't contradict known facts, and is fairly reasonable and feasible in its description -- the remainder of the value judgment may then revolve around Occam's Razor or 'elegance', exhausting all other possibilities.

Forensic-type inquiries into particulars may have to settle for likely probabilities, given scant existing evidence, and then the framework for 'theory' (hypothesis) just mentioned would apply.


philosophical abstractions

http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/


Consciousness, A Material Definition

http://postimage.org/image/35t4i1jc4/