On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:52:47 -0700, Rick Froman wrote: >What are some scientific "assumptions and beliefs" as opposed >to ideological ones?
Let me start by first trying to identify what ideology refers to: |Ideology today is generally taken to mean not a science of ideas, |but the ideas themselves, and moreover ideas of a particular kind. |Ideologies are ideas whose purpose is not epistemic, but political. |Thus an ideology exists to confirm a certain political viewpoint, |serve the interests of certain people, or to perform a functional role |in relation to social, economic, political and legal institutions. Daniel |Bell dubbed ideology ‘an action-oriented system of beliefs,’ and |the fact that ideology is action-oriented indicates its role is not to |render reality transparent, but to motivate people to do or not do |certain things. Such a role may involve a process of justification that |requires the obfuscation of reality. Nonetheless, Bell and other liberal |sociologists do not assume any particular relation between ideology |and the status quo; some ideologies serve the status quo, others call |for its reform or overthrow. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-ideology/ The key phrase above is: "an ideology exist to confirm a certain political viewpoint, serves the interests of certain people, or to perform a functional role in relation to social, economic, political and legal institutions". Consider how ideology was used within the context of science in the examples I provided previously: (1) Ideology had the political purpose of rendering Deutsch Physik as a "superior" science because it was based on an aryan conception of science, that is, only aryans could correctly perceive the nature of physical reality and other "lesser" beings could not. Hence "Jewish Science" was inherently defective, a position that normal science does not support, thus making this one of its assumptions and beliefs, that is, no particular group has the corner on scientific truth -- all contribute. (2) Ideology in Lysenkoism had the purpose of showing the validity of Marxist interpretation of the nature of science and how Marxist theory could be used to redefine and "impove" science. That is, a political and economic theory could be used far beyond the initial area of its development and even be applied to areas like genetics. Normal science does not apply political and economic theories to areas that are not directly related to them though in the case of eugenics it is clear that this happened (Lysenkoism can be seen as a reaction to eugenics). However, we now see can see the eugenics and "race" science are really political ideologies driving science and not science itself. Science that is politically motivated works against itself because it will tend to try to support or confirm its political beliefs while trying to show the invalidity of opponents political beliefs. (3) Ideology in creation science requires the assumptions that (a) a particular religious worldview is fundamentally correct on the basis of faith and (b) theories inconsistent with that religious worldview are a priori wrong. Although science does make certain metaphysical assumptions (e.g., the nature of the nature world is knowable by the human mind which reach valid conclusions and interpretations of it) it relies on observation, testing of hypotheses and theories, the use of logic, and social consensus (in contrast to access to special knowledge by a single individual) to achieve its goals. One could list mundane activities that differentiate scientific behavior from other behaviors but a deeper understanding would require questioning of the metatheoretical and philosophical basis of science. I'm not a philosopher of science but I would suggest that one place to review some of these issues would the the Unity of Science entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; see: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-unity/#ConWhyUniWhaDifDoeItReaMak (Note: some might argue that the contribution of Arabic and Asian Indian cultures is underrepresented here). For those who like "Philosophy of Science Lite" with a dash of liberal bias, check out the Wikipedia entry (standard yada-yada): see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=4380 or send a blank email to leave-4380-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
