Home > Sciences > Sciences (Other)
Results so far:
| No | 38% | 281 votes | Total: 740 votes | |
| Yes | 62% | 459 votes |
No
Created on: January 16, 2008
We tend to assume that science is different to ideology, that it is more real or valid, because it deals in physical evidence. However, when we look at the history of philosophy we soon see that science is itself an ideology, albeit a particularly fruitful one. At the very least, science is informed and contained within ideologies and therefore inseparable from them. It is important to understand this, not in order to cast doubt on science as such, but in order to acknowledge that it might not be able to teach us everything.
Ideologies are explanations of, or ways of understanding the world. They are self-contained systems of belief which stand alone from each other. Adherents of an ideology believe that they know the truth, the whole truth, the only possible truth. Religions are ideologies and so are many political and philosophical standpoints. Science is an ideology based on a rationalist, mechanistic wordview, characterised by empiricism, the belief that we can learn everything there is to learn by physical means. Galileo, in the 17th century, was amongst the earliest and most notable adherents to this philosophical standpoint. 'Measure what can be measured and make measurable what cannot be measured' he said. Other ideologies rely on less concrete justifications like faith and spirituality.
There was a time before science. In Aristotle's time, philosophers were still arguing about whether human reason was a reliable basis for knowledge. He and Plato were also discussing what came first, the idea of an object or the object itself. Plato thought that there was an objective world of ideas, where the ideal forms came from. There was some kind of mind of God that we had access to and from which came all of our ideas. Aristotle believed the opposite, that we do not form ideas, notions of things, until we have taken them in through our senses. 'Nothing exists in consciousness that has not been first experienced by the senses.' This is a forerunner of our rational, empirical science, and it clearly had an philosophical/ideological basis. Aristotle also believed that there was causality in everything, that animals lived so that humans could eat them, or that it rained because the plants need water.
Galloping forward through history to the Middle Ages, a completely different ideology held sway. During this period science, or even the aspiration to learn about nature, was blasphemy. It was not for mere humans to look into the intricate workings of God. It took someone of the intellectual calibre of Thomas Aquinas to come up with a synthesis between rational enquiry and the received religion. He came up with formal arguments that supported the religious viewpoint. He declared that not only faith, but also rational thought and observation of 'natural laws' can bring us to a closer understanding of God. He began to use techniques of observation and record keeping in order to prove that the Bible was right. He also accepted that some aspects of the Bible could not be explained empirically, that there was room for experiencing God's mysteries. Aquinas's science was rooted in, and inseperable from, his ideology.
Scientific method was born out of the Renaissance which itself was a reaction against the heavy loads that religion had placed upon people over the previous few hundred years. There was an upsurge in individualism, humanism and the powers of the human intellect. While it cannot be denied that scientific method has been, and continues to be, very useful to us, it is clear that it had an ideological, rather than objective, basis.
Scepticism is as old as Aristotle, older even. The original sceptic believed that we couldn't actually know anything for sure, that we can't even trust our own physical senses. Nowadays a sceptic believes that we can only know what can be weighed, measured, tested with our physical senses.
These are both philosophical standpoints. Neither constitutes objective reality.
History aside, we are living in a world awash with differing ideologies about the nature of existence and our place in the cosmos. When we understand that science is itself an ideology, it opens up other avenues of exploration which cannot be examined by empirical methods.
Learn more about this author, Briar Miller.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
Created on: June 28, 2008
Science and ideology use different interpretations of similar thought processes, attempting to achieve the same goal in the end. I think an old saying is many different roads lead to Rome, yet they will all get there eventually. Whether or not we separate science from ideology depends on these separate roads, as both have the ability to change over time with its individual answers. Neither are black and white in their content-ideology is a collection of ideas, while science is a collection of data based on ideas, forming new ideas for new collections of dataand so on.
Prior to the Middle Ages and the 1700s, the terms science and ideology were entirely different, but as both fields evolved into the scientific methods. The early English definition of acquiring science through knowledge was based on the Aristotelian concepts, yet in contrast philosophy was divided up into two divisionsnatural and moral philosophy. By the late 1700s, the term "ideology" was termed for the first time by Destutt de Tracy, referring to his science of ideas, while Hippolyte Taine describes ideology as a method of teaching philosophy by the methods of Socratic. In the 1800s, the scientific field became totally separate from the fields of ideology and philosophy, with science and technology even more separate from each other.
Intermingling in their own way for hundreds of years, the fields of science and ideology have been used in mankind's search for the endless quest of knowledge. When Mary Midgley said, "Before human beings can change their behavior, they have to change their way of thinking," it took the scientific view that other beings and animals on Earth were unthinking and unfeeling mechanical nothings, with humanistic ideology changing this brutal sort of thinking into that where animals are gathering more support for their care and way of living compared to case after case of severe child abuse and childhood sexual traumas slipping through endless bureaucratic cracks of society. Requiring a balance of both thought processes, ideology seems to be a system of abstract thought where a change in society is sought, developing a pendulum which swings back and forth from one extreme to another. This extreme is similar to the Bell Curve, where it takes one end of almost wanton neglect to achieve the desire of change to occur almost too much.
Ideology brings about change through thoughts and the philosophy of the human mind and behavior, as in the above scenario. But without science, it would be nothing as change needs to be studiedlooked atdecipheredabsorbed and then the gathering of scientific data needs to occur with as few errors as possible. In fact, the less errors that occur in science, the better the process of ideology has a chance of making accurate changes. Was the change needed? Was it interpreted correctly? Were the studies and research run correctly? These are scientific questions regarding a situation that ideology has brought about. If so, then success can shake hands with both two separate fields attempting to do their job with a successful result.
Learn more about this author, Nancy Houser.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.