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/ideolo gical 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.
Top "No" articles on:
Can we separate science from ideology?by Briar Shaw
We tend to assume that science is different to ideology, that it is more real or valid, because it deals in physical ...read more
Every decision we make as scientists are influenced by our ideologies. In every step of the research process, we are ...read more
Add your voice
Know something about Can we separate science from ideology?? We want to hear your view. Write now!
Yes, on occasion.
There are individuals within the scientific community who can achieve a state of mental clarity, allowing them to drop their egos and basic assumptions. They are able to observe the world, and their experiments, without the use of an ideology. Often, these individuals have training in meditation, though some have achieved the same state of mind through other methods, such as intense concentration or ritual preparations. Striving for a state of mental clarity during experiments is not the norm, however.
In an effort to eliminate the influence of a researcher's personal bias (officially known as observer bias), double blind experiments are used. Blinding is used to prevent beliefs and expectations from biasing the research. Experimenters devise blind analysis techniques, with the experimental result is hidden from the analysts until they've agreed on fixed techniques. This process eliminates individual observer bias, but strongly supports a collective bias by agreeing to use what is called 'the Standard Model'. The questions used are specific to the Standard Model and screens out information considered irrelevant to the model, while seeking information which supports the model.
The Standard Model is essentially a particle theory model, and the legacy of Albert Einstein. Einstein has been elevated to the status of demi-god within the scientific community, and his works and theories, along with his assumptions made one hundred years ago, are generally considered to be unquestionable facts. This has had the effect of slowing the evolution of physics as it becomes mired in limited and unrealistic expectations. Consider describing photons (massless, chargeless particles which exist only while traveling at the speed of light) using the characteristics of frequency. Or assigning a gravity field to electrons, though there is no evidence of gravitational attraction. Faster-than-light travel is still taught as an impossibility, in spite of several repeatable experiments showing it is possible. (Search Cerenkov radiation and the Middle Tennessee State University's experiments with 'electric signals.)
Because the interpretation of evidence varies from individual to individual, science and physics were once a subdivision of philosophy. The earliest scientists were also philosophers. As mathematics, and its necessary restrictions, became more and more of a tool and language of science, physicists agreed to use the Standard Model as their foundation for the math. A faith-based belief in the Standard Model has evolved as a result. As a faith-based belief, the Standard Model is beyond review, and alternative models are simply 'wrong' and not worthy of review.
Many modern text books describe magnetic field lines and fields as illusions. Though the electromagnetic field has been dropped from research, EM wave concepts, such as frequency and polarization, have remained because they are simply too functional to discard. Particle theory has nothing to replace these concepts with, and is forced to piggy-back onto the more comprehensive EM wave model. The current particle theory model dismisses the electromagnetic field and treats electrons and positrons as equal, opposite charges which, mathematically, result in a zero charge when joined, and with their mass being converted into photons.
This model of electrical charge is based on fluid pressures, originally developed by du Vay in the 1700s to explain static electricity. The refinement of positive and negative charges were added by Benjamin Franklin in 1747. The resistance to movement and acceleration displayed by electrons and positrons is currently attributed solely to gravity, per Albert Einstein, after he dismissed the aether, and consequently the electromagnetic field, as unnecessary.
Christian Huygens developed the first wave-theory' of light in 1690, based on experiments with crystals. In his Dissertation on Light', he wrote: I call the spherically shaped surfaces waves', because of their similarity with those which one can observe forming in water after throwing a stone into it.' (Note, he is not describing transverse waves, but expanding concentric circles.)
The most recent model of EM waves describes a two-dimensional side-view of a transverse (up/down) wave, originally based on experiments using two tourmaline crystals. When the axes of the crystals are in parallel, light will pass through both. When the second crystal is rotated to a 90 degree angle, the light becomes blocked. The analogy of transverse waves passing through slits was used as an explanation. If the slits' of both crystals were aligned, the wave passed through both. If the slits' of the second crystal were placed at a right angle, the up-down wave was blocked.
Light as transverse waves seemed the only explanation for this phenomenon, but accepting it as part of the overall model created significant problems. Transverse waves travel through solids, but not through fluids. The electromagnetic field, better known at the time as the aether, was assigned the characteristics of a solid, and described as a grid work which normal matter passed through unaffected. The model of an electromagnetic field became dysfunctional when it incorporated the concept of transverse waves.
The characteristics of light are very similar to those displayed by sound waves. Both can be measured in terms of frequency, amplitude, and both display similar interference patterns. As with sound waves, higher frequency EM waves spread less than lower frequencies when traveling as a beam. But sound does not travel as transverse waves.
A new field theory model offers an alternative to the vision of light as transverse waves. Paul Dirac developed a model of pair production, originally published in 1928, which was very unpopular. It unintentionally supported an electromagnetic field model at a time when photons were the up and coming fashion statement. Dirac's model was a theory explaining the creation of electrons, with an electron being knocked into reality by a photon, and leaving a hole in the fabric of space called an antielectron, or by its modern name, a positron. His model of pair creation was never completely accepted nor developed, due to its ultimate support of the aether, and light as waves. The new field theory suggests electrons and positrons join to create ultra-subatomic, coulombic black holes, called thermons, capable of transmitting electromagnetic compression waves. (Thermons are also Planck's oscillators.) The compression created by the joined electron/positrons generates a magnetic field, with north south poles and capable of polarization. With the medium polarized, and the EM compression waves transporting the polarization characteristics, transverse waves are no longer necessary as an explanation for polarized light and the crystal/'slit' experiments. (Thomas Ebbesen and Peter Wolff of the NEC Research Institute have performed experiments which casts significant doubts on the transverse wave model.)
In closing I would like to quote Louis de Broglie. "History clearly shows that the advances of science have always been frustrated by the tyrannical influences of certain preconceived notions which were turned into unassailable dogmas. For that reason alone, every scientist should periodically make a profound reexamination of his basic principals. Intelligent advice.
Top "Yes" articles on:
Can we separate science from ideology?by Keith Foote
Yes, on occasion. There are individuals within the scientific community who can achieve a state of mental clarity,...read more
by Aubrey Chen
Pure science and pure ideology are two very separate, yet overlapping, entities. Neither one exists in the world - sc...read more
Add your voice
Know something about Can we separate science from ideology?? We want to hear your view. Write now!