There are 38 articles on this title. You are reading the article ranked and rated #7 by Helium's members.
Results so far:
| No | 36% | 130 votes | Total: 358 votes | |
| Yes | 64% | 228 votes |
Not only is science inseparable from ideology, but they idea that it can be separate is itself ideological. Let me explain, point by point.
1. When people say that science is above and beyond the realms of ideology they invariably point to a concentration on a detached observation of natural facts and make recourse to some universal scientific method as the distinguishing features. But there is some circularity and even hoodwinking here. Firstly, if the facts of science are the product of a detached observation, it doesn't follow that that which is being observed has a real existence in nature. In order to decide what to observe, never mind how to observe it, a series of value judgments must be made. Take evolutionary theory. While I am convinced of its truth and its intellectual power, I cannot see how one could possibly say that it was produced by detailed, clear, unbiased observation of natural facts. Nobody has ever witnessed in any real sense evolution by natural selection. Certainly, as a deductive assessment of how we have come to have myriads of different species is convincing. But we can ask why it came to the fore, independently by two scientists - Darwin and Russell Wallace, both of whom grew up in industrial Britain in the early nineteenth century, when it did and why it was formulated in the way it was. The context of these scientists lives shaped the way they viewed the natural world. To my mind, they couldn't do otherwise. Competition between distinct groups for scarce resources has a definite resonance with the period and place in which these theories came to the fore. Yes, you might say, but now we know better. But can we really say that? Aren't we as much products of our times as they were of theirs? To underscore this point one only needs to look at the metaphors which are currently used as observational categories for understanding the human mind. In the 1820s and 30s, when Darwin and Russell Wallace were formulating their theories, the mind was understood as a steam engine. Today, the metaphor is the computer. We all know why.Let's stay with metaphors a while. Natural selection is itself a very powerful metaphor. To select assumes that a judgment, somewhere along the line, has take place as to what is good or better and what is bad or worse. That is ideology in action. But selection also suggests a selector. Who or what does the selecting? Whatever you want it to be - God, genes, nature - it has selected; engaged in a moral action and
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
by V R Rutledge
When science was in its infancy, ideology was thousands of years old. Science was supposed to be the opposite of ide...read more
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
by Aubrey Chen
Pure science and pure ideology are two very separate, yet overlapping, entities. Neither one exists in the world - sc...read more
by Doc Meson
Yes, we can seperate science from ideology. An ideology is a collection of ideas. From this definition, using it s...read more
Add your voice
Know something about Can we separate science from ideology??
We want to hear your view.
Write now!
Featured Partner
Collegiate Society of America (CSAmerica)
The Collegiate Society of America (CSAmerica) has partnered with Helium, giving you the chance to write for a cause. ...more
hide