There are 38 articles on this title. You are reading the article ranked and rated #4 by Helium's members.
Results so far:
| No | 36% | 129 votes | Total: 356 votes | |
| Yes | 64% | 227 votes |
When I finished my graduate studies at the Boston campus of the University of Massachusetts, I was given by the department the book of essays by Dr. victor Weisskopf "The Privilege of Being a Physicist" because graduate studies- and especially the initiation into professional research associated with them- are the formative years of a physicist and I had made quite clear that this was my chosen career path. At the time, I was too occupied with other things to actually read the book which only now, many years later, I have genuinely sat down to read. One of the articles in that book expresses the archetypal argument for the existence of a "scientific world view", the notion that science itself represents an ideology. The fact that I am writing for the opposed side of this debate reflects how strongly I disagree with that notion and I am undertaking to explain exactly why.
Science represents a method of understanding in very pragmatic terms the world about us. Therefore, the temptation to equate this with an ideology in and of itself is perfectly understandable at first glance; only upon closer examination does the untenability of this view become apparent. Science does not and cannot speak in any absolute terms about what the world about us or the phenomena within it are. Rather, science is a method of detecting and describing patterns within the natural world. Thus, for example, Dr. Archibald Wheeler stresses the geometric nature of general relativity wile Dr. Steven Weinberg has written that he regards the geometric interpretation of general relativity as counter-productive. The science is not in what these two great physicists disagree about, but in the physical predictions and the methods for making physical predictions that they develop in common. The rest, including personal opinions about how best to develop the science, are secondary to the science- not part of it.
In a broader sense, science is the first mass human endeavor truly to super cede the cultures of the people involved. Among my colleagues, I have known not people of all religions and atheists or agnostics, as well as conservatives and liberals. EVERY philosophy found is society is also found in the scientific community. Science is not itself a philosophy but something that humans fit into their individual philosophies.
Learn more about this author, Moshe ben-Avraham.
Click here to send author comments or questions.
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
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
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
Add your voice
Know something about Can we separate science from ideology??
We want to hear your view.
Write now!
Featured Partner
Why Tuesday is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that was founded in 2005. Its goal is to raise awareness about t...more
hide