> Ideological speech is speech that is (1)not empirically verified,
>(2)has no explanatory power yet (3)has wide acceptance as truth. Its
>natural to ask given 1&2, why 3? When certain ideas become dominant, it is
>natural to ask why. When these ideas have no empirical foundation the
>answer must lie in the domain of sociology and ideology. Who disseminates
>these ideas? The intelligentsia. What is the social role of the
>intelligentsia? Manipulation and social control. Intellectuals have
>access to power and privilege through the preservation of capitalist
>ideology and capitalist institutions. Its not profound that persons who
>benefit from capitalism will sing its praises.
hey Sam.
first, what do you mean by sociology? second, what if science itself is a form of ideology? i mean, hello?, there are plenty of scientifically proven 'theories' out there that work as ideologies. and, when you get right down to it, isn't the mathematical formulae used to scientifically thest the truth of a theory ulitimately nothing more than a language? you don't even have to read the interpretivists critique of positivism, let alone the pomoistas--just give that slim little concession speech to the critics of positivism, _Philosophy of Natural Science_ (Hempel) a read. he basically said, "screw it" we must, ultimately, proceed axiomatically with regard to some thing.
and if the 'intelligentsia' are implicated in the ideology machine then how can science possibly be used as a way to gauge the truth of a claim.
and, if you say, well we need to develop rigorous methods for establishing objectivity then don't you need to then rely on mathematical formulae and so forth....
cul-de-sac ey?
okay, so bring on paul to spank me for daring (gasp!) to criticize positivism.
kelley,
"'love the freak; love's the freak"