>You might want to distinguish between a scientific theory and the uses to
which it
>is put.
why might i want to do this. there is a conceptual connection, not an accidental one, between an epistemological position which shapes how social research is conducted and the political practices (uses to which it is put) which are engaged in the name of that research.
>Darwin's theory of natural selection is a scientific theory that has been
>and is put to use by reactionaries seeking to legitmate capitalism,
inequality,
>racism, patriarchy etc. There is nothing per se ideological about the
theory of
>natural selection.
oh now, the folks who put it to use (spencer et al.) got it all wrong actually.
> It does point out certain constraints within which people act.
>Ideological science is sham science e.g. _The Bell Curve_ and T.D.
Lysenko. Steven
>Rose and S.J. Gould, amongst others, have done a lot of work exposing
ideological
>science.
i'm not saying that all science is ideological. i will say that science--positivist or interpretivist--that's not critical is a science that will inevitably effect accomodation to the status quo.
>by telling the truth to the best of their knowledge and abilities.
Knowledge is
>fallible. A scientific theory may be wrong.
yes. and....
you need to explain why.
is this just because the researchers conducting the research are biased? is this just because the research becomes dissociated from it's 'innocent' roots?
>>
>mathematical formulae are necessarily true a priori.... 2+2=4 is true
regardless
>of ideology.
social science that is conducted by running regression analyses on survey data is about representing society as consisting of individuals. they are necessarily unrelated to one another by virtue of the procedures required in such research. that kind of research tells us little about how society works, how classes form and dissemble, etc.
i'm not saying that positivist/interpretivist research is useless. i'm a sociologist. but i'm really skeptical of the claim that science can so easily be made to be 'objective' and that truth can be isomorphically grasped.
yes, human knowledge is fallible. but *how* so. the answer to that one is important and, possibly, ideological no?
kelley "The rest obsequate[d]"