>
>
> I think science's very claims to be able to nail down "the truth" are
> ideological.
I doubt it. Why do you think this?
> Science has very definite epistemological limitations,
> e.g., the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
In practice, not in principle.
> The very process of
> scientific observation can distort what is under observation, no?
Only unless you accept Bohm's interpretation of quantum physics. The uncertainty principle states that it is physically impossible to specify the the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. This is because to reveal the particles position you must bounce light off of it, which changes its momentum. If you bounce too little light off of it, you can't know the momentum. On the Copenhagen interpretation, the particle's properties then depend on the act of measurement. The C school thought that it followed from this that the electron has neither position or momentum. However, these peculiar properties are intrinsic charateristics of the electrons themselves and not just the way one looks at them or talks about them. Realism is thus compatible with quantum theory.
Heisenberg himself was a realist: "It mat sometimes take many years before one knows the solution of a problem, before one can distinguish between truth and error; but finally the questions will be decided, and the decisions are made not by any group of scientists but by nature itself. Therefore, scientific ideas spread among those who are interested inscience in an entirely different way from the propagation of political ideas. While polical ideas may gain a convincing influence among great masses of people just because they correspond or seem to correspond to teh prevailing interests of the people, scientific ideas spread because they are true. There are objective and final criteria asuring the correctness of a scientific statement. " Physics and Philosophy. Werner Heisenberg p194.
Sam Pawlett