No one claimed it was ideologically neutral. No one ever claimed science was ideologically neutral either. (Doug H)
I claim science is ideologically neutral. In fact, that's what science means. The view that there is nothing but ideology, really means that there is no such thing as ideology. The concept ideology has no meaning if there is no possibility of going beyond it/escaping from it. of life. (Jim heartfield)
--------------
Shirley,
this is a provocation. From the Shorter OED:
Ideology 1796. [- Fr. ideologie (Destutt de Tracy, 1796); see Ideology.] 1. The science of ideas; the study of the origin and nature of ideas. b. spec. The system of Condillac, which derived all ideas from sensations. 2. Ideal or abstract speculation; visionary theorizing 1813. 3. A system of ideas concerning phenomena, esp. those of social life; the manner of thinking characteristic of a class or an individual.
So, what does this claim of ideological neutrality intend? Is it that scientific knowledge has no telos, that it is a mere practice of method for its own sake? Is it also that scientists practicing such a remote activity, therefore have as scientists no reason to reflect on the consequences of their practices and the potential applications of their production? Is it also, a meaningless question if we ask who is paying their salaries and what those writing the checks expect for their money?
While it may appear that science is ideologically neutral in the sense of a manner of thinking characteristic of a class, that is in the abstract and idealized world of pure concept, it is quite another animal that inhabits the world of society. As such a brut, it is completely tethered to the political and economic interests that provide its feed. And, it is that condition of dependence that is the means used to make of science the absolute sex slave to any customer with a ticket to ride.
Even in the realm of ideas, many scientific concepts are constructed about a poignantly ideological center. Certainly that is true of the social sciences. But Biology and Physics don't escape either. What is the search for the queer gene about? Or, how is that our current cosmology sounds like Genesis?
But lets skip an explication of these numerous minions and go directly to the fundamental outline of science. What we mean by science was historically and specifically constructed as a methodology to eradicate metaphysics from a theoretically material universe.
Now from a Marxist view of history, I could say that as an integral part of the rise to power of the high bourgeoise, this class needed a host of ideological weapons to use against its adversary's claims to power. Since these antagonists (feudal aristocracy, church, monarchy) claims were all based on a Christian metaphysics, it was through a pragmatic dialectic that the bourgeois took up the apparently materialist banner of science. So, then the ideological battle ground was between metaphysics and materialism, while here on earth, it was just plain class warfare as usual with and for guns and money--between the high bourgeois, the church, and monarchy. Do I have to add that much of science was and is devoted to producing better guns and more money for whoever is paying the bills?
So, I would say that science is ideologically constructed in the same sense that Christianity is ideologically constructed in both its philosophical justifications and in its concrete practice. I picked Christianity because our conception of science was formed through its struggles with religious authority, and still bares the traces of those battles.
It just so happens I am reading Horkhiemer's _Critical Essays_ (O'Connell MJ. trans, Continuum,NY 1999). From, 'Materialism and Metaphysics":
"The scientific idea of man, as well as nature which is known and to be known by science, are elements in the dynamism of history and will play a role even in the future. But they themselves are determined and altered by the total process, just as much as they in turn, as productive forces, determine and alter it." (31p)
Chuck Grimes