science and idealogy (was Re: lbo-talk-digest V1 #4729)

[ravi]

kelley wrote:
> At 01:25 PM 8/13/01 -0400, ravi wrote:
>> kelley wrote:
>>
>>> You need a normative ground in order to distinquish between science 
>>> and ideology...
>>
>> that suggests there are definitive distinguishing features
>> between science and ideology. are there? what are they?
>>
> 
> the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the eating is in the future,
> horkheimer and adorno, _the eclipse of reason_
> 

you must forgive me for not being up to speed with the terminology
here, but i find no comfort in the response above. are you
suggesting that adorno and horkheimer's book lays out the
distinguishing features between science and idealogy? does the
line itself ("the proof of the pudding...") somehow answer my
question? is it that science uses concrete methodoligies ("eating")
to verify its creations ("the pudding")? whereas idealogy is the
opposite... that perhaps it requires no proofs?

	--ravi