"James, can you point to an aspect of nature that all of us humans confront, experience or understand in anything like the same way - esp. across space and through time? "
I am not sure what your question means. But there is no reason to think that our scientific understanding of nature should not deepen over time. Nature's own laws do not change by our knowledge of them.
I like Collingwood and Keith Thomas (but the feminist standpoint theory is tedious - as is the misrepresentation of scientific as colonialism: at least the anti-colonist revolt understood that the point was to confiscate the colonists' machinery and plant). The idea of nature changes, but nature does not.
Of course scientists are not exempt from ideological pressures. But their misrepresentations cannot undo real advances in understanding, which persist. You might not believe that there is one humanity, or that there is a global division of labour. But that is characteristic of the solipsistic constructivist outlook.
Shane says
'Why the dualism? What in "man," individually or collectively, is not also "nature?" And why should whatever human activity you choose to call "science" not be seen to be just as "natural" as activities like talking and killing?'
By labour, man abstracts himself from nature, making it his object. Science takes nature as its object, but is not natural.
I said
> But when we use the word ideological, we plainly appeal to an objective
> truth beyond ideology, or the definition has no meaning.
And Matthias replied
"How do we plainly so appeal?"
By using the word 'ideological', which has no meaning except in contrast to the concept of objective truth.
Matthias further asked
"Does the fact that a sentence can be written in a great number of languages imply that it can be written languagelessly?"
No.