But you write 'While a fundamentally unknowable Nature - which is what I think you mean - may not change by dint of our changing conception of it, that which we treat, explore and represent as natural ... do in fact change.'
I agree, in that they tend to improve, i.e. get closer to the truth of the matter, except that the subclause
'and therefore then material natures and scientific laws of nature we generate' is a fudge, because we don't generate "material natures" or "laws of nature" nature has law-like properties that we represent.
You write: 'I never said that science doesn't generate more knowledge about more stuff over time - though as everyone knows that "progress" has largely been defined in terms of knowing more and more about less and less, the flip side of which is that we are (or ought to be) also aware of how much more ignorant we are as a result.'
Well, I would be happy with 'more knowledge about more stuff over time'. Still when you write "as everyone knows" ! '"progress" has largely been ... knowing more about less and less' I am not sure what you mean. You use Nicholas of Cusa's trope about increased knowledge increasing our appreciation of our ignorance, but that is indeed progress. Who would welcome the benighted confidence of the primitive?
Rudy said "there isn't anything like one human experience of nature -something very material, very historical and something you refuse to address." I think there is a largely unified corpus of scientific knowledge that is the collective human experience of nature. The fact that virtually no-one has a direct experience of nature, unmediated by technology or society, tells us that technology and society are the collective experience of nature.
Rudy: "There is absolutely no need to claim to possess absolute, transcendent, universal or objective truth in order to generate the kind of ideology critique behind using the word ideological to represent the work of another or others."
I did not say that you had to possess or claim to possess "absolute, transcendent, universal or objective truth" to criticise the ideology. You only have to appeal to the possibility of approaching greater understanding of an objectivity outside of inter-subjectively manufactured ideology. Otherwise, it is just your ideology against mine, and the charge of 'ideology' becomes redundant.