Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
A scientific method being defined as a method whose rejection of less descriptive hypotheses of experience (acceptance of hypotheses that are 'accurate from more frames of reference') is always and only ever subject to a concordance with observation/measurement.
Can a core ontology of observation/measurement - that is to say, not human a-priori hypotheses in and of themselves - be accurately considered ideological?
Of course. A progressing science is an ideological construct: one may prefer the status quo. We agree that human actions are somehow motivated and purposeful actions are ideologically driven. The decision to measure things is by no means obvious, especially when we note that the discourses of logic and numbers are not really coordinated in ordinary life (e.g. 'negligible' could mean either zero or non-zero). In practice most questions escape the simple logic of yes/no, producing a kind of shrug ('dunno'), and arbitrary decisions are taken with arguments about criteria and precision which remain always discutable. Science is not mechanical or automatical.
