2

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?

  • We have the humorous notion of "pure" in English. Pure mathematics, pure science and so on. They are supposedly purged of the practical, technological, applied aspects of the subjects. A noble cause without a doubt. But I've asked the number theory people and the prime number gurus why all this prime number love? Well encryption, computer stuff, etc. Some still feel the he need of practical justification. – Gordon Oct 7 '17 at 20:02
  • Your last paragraph is perceptive. There is a positive, ahistorical method to science. It's necessary to the subject. Reductivism is necessary. So this is why such subjects as history, history of science and technology are very important as a counterbalance in my opinion. – Gordon Oct 7 '17 at 20:14
  • The scientific method is just that, a method. It goes wrong when it becomes an ideology of sensory-empiricism. So my answer would be that in good science the method is not an ideology but a useful tool, while in scientism and fringe-science it becomes an ideology. – PeterJ Oct 9 '17 at 12:32
1

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.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.