[Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts

[Lubomir Savov Popov]

Hi Henry,

In Dialectical and Historical Materialist gnoseology, there is truth, but it is not absolutely possible to attain. We always strive to reach that truth, but at the same time, we never manage to do that. So, it is pretty common that every scientific fact is only the last but one in a long thread of discoveries. Everything that we conditionally accept as true today might be refuted tomorrow and a new fact or discovery will take its place. There is support for such a position in history of science.

Best wishes,

Lubo

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of HENRY SHONERD
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 12:23 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts

Lubo says, "The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or the closest approximation)…"
Back in my undergraduate days, a prof asserted that science was absolutely skeptical, not claiming truth, the way things REALLY are. At best science posits models/hypotheses/theories about how the world works, tests the success of those models on the basis of confirmation or disconfirmation of those models of the world through prediction and measurement. For example, for science the model of our solar system as geocentric (earth centered) or heliocentric (sun centered) is not about whether it is REALLY one or the other but about the predictions we can make based on one or the other. Turns out the heliocentric model is much easier to work and is much more successful in making predictions. Jump forward to the “climate wars” and charges from the right that Concerned Scientists who “believe” in climate change and human agency in that change are ideologues. It has occurred to me that skeptical science can be used to support those charges. I wonder what Marx would have said. Isn’t the dialectic fundamentally skeptical as well?

Henry



> On Jun 5, 2015, at 8:43 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> Ideologies might include laws of nature (including the social nature of society) but this is not a requirement. Ideologies are systems of principles or ideas that justify political talk, action, and behavior in order to defend or obtain a bigger piece of the pie (put it simply). 
> 
> In this case, the natural science law by itself is not ideological. It becomes ideological when it is included in the body of an ideology, when it is appropriated by a group of people to serve their objectives. But this doesn't make a natural law ideological by itself. Now, you might say that the discovery or formulation of a natural science law might be influenced by political ideology. This is a completely different talk. Bolshevik ideology influenced the discovery of the principle of the leading role of the proletariat. You can tell me if this this is a real law in the social realm or an ideological construct. Certain social "discoveries" in totalitarian or authoritarian countries claimed to be based on science and to be scientific laws of nature, but in effect these were ideological constructions in disguise. 
> 
> There is a major difference between science and ideology as social institutions. The goal of science is to understand the world as it is (or the closest approximation); the goal of ideology is to defend our socioeconomic position at any rate, no matter what. Ideology can use science or might pretend to be using science, which is most often the case. If we mix science and ideology, if we idologize science, we make a dangerous mix that can kill billions of people (so far only a few hundred million in and around two world wars). 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Lubo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:31 AM
> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts
> 
> So for example, Lubomir, if a natural scientist formulates a law of nature which stands up to the test of time for over a century (e.g. Darwin), it surely is ideological, but would you claim that it reflects the interests of Charles Darwin (and maybe other biologists) and does not have within it a universal truth. (NB not = objective or universal truth, but "has within it" or "has a basis in universal experience," 
> etc.) Is it really all relative??
> 
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> On 6/06/2015 12:19 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
>> I don't know if this helps but in researching this term a few years ago with a student we found the term emerged right after the French revolution.  Instead of basing a social system on the activities of the populace and building up from these there was a movement to base the political system on a set of ideals.  This was disparaged I guess by a number of the more intense revolutionaries and they began to call this group of idealists ideologues - leading to the idea of basing your vision of government (or expanded to almost anything) in a set of abstract ideals.  I believe it was Marx who remarked that these French ideologues were walking on their heads - the goal of Marxists was to flip them back over so they are walking on their feet again (I believe this is what people often confuse as Marx flipping Hegel on his head - I have never been able to find a quote that backs that up.  If anybody does know of it please let me know).
>> 
>> Interestingly side note is that Thomas Jefferson was in France at the time and brought back the idea of ideology to the United States wanting to develop a system based on ideology and not practice.  The French eventually flipped over a few times, but in the United States we have been mired in ideology since Jefferson's return.
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu 
>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] 
>> On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov
>> Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 10:03 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Ideological Footprint of Artifacts
>> 
>> Hello everyone,
>> 
>> A core definition of ideology in the political sense should highlight that it is a system for defending the social position/status that individuals and groups acquire in the economic process. All the rest is derivative. In that light, politics is also an instrument for defending or obtaining a desired position in the socio-economic process.
>> 
>> In the professions, the word/term ideology is often used to denote a system of general believes and principles that drive professional decision making.
>> 
>> Political ideologies affect design decision making and in that way affect the organization of artifact functions and morphology. And of course, professional ideologies drive this process overtly.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Lubomir
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>