Science as Ideology – Beliefs in Society

Science as Ideology – Beliefs in Society



okay the next video of the the set here which really pays off with the ideology is science as a belief system now this is page 10 and 11 within our textbook now what we're going to start off with is Auguste Comte and stages of human developments now some sociologists have argued that science is quite different and type of belief system to political ideologies and religion so for example the function of social or comp who is a positivist and source Society is passing through three stages progressing towards scientific knowledge and we're going to look at those three stages now obviously if you want to read these in a bit more detail pause the video and your baby to see so now the first stage by which comment really proposes here is the theological state which is the pre 18th century now the characteristics or of beliefs within this particular phase are the following now religious and superstitious beliefs are dominant and people believe because they have faith they follow beliefs from sacred texts and religious leaders beliefs are not open to question or debate so this is something by which you're really fixed within your current belief system this would really bet predate or go towards early Christian societies by which individuals would not question what the Bible says meaning they will accept it wholeheartedly the next one we're going to look at is the metaphysical stage which is the 18th century now this is philosophical beliefs on dominant people can now use rationality to decide what to believe and how to behave so for example political philosophy led to the introduction of democracy rather than believing that kings and queens should rule by divine right this is really the first stage by which we see humans starting to question starting to question the legitimacy of people claiming to have god-given rights and abilities the next stage and the last stage of calm proposes proposed stages of human development is the positive stage now this is the 19th century when seemingly we should be in this by now now sight is a dominance belief system people believe those things can be tested and proved to be true using objective knowledge now beliefs are no longer a matter of opinion instead they're are a matter matter of objective scientific rational thought now if you can use Auguste Comte anywhere you can use compt as a introduction in a sense to how science has replaced religion as an ideological influence in society therefore providing you with a good discussion which provides a feasible argument throughout your essay now from comms point of view scientific beliefs are fundamentally different from other types of belief they are not a matter of opinion as scientific facts are independent of beliefs of individuals unlike religion science does not rely upon faith but upon evidence so scientific knowledge can be tested through research and false beliefs can be rejected and move towards a scientific belief system represents progress as a result because we are now removing and the mystical nature of religion and really starting to try to understand how the world works and why the world works in that particular way obviously as a result challenging the mainstream meta-narratives that currently exist now we're moving on to positivism and science here now compt advocated positivism as an objective scientific way of producing knowledge he believed that this approach could be applied to social sciences such as sociology as well as physical sciences such as chemistry biology physics etc now he believed that there are eight main features of positivism when experiencing the world now the first of the main eight features here are there are objective social facts about the social world these facts can be expressed in statistics which would be seemingly objective and quantifiable now these facts are not influenced by the researchers personal opinion or subjective viewpoints or beliefs about right and wrong values are therefore value free meaning that they are not based in the individual's point of view that are based within objective scientific understanding now obviously the counterpoint here's if it were if the beliefs were value Laden beliefs they would be influenced by the moral principles of an individual and at least they'll be partly subjective so they're based on personal opinion and not bias truth and so therefore what we can see here is if we are expressing data in these particular ways it is objective next bit you can look for correlations so patterns in which two or more things tend to occur together now with the correlations they may represent causal relationships and so one thing causing another now it's possible to discover laws of human behavior as a result of this so causes behavior which are true for all humans everywhere and throughout history just as though the laws are in science now humor havior is also shaped by external stimuli so these are things that happen to us so our experiences within the social world etc rather than internal stimuli which goes on in the human mind now to be scientific you should only study what you can observe so you must not make inferences based off of unobservable information it is therefore unscientific to study people's emotions meanings or motives which are internal to the unobservable mind last point is scientific knowledge is produced through induction you collect evidence and induce a theory from the evidence rather than deduction where you come up with a theory and you try to find evidence to support what you're looking at now main thing that you can throw in as a bit of a evaluation point here is positivism is not university accepted as a model of science now if anything when we will start to look at Papa and falsification this is really where the magic starts to happen because he is a lot more widely accepted across a multitude of fields now the next section I'm going to move on to his cold popper falsification and science now cold popper offers an alternative view of science belief system and this is really put forward just to counterbalance what Comte was stating about social science now he believed that social science unlike religion can be objective however unlike Comte he did not believe it could produce laws that will necessarily be true for all time now he saw all science is based on falsifiable theories which may precise predictions that could then be tested and be proven or disproven as a result of this now if repeated repeatedly tested and found to be correct a theory may be provisionally accepted but there is always the possibility that can be proved wrong or falsified in the future now probably that sociology could be objective it made precise predictions that could be falsified however he regards some sociological sociological arguments such as Marxism as unscientific because it did not include precise predictions for example Marx did not produce precise predictions about when the proletariat revolution would have taken place as well as that he did not conduct any objective research to find out why or when this revolution would be taking place as a result now popper use the deductive approach so from the theory jadoo type offices and make precise predictions then check that these are correct this is unlikely induct in inductive approach of positivism which induces theories from the data collected both popper and positivist see scientific belief systems as superior to other belief systems how positivist see science as produced an objective truth was Papa saw Sciences getting as close as possible to the truth although it was always possible that a theory would be falsified in the future meaning that it can be proven wrong and right in the possible near future now the main thing that you will need to note about this is popper did not sites as ideological he saw it as a genuine search for the truth however he argued social scientists need to make more precise predictions and be careful to make make their theories falsifiable if they were to be seen as scientific as a result now we're going to look at science in social context now some sociologists did not see signs as being objective in the way and believed by positivists and popper instead they argue that science is a belief system like any other that is influenced and shaped by society in which beliefs are produced now the example that we've got here is Charles Darwin and evolution now Roger Gumm argues that Darwin's theory of evolution was accepted because of the social context of Victorian Britain with its lesser faire capitalism it welcomed the ideas of natural selection and survival of the fittest now opposition to social revolution encouraged acceptance of evolutionary theory and of fossil evidence because evolution in thinking allowed Victorian Britons to see themselves as superior to the people in conquered colonies therefore they are the ones that are going to succeed and dominate societies due to them being the fittest as a result now as well as being influenced by the broad social context scientific knowledge can be influenced by the desires of scientists to have successful careers this means scientists may not always be objective and a perfect example of this is Kaplan who distinguishes between reconstruction logic logics so the methods of scientists claim to use and logic and use the actual method they use meaning that there's going to be this disparity between these two types of logics by which a scientist will fail to reconcile now Michael Lynch in 1983 illustrated this further by showing how scientists sorry there's a police car going past how scientists studying rat brains ignored slides that contradicted their theories dismissing them as artifacts or mistakes produced during laboratory procedures he argued that scientists look for evidence to confirm theories and ignore evidence that may might falsify them they were reluctant to accept evidence that may undermine their work because remember they have spent a lot of time nurturing and they've got this little bit of an emotional connection with any form of research by which they have conducted now Thomas Kuhn in terms of the scientific revolutions really starts to bring this all to life now he questioned the idea that science is objective he believed that science operates through paradigms so these are generally general theories or sets beliefs held by groups scientists now each scientific paradigm has a social base of scientists who are dedicating dedicating their careers to working within it now scientists tend to work within a single paradigm ignoring evidence that contradicts it or does not fit with the theory only when many in expect inexplicable anomalies are found does the Scientific Revolution take place and the paradigm is replaced by new one an example of this is the replacement of Sir Isaac Newton's the views of physics with Albert Einstein's theory of relativity so we can see that it can change and it is constantly shifting as a result so we will enter into this normal science phase and then a revolution will take part next section and the last little bit and for science and ideology now post-modernism and science here now the toy art in 1984 believed that science is just another meta-narrative or big story about the world with no more validity than other meta-narratives he argued therefore science is not different in any kind from any other kind of belief system including religion now different belief systems are accepted in different societies and at different stages in history and no one belief system is superior to the others now according to the toy hard science involves a meta-narrative of progress suggesting that humans can control it and perfect the world now this allows us to be underneath the assumption that at some point through our own manifestation we'll be able to enter and create the Golden Age of man because we've got the scientific knowledge we've got the technological advancements which then therefore may enable us to reach that big point within our lives within humanity now this view became more influential from the 18th century onwards although it never completely replaced religion how in the modern era the meta-narrative progress came to dominate Western thought then in recent decades modernity has been replaced by post modernity now in post modernity people became become skeptical of all meta-narratives that tell them what is right and what is wrong and they tell them how to live their lights now science has become discredited because it's failed to solve problems such as cancer famine war etc and it and it has been used to create new problems as well in our society such as nuclear weapons and global warming which we just do not need and they are detrimental to the survival of the human race as well now science consists of two types of games one being the denoted language games which are based upon where the statements are true or not now denoted language games have been replaced by technical language games which concern whether things are useful rather than whether they are true so there's going to be a big criticism between these two different types of games by which people may play in terms of their statements and wordplay now people may therefore no longer seek the truth from one single belief system instead they can pick and choose from a variety of different belief systems this is where the idea of spiritual shopping really comes into play and we're going to look at this in a bit more detail on the next slide now I'd really recommend that you take a minute and pause this video just to read what's on this slide now first one we've got here is scientific beliefs so beliefs in previous areas say in modern era scientific knowledge was accepted as objective truth however in post modernity science has been seen as just one many possible truths eg people's you people use alternative therapies as well as traditional scientific medicine to try remedy any illnesses or mental health that they may experience political beliefs so political ideologies such as communism and fascism and a powerful influence in modern societies now in post modernity people reject single political meta-narratives but may be interested in single issue politics so for example ecology who rights or the rights of minority groups therefore people are more focused around their own individual individual experiences than that of their community religious beliefs now religion was dominant in pre-modern societies and most people still believe in one of the dominant world religions in the modern era however in post modernity people no longer follow a single engine but pick and choose from a variety of beliefs in the New Age movements sects and cults therefore what we see is that pick a mixed culture really is starting to emerge as a result now just to conclude so most social just agree and that the degree of faith in science is influenced by social factors how that science allows belief to be tested against evidence the scientific beliefs that withstand testing are seen as objective truths however the extent to which science has lost influence can be exaggerated so for example most people still rely upon scientifically based health care and technology is integral to people's lives now although people may be more skeptical about science than they were in the past therefore we're not placing our faith wholeheartedly with into the scientific belief systems anymore we're now venturing out and exploring the world by ourselves trying to gain a deeper understanding as to what is going on within our modern world now that's the video for in terms of belief systems and ideology if you've got any questions let me know

4 thoughts on “Science as Ideology – Beliefs in Society

  1. nah. there is truth in guiding principles…. science has no answers only doors to more questions some that make no logical sense to the human mind ;p and more that will NEVER be answered…. how could you be guided in your life by such nonsense??? ;p;p God is truth….. ;p pce!

  2. I really struggle remembering this, I'm glad I've found it here. Thanks! all though I'm very nervous about tomorrow. we've not been taught well at all and I've done lots of revision but keep finding stuff I haven't been taught.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *