Abstract

Recent policy debates are commonly framed as questions of “sci-ence” versus “ideology”. This is seen in polemics around issues that can be informed by bio–medical or geo–physical sciences: the coronavirus pandemic and climate change. The paper explores the basis for claims of difference between science and ideology: truth versus delusion; representations of reality and the means for interpreting it; and their relation to conflicting interests. Each of these three characteristics of ideology is explored by relating them to the methods of the sciences. Three questions are derived from that analysis: Does science hide premises or assumptions; or, conversely, does it proceed by unmasking hidden premises in rival scientific positions? Are the facts of science immediately interpretable, or are they embedded in a web of methodological and metaphorical operations? Are the operations of science insulated from human interests, conflicts, and ethical considerations for how one should live? These are then approached through a compressed case study of three phases of medical science: neo– Platonic herbal studies deriving from Paracelsus; the Enlightenment development of clinical medicine; and the development of immunology from the nineteenth to the twenty–first century. The concluding section draws on the case studies to answer the three questions. Each of the key elements of ideology is shown to also be involved in scientific reasoning. The development of medical science demonstrates that semiotic operations characteristic of ideology are also found in good scientific practice. In conclusion, it is proposed that science is better off for having learned from ideology. Critique is an epistemic virtue; images and metaphors enrich scientific thinking; and science will better serve humanity as its connections to the interests of all species, and to the Earth itself, are exposed.