COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	TECHNOLOGY AND IDEOLOGY
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
TECHNOLOGY AND IDEOLOGY


	Why aren't political decisions made with the same objectivity
as engineering decisions? 

	Marxists  used  to  say that  Marxism  provides  a basis  for
objective  political  decisions  and  some  of  them  still  say  it.
Christian  fundamentalists and  Mohammedan  fundamentalists say  that
their sacred books provide the a sure guide for these decisions. 

	The  most  common answer  among  Westerners, whether  they be
intellectuals,  academics,  or  politicians  is  that   there  is  an
intrinsic  difference  between  political decisions  involving  human
conflicts of interest and purposes and engineering decisions.   There
is a  recent trend  towards denying  even the  possibility of  making
engineering  decisions   objectively,  because  they  always  involve
conflicting interests. 

	My own position is that political decisions can be  made just
as objectively  as engineering  decisions, but  not yet,  because the
necessary science has not been developed and is not immediately about
to be.   Marxism represented an attempt  to wish such a  science into
existence, and once  Marxism had a scientific style  even if it often
reached wrong  conclusions,  because its  theories  were  inadequate.
However, its objective  character was not strong enough  to withstand
the demands put on it by seekers of political power, and its practice
lost almost all  of its original proto-scientific  character.  A  new
attempt to base political practice on a science might suffer the same
fate  if the science was too weak  to provide truly objective answers
by  widely  understood  methods  and  if   power  struggles  strained
objectivity too much. 

	Given then that there is not a science of political decision,
how are these decisions made?  What are the harmful consequences of a
lack of science and how can they be mitigated?