Is 'science' a tool of the dominant ideology? Or vice versa?

This doesn't stop the avenues of interest explored in science being an expression of an ideology or any other assumptions. science is after all carried out by people.

To blur things some, normal science does require some sort of assumptions to get anything done -- but when push comes to shove, those very fundamental assumptions can be questioned and eventually supplanted.

Uh, does this thread still constitute geekiness, or has that all played itself out? (phew)

Another question might be, is there any 'content' or is this in itself an empty set of rules, the way Saussure and Wittgenstein seem to suggest? If that is so, then there is a false distinction between form and content. But the concept 'ideology' is perhaps sick and unallowable, it's like saying 'science is' or 'the rules are' or 'language is'.

sorry that had to be said.

Markz would probably say that science is bound up with the dominant idealogy, in other words they are working together, to create a total hegemony. Science arises out of the dominant idealogy in the sense that certain science practices are foregrounded in certain ideaologies (ie under industrial capitalism science is primarily concerned with efficiency of production/development of new product). It's kind of a wierd chicken and egg question because Hard Science and Ideaology as we know it both initially flourished about the same time, in the religious void of post-enlightenment england.