“Proof” is a big word.Only mathematical theorems can be proven.
But well, is there evidens for ideologish bias in science?
When we talk about the history of science, the answer is clearly “yes”.Nowadays, theories such as Lysenko’s heredity were clearly motivated by ideology.
But is there still ideologically bias in “mainstream” science, or have we become smarter?That is harder to say: After all, if you could prove that a particular mainstream theory would be gebiased, it would by definition no longer be mainstream.
On the other hand, I think you can demonstrate that, when there is a scientific audit, many scientists choose the theory that best suits their ideology.For example, you see it in the controers about the origins of the Brahmischrift-Wikipedia.Indian historians usually believe it was an indigenous Indian inovation, while Western historians usually believe it has developed from the Aramaeische Discerner. Those two camps accuse each other for bias. It is hard to tell who of the two camps is gebiased, but if there would be no bias you would expect there would be no correlation between the ethnicity of the researcher and the theory he follows.
In The economy there are many controversies, for example on the efficiency boosting of the economy by public investment or by tax reductions.The position of an economist correlates clearly with his political vission. However, that does not necessarily mean that there is bias, because we know stricht taken not what cause and followed. Perhaps some economists are left (right) because they come to the conclusion by purely academic considerations that public investment (tax reductions) are the most efficient.
These are preimagined of the social sciences.Is there also ideological bias in the natural sciences? Most natural scientific questions do not have some ideological consequences. This is certainly true in physics and chemistry. Yet it is not to be excluded that some biologists are influenced by ideology. Questions such as the evolutionary origins of geslchat differences in the mammalian body building clearly have ideological consequences for a biologist who have strong opinions on questions such as feminism and collectivism vs Indidualism.
In short, I think ideologically bias in modern mainstream science is a diminishing problem, but still very present in social sciences.In biology it certainly occurs in individual scientists but probably not so very in the scientific concensus.
But it would be best to have an underestimated problem. Tonight we see a clear bias in the rastheorien of the 19th century but that was more difficult for 19th century philosophies to see.Perhaps there are distortions in our present science that are not clear to us but are very much in the eye for 22nd century philosophies.
Whether it can be prevented?I think that if the universities make them ideologically diverse recruiters, scientists would be more confronted with colleagues with the opposite bias and thus become more aware of their own bias. That certainly seems important to me in the social sciences. Here in Europe, that is to do: if it turns out, for example, that almost all sociologists vote on the same party, then we have a problem. However, with the emergence of anti-intelectual ideologies, this is difficult. You can hardly expect from an American university that, when half the population chooses an anti-inteletual party, the university also assigns a staff quota of 50% to anti-intelectuels.