Feminist Critiques of Science

  • Published on
    13-May-2015

  • View
    3.213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

<ul><li>1.PHIL 160 PHIL 160 "Feminist Critiques of Science"</li></ul> <p>2. PHIL 160 Mertons four norms of science: </p> <ul><li>Universalism </li></ul> <ul><li>Communism </li></ul> <ul><li>Disinterestedness </li></ul> <ul><li>Organized skepticism </li></ul> <p>3. PHIL 160 GOOD SCIENCE: 4. PHIL 160 GOOD SCIENCE: Only methodology matters. 5. PHIL 160 GOOD SCIENCE: Only methodology matters. OR 6. PHIL 160 GOOD SCIENCE: Only methodology matters. Who's doing science matters. OR 7. PHIL 160 Does exclusion of women result in bad science? 8. Feminism: Commitment to examine and address unequal treatment of the sexes. PHIL 160 9. Feminist critique of science: PHIL 160 10. Feminist critique of science: PHIL 160 </p> <ul><li>Examine inequalities in who gets to do science. </li></ul> <p>11. Feminist critique of science: </p> <ul><li>Examine inequalities in who gets to do science. </li></ul> <ul><li>Examine theories that support unequal treatment of the sexes. </li></ul> <p>PHIL 160 12. PHIL 160 Why were women excluded from science? 13. Why were women excluded from science? Why did it matter? PHIL 160 14. Scientific theories of sex difference PHIL 160 15. Scientific theories of sex difference </p> <ul><li>Females less intelligent </li></ul> <p>PHIL 160 16. Scientific theories of sex difference </p> <ul><li>Females less intelligent </li></ul> <ul><li>Females less rational </li></ul> <p>PHIL 160 17. Scientific theories of sex difference </p> <ul><li>Females less intelligent </li></ul> <ul><li>Females less rational </li></ul> <ul><li>Too much schooling makes females infertile </li></ul> <p>PHIL 160 18. Fit perfectly with societys attitudes toward the sexes! PHIL 160 Scientific theories of sex difference 19. How to tell if these theories are good ones? PHIL 160 Scientific theories of sex difference 20. PHIL 160 Excluding women was justifiable at the time, based on theories of sex difference. 21. Excluding women was justifiable at the time, based on theories of sex difference. We know now those theories were wrong, so exclusion now would be wrong. PHIL 160 22. PHIL 160 Excluding women was a social/political move. 23. Excluding women was a social/political move. As a matter of equality of opportunity, excluding women is wrong. PHIL 160 24. Was exclusion of women harmful to science? PHIL 160 25. Was exclusion of women harmful to science? </p> <ul><li>Smaller pool of talent </li></ul> <p>PHIL 160 26. Was exclusion of women harmful to science? </p> <ul><li>Smaller pool of talent </li></ul> <ul><li>Affects what questions are asked </li></ul> <p>PHIL 160 27. Was exclusion of women harmful to science? </p> <ul><li>Smaller pool of talent </li></ul> <ul><li>Affects what questions are asked </li></ul> <ul><li>Accuracy and objectivity of scientific knowledge? </li></ul> <p>PHIL 160 28. Did exclusion of women result in less accurate or objective scientific knowledge? NO:Proper use of scientific method produces good knowledge, no matter whos using it. PHIL 160 29. YES:Tribe of science produces good knowledge only if it is inclusive. PHIL 160 Did exclusion of women result in less accurate or objective scientific knowledge? 30. Biology &amp; Gender Study Group PHIL 160 31. Biology &amp; Gender Study Group Feminist critique of science can lead tobetterscience. PHIL 160 32. Biology &amp; Gender Study Group Feminist critique of science can lead tobetterscience. PHIL 160 Helps science live up to the norm of organized skepticism by questioning unquestioned assumptions. 33. PHIL 160 masculinist assumptions have impoverished biology by causing us to focus on certain problems to the exclusion of others, and they have led us to make particular interpretations when equally valid alternatives were available. Biology &amp; Gender Study Group 34. PHIL 160 35. PHIL 160 36. Multiple theories can account for the same set of data. PHIL 160 Quine: 37. PHIL 160 38. Microvilli observed,but ignored in accountsof fertilization. PHIL 160 39. Microvilli observed,but ignored in accountsof fertilization. PHIL 160 WHY? 40. Microvilli observed,but ignored in accountsof fertilization. PHIL 160 No good way to fitmicrovilli into gendered fertilization story. WHY? 41. Feminist critique as experimental control: PHIL 160 42. Feminist critique as experimental control: PHIL 160 Be aware of gendered assumptions 43. Feminist critique as experimental control: PHIL 160 Strive not to buildgendered assumptionsinto scientific theories Be aware of gendered assumptions 44. PHIL 160 nucleus cytoplasm cell membrane 45. PHIL 160 Models of nucleus-cytoplasm relation embodying societal views of marriage 46. PHIL 160 47. PHIL 160 48. PHIL 160 49. PHIL 160 50. PHIL 160 Feminist critique as experimental control: 51. PHIL 160 Feminist critique as experimental control: Be aware of explanatory pattern forced by gendered thinking 52. Feminist critique as experimental control: PHIL 160 Consciously considerungenderedexplanatory patterns Be aware of explanatory pattern forced by gendered thinking 53. Helps science live upto the norm oforganized skepticism. PHIL 160 Feminist critique identifies background assumptions. Biology &amp; Gender Study Group 54. Examine gendered assumptions PHIL 160 55. Examine gendered assumptions PHIL 160 Fewer theories based onsocietal prejudices 56. Examine gendered assumptions PHIL 160 Fewer theories based onsocietal prejudices More women in science? 57. Longino : PHIL 160 Including women in the tribe of science could make for more objective output. 58. Subjective - PHIL 160 59. Subjective - PHIL 160 how things seem to me 60. Subjective - PHIL 160 how things seem to me Objective - 61. Subjective - PHIL 160 how things seem to me Objective - how things actually are 62. Subjective - PHIL 160 how things seem to me Objective - how things actually are what anyone could see 63. PHIL 160 Kuhn: 64. Same rules applied to same set of data can lead to different pictures of reality. PHIL 160 Kuhn: 65. Same rules applied to same set of data can lead to different pictures of reality. PHIL 160 Kuhn: Observations aretheory-laden. 66. PHIL 160 67. PHIL 160 68. PHIL 160 69. PHIL 160 70. PHIL 160 71. PHIL 160 Peer Review 72. PHIL 160 Peer Review My results(scientific paper) 73. PHIL 160 Peer Review Journal editor My results(scientific paper) 74. PHIL 160 Peer Review My results(scientific paper) Journal editor Reviewers (other scientists) 75. PHIL 160 Reviewers evaluate the paperPeer Review 76. PHIL 160 Reviewers evaluate the paper</p> <ul><li>Why not this interpretation? </li></ul> <p>Peer Review 77. PHIL 160 Reviewers evaluate the paper</p> <ul><li>Why not this interpretation? </li></ul> <ul><li>How does your finding fit with this other result? </li></ul> <p>Peer Review 78. PHIL 160 Reviewers evaluate the paper</p> <ul><li>Why not this interpretation? </li></ul> <ul><li>How does your finding fit with this other result? </li></ul> <ul><li>Did you control for X? </li></ul> <p>Peer Review 79. PHIL 160 Reviewers evaluate the paper</p> <ul><li>Why not this interpretation? </li></ul> <ul><li>How does your finding fit with this other result? </li></ul> <ul><li>Did you control for X? </li></ul> <ul><li>You should also measure this. </li></ul> <p>Peer Review 80. PHIL 160 Peer Review I receive reviews 81. PHIL 160 I receive reviews Revise paper torespond to reviews Peer Review 82. PHIL 160 Revise paper torespond to reviews Journal editor Peer Review I receive reviews 83. PHIL 160 Revise paper torespond to reviews Published Journal editor Peer Review I receive reviews 84. PHIL 160 Scientific knowledge from my researchplus transformative criticismand dialogue betweenme and my scientific peers Peer Review 85. PHIL 160 How composition of the tribe of science matters: 86. PHIL 160 How composition of the tribe of science matters: </p> <ul><li>If all the members are similar,lots of agreement. </li></ul> <p>87. PHIL 160 How composition of the tribe of science matters: </p> <ul><li>If all the members are similar,lots of agreement. </li></ul> <ul><li>But, could be due to shared subjective biases! </li></ul> <p>88. PHIL 160 How composition of the tribe of science matters: </p> <ul><li>If all the members are similar,lots of agreement. </li></ul> <ul><li>But, could be due to shared subjective biases! </li></ul> <ul><li>Dialogue with scientists with whom we disagree weeds out subjective bias. </li></ul> <p>89. PHIL 160 How composition of the tribe of science matters: </p> <ul><li>If all the members are similar,lots of agreement. </li></ul> <ul><li>But, could be due to shared subjective biases! </li></ul> <ul><li>Dialogue with scientists with whom we disagree weeds out subjective bias. </li></ul> <ul><li>Diverse community increases chances of disagreement. </li></ul> <p>90. PHIL 160 Clash of background assumptions brings themout of the background,opens them to scrutiny. </p>