Certainly, women can pursue knowledge. Or can they? Can men? Can anyone?
I don’t know what you mean by this and suspect it’s beyond the scope of this piece.
What I meant by it is just what I wrote in the rest of that paragraph, not some additional mysterious philosophical question.
This may also be outweighed by how many more scientists now than there were then.
Indeed, it may be, but then again it may not be; and if it is, then by how much? These are the important questions.
(Though note that someone in your mother’s field could be doing science—if you say she’s not, I believe you, but limiting it to just classic STEM is also only a proxy.)
Let me emphasize once again that the fact that my mother isn’t doing science is not some fluke, aberration, regrettable failing of the officially intended operation of the system, etc. Literally no one had any intention or expectation that my mother would be doing any science. That’s not why she got her doctorate, and no one within the system thinks or expects otherwise, or thinks that this is somehow a problem.
Yes, someone else “in her field” (broadly speaking) could be doing science, and some people are. That changes nothing. I never said “no one with a Ph.D. in Education is doing science”.
The point is that the identification between “people with Ph.D.s” and “people doing / trying to do / supposed to be doing science”, which you seem to be assuming, simply does not exist—not even ideally, not even in terms of “intent” of the system. Maybe it did once, but not anymore.
I suppose I’m using PhDs as something of a proxy here, for “people who have spent a long time pushing on the edges of a scientific field”. Think of STEM PhDs alone if you prefe.
Yes, the question of “how many people are there today, who have spent a long time pushing on the edges of a scientific field” is an interesting and important one. But I think that even “STEM Ph.D.s” is a poor proxy for this. (I haven’t the time right now, but I may elaborate later on why that’s the case.)
What I meant by it is just what I wrote in the rest of that paragraph, not some additional mysterious philosophical question.
Indeed, it may be, but then again it may not be; and if it is, then by how much? These are the important questions.
Let me emphasize once again that the fact that my mother isn’t doing science is not some fluke, aberration, regrettable failing of the officially intended operation of the system, etc. Literally no one had any intention or expectation that my mother would be doing any science. That’s not why she got her doctorate, and no one within the system thinks or expects otherwise, or thinks that this is somehow a problem.
Yes, someone else “in her field” (broadly speaking) could be doing science, and some people are. That changes nothing. I never said “no one with a Ph.D. in Education is doing science”.
The point is that the identification between “people with Ph.D.s” and “people doing / trying to do / supposed to be doing science”, which you seem to be assuming, simply does not exist—not even ideally, not even in terms of “intent” of the system. Maybe it did once, but not anymore.
Yes, the question of “how many people are there today, who have spent a long time pushing on the edges of a scientific field” is an interesting and important one. But I think that even “STEM Ph.D.s” is a poor proxy for this. (I haven’t the time right now, but I may elaborate later on why that’s the case.)