thought you were talking about, for example, discouraging research on sex differences because people are likely to overinterpret the observations and cause harm as a result.
I did have this sort of thing in mind. My claim was that I think it also goes deeper. This article (PM me your email address if you don’t have access to the PDF) splits the criticism into three primary schools, the first of which begins with the content of scientific theories (i.e. racism, sexism, class bias) and from that concludes that rationality is wrong. An excerpt:
If logic, rationality and objectivity produce such theories, then logic, rationality and objectivity must be at fault and women must search for alternative ways of knowing nature. Such arguments often end up privileging subjectivity, intuition, or a feminine way of knowing characterized by interaction with or identification with, rather than distance from, the object of knowledge.
If I’m reading that paragraph right, that’s attributed to Luce Irigaray’s 1987 paper.
The second school criticizes the methodology and philosophy of science, and then the third criticizes the funding sources (and the implied methodology) of modern science. The author argues that each has serious weaknesses, and that we need to build a better science to incorporate the critiques (with a handful of practical suggestions along those lines) but that the fundamental project of science as a communal endeavor is sound. Since I think the author of that paper is close to my camp, it may be prudent to follow her references and ensure her interpretation of them is fair.
I did have this sort of thing in mind. My claim was that I think it also goes deeper. This article (PM me your email address if you don’t have access to the PDF) splits the criticism into three primary schools, the first of which begins with the content of scientific theories (i.e. racism, sexism, class bias) and from that concludes that rationality is wrong. An excerpt:
If I’m reading that paragraph right, that’s attributed to Luce Irigaray’s 1987 paper.
The second school criticizes the methodology and philosophy of science, and then the third criticizes the funding sources (and the implied methodology) of modern science. The author argues that each has serious weaknesses, and that we need to build a better science to incorporate the critiques (with a handful of practical suggestions along those lines) but that the fundamental project of science as a communal endeavor is sound. Since I think the author of that paper is close to my camp, it may be prudent to follow her references and ensure her interpretation of them is fair.