In article <v01510102ac74a18f09eb@[128.173.187.13]>, mstorrie at vt.edu
(muriel lederman) wrote:
>The bizarre
> thing is that thinking about fertilization in terms of this socially
> constructed paradigm blinded workers in the field - they saw what they
> expected to see by the way they envisioned the process and constructed
> their experiments.
Agreed both that it happened (s) and on the oddity of projecting culture
on biology, and the serious implications for purported scientific
objectivity (ie: calls into question whether absolute objectivity exists).
It took a while for the aberrations to overcome the
> inherent biases. This is a classic example of how the feminist critique can
> work.
There is a danger here. Several of the feminist critiques of science are
now appropriating the same technique they are criticising. Surely a
"feminist" analysis of science or a "feminist" scientific aesthetic is no
different/better/worse than a "neo-Victorian" or "male" oriented analysis.
There is merit in recognizing and highlighting cultural or gender bias in
science (which was the main argument in this thread) but not much point in
simply replacing one set of biases with a different set.
Pearse
--
Pearse Ward
Dep't Veterinary Microbiology
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK
http://www.usask.ca/~wardp
---------- The road to hell is paved with good intentions ----------
