In response to Paul's comments to Joy:
> In the eyes of the feminist critic of science (as well as in my
>own eyes), the example represents the application of standard
>scientific methods, and not a "drastic" change in the way science is
>done.
>> Paul
>But you're missing the point, which is that exclusion of women WAS
CONSIDERED STANDARD SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Unless women protested, the
study guidelines for funding would still require exclusion of women from
study groups. While the above may not be a "drastic" change, the idea
that accepted scientific method is a truth onto itself is silly in my
opinion. Accepted methods change, and that change is dependent upon the
people, male and female, who practice science-they are the one who make
it "accepted" and who must raise a voice if they see an error. We as
scientists beleive that examination by our peers will reveal our biases
and errors-that's why science is so heavily dependent on peer review. So
what's wrong with critique from any angle? If we really are good
scientists, we examine our presuppositions all the time.
Julia Frugoli
Dartmouth College
presently visiting grad student at
Texas A&M University
Department of Biological Sciences
College Station, TX 77843
409-845-0663
FAX 409-847-8805
