Julia Frugoli (JFRUGOLI at BIO.TAMU.EDU) wrote:
: In response to Paul's comments to Joy:
: 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.
(but later)
: 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.
It sounds like your own words support my point pretty well. You're
using a pretty narrow view of "Standard scientific method" in your first
paragraph, and a more inclusive (and accurate, IMHO) one in the second
paragraph. The exclusion of women as subjects was considered normal, but
when those results are inappropriately generalized to women, standard
science forces us to recognize that a problem exists. And peer review
(combined with the ongoing examination of assumptions) make it likely that
those problems will eventually be dealt with. THAT is my point, the one that
you apparently missed.
: 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.
: So what's wrong with critique from any angle? If we really are good
: scientists, we examine our presuppositions all the time.
I would not propose that it is wrong for someone like Sandra Harding to
present critiques of science, but when her critiques fall flat among working
scientists, I hope that she and her supporters will recognize the
possibility that they themselves have been wrong. Remember that as soon as
Harding moves beyond feminist empiricism, to feminist standpoint
epistemologies, SHE is the one disagreeing with you when you say "What's
wrong with critique from any angle?".
Paul
