Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T14:10:47.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Concept of Truth in Feminist Sciences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Geoffrey Gorham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If we view the aim of feminist science as truthlikeness, instead of either absolute or relative truth, then we can explain the sense in which the feminist sciences bring an objective advance in knowledge without implicating One True Theory. I argue that a certain non-linguistic theory of truthlikeness is especially well-suited to this purpose and complements the feminist epistemologies of Harding, Haraway, and Longino.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 10 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Analytic Feminism , Summer 1995 , pp. 99 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Antony, Louise. 1993. Quine as feminist: The radical import of feminist epistemology. In A mind of one's own: Feminist essays on reason and objectivity, ed. Antony, Louise and Witt, Charlotte. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Bleier, Ruth. 1984. Science and gender. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Richmond. 1994. The virtues of feminist empiricism. Hypatia 9 (1): 90–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, Rudolph. 1967. The logical structure of the world. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1983. How the laws of physics lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Feminist theory and the construction of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Devitt, Michael. 1991. Realism and truth. 2d ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dupré, John. 1993. The disorder of things. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Fee, Elizabeth. 1981. Is feminism a threat to scientific objectivity? Journal of Science College Teaching 11: 84–92.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur. 1986. The shaky game. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 1988. Explaining science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1970. Seven strictures on similarity. In Experience and theory, ed. Foster, Lynn and Swanson, J. W.Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jean. 1986. Philosophy and feminist thinking. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs and women. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1987. Ascetic intellectual responsibilities: Reply to Alison Wylie. In Science, morality and feminist theory, ed. Hanen, Marsha and Nielsen, Kai. Calgary: University of Calgary Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1990. Feminism, science, and the anti‐enlightenment critiques. In Feminism/Postmodernism, ed. Nicholson, Linda. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1993. Introduction to The “racial” economy of science, ed. Harding, Sandra. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkesworth, Mary. 1989. Knowers, knowing, known: Feminist theory and claims of truth. Signs 14 (3): 533–57.10.1086/494523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hekman, Susan. 1990. Gender and knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1982. Feminism and science. Signs 7 (3): 589–602.10.1086/493901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1985. Reflections on science and gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1992. Secrets of life, secrets of death. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1989. Can there be a feminist science? In Feminism and science, ed. Tuana, Nancy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1993. Subjects, power, and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1994. The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In Socializing epistemology, ed. Schmitt, Fred. New York: Rowan and Allenheld.Google Scholar
McCarthy, Martha. 1993. Redirecting feminist critiques of science. Hypatia 8 (4): 72–84.Google Scholar
Merchant, Carolyn. 1980. The death of nature. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Namenwirth, Marion. 1986. Science through a feminist prism. In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Bleier, Ruth. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Neurath, Otto, et al. 1938. International encyclopedia of unified science. Vol 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka. 1987. Truthlikeness. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddie, Graham. 1986. Likeness to truth. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-4658-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1963. Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. Objective knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1981. Reason, truth, and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1984. What is scientific realism? In Scientific realism, ed. Leplin, Jarrett. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1991. Objectivity, relativism and truth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seller, Anne. 1988. Realism vs. relativism: Toward a politically adequate epistemology. In Feminist perspectives inphilosophy, ed. Griffiths, Morwenna and Whitford, Margaret. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. 1989. The semantic conception of theories and scientific realism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. 1958. Logic, semantics, metamathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas. 1989. Laws and symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.10.1093/0198248601.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar