Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:55:10.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing Salience: The Importance of Intellectual Virtue in Analyses of Biased Scientific Reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Moira Howes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feminist critiques of science show that systematic biases strongly influence what scientific communities find salient. Features of reality relevant to women, for instance, may be under‐appreciated or disregarded because of bias. Many feminist analyses of values in science identify problems with salience and suggest better epistemologies. But overlooked in such analyses are important discussions about intellectual virtues and the role they play in determining salience. Intellectual virtues influence what we should find salient. They do this in part by managing the emotions, which are cognitively involved in what we actually do find salient. One reason intellectual virtues do not factor more strongly in feminist epistemology is the mistaken assumption that they could not serve as explicit epistemic community standards for scientific inquiry. There are good reasons, however, to think in terms of community intellectual virtue and consequently, to advance explicit public standards of intellectual virtue for scientific research. To show how explicit public standards for intellectual virtue might improve reasoning in biased conditions, I analyze a striking oversight in several evolutionary immunological hypotheses concerning women's reproduction and sexuality. I conclude that feminist epistemology would benefit from greater consideration of intellectual virtues, particularly in connection with social epistemological insights.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , Fall 2012 , pp. 736 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 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

Anderson, Elizabeth. 2004. Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce. Hypatia 19 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baehr, Jason. 2006. Character, reliability and virtue epistemology. Philosophical Quarterly 56 (223): 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berns, Gregory S., Chappelow, J., Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin‐Skurski, M. E., and Richards, J. 2005. Neurobiological correlates of social conformity and independence during mental rotation. Biological Psychiatry 58 (3): 245–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleier, Ruth. 1984. Science and gender: A critique of biology and its theories on women. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Clough, Sharyn. 2003. Beyond epistemology: A pragmatist approach to feminist science studies. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1987. Epistemic responsibility. Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Conde‐Agudelo, A., Villar, J., and Lindheimer, M. 2008. Maternal infection and risk of preeclampsia: Systematic review and metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 198 (1): 7–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elgin, Catherine. 2008. Emotion and understanding. In Epistemology and emotions, ed. Brun, Georg, Doguoglu, Ulvi and Kuenzle, Dominique. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, Anne. 2000. Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fine, Cordelia. 2010. Delusions of gender: How our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Groopman, Jerome. 2006. The preeclampsia puzzle. The New Yorker, July 24 http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/24/060724fa_fact (accessed July 6, 2011).Google Scholar
Haack, Susan. 2003. Defending science—within reason. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Haig, David. 2007. Intimate relations: Evolutionary conflicts of pregnancy and childhood. In Evolution in health and disease, ed. Sterns, Stephen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1989. Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Howes, Moira. 2007. Maternal agency and the immunological paradox of pregnancy. In Establishing medical reality: Essays in the metaphysics and epistemology of biomedical science, ed. Kincaid, Harold and McKitrick, Jennifer. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Howes, Moira. 2008. Conceptualizing the maternal‐fetal relationship in reproductive immunology. In Crafting immunity: Working histories of clinical immunology, ed. Kroker, Kenton, Keelan, Jennifer and Mazumdar, Pauline. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. 1999. Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Hrdy, Sarah Blaffer. 2000. The optimal number of fathers: Evolution, demography, and history in the shaping of female mate preferences. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 907: 75–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaggar, Alison. 1989. Love and knowledge: Emotions in feminist epistemology. In Gender/body/knowledge: Feminist deconstructions of being and knowing, ed. Jaggar, Alison and Bordo, Susan. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox, and Longino, Helen. eds. 1996. Feminism and science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Lloyd, Elisabeth. 2005. The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1995. Gender, politics, and the theoretical virtues. Synthese 104 (3): 383–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1997. Feminist epistemology and a local epistemology (Part 1). Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 71 (1): 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2004. How values can be good for science. In Science, values, and objectivity, ed. Machamer, P. and Wolters, G.Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2008a. Norms and naturalism: Comments on Miriam Solomon's social empiricism. Perspectives on Science 16 (3): 241–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 2008b. Values, heuristics, and the politics of knowledge. In The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited, ed. Carrier, M., Howard, D. and Kourany, J.Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Emily. 2001. The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of reproduction. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
McKinnon, Christine. 2003. Knowing cognitive selves. In Intellectual virtue, ed. De Paul, M. and Zagzebski, L.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Medawar, Peter. 1953. Some immunological and endocrinological problems raised by the evolution of viviparity in vertebrates. Symposia—Society for Experimental Biology 44: 320–38.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, Kathleen. 1994. Gender and the biological sciences. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 20: 21–42.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, Kathleen. 2008. Putnam, Proctor, and political economy. Canadian Society for the History and Philosophy of Science Meeting, June 4. University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Pennington, Renee. 2001. Hunter‐gatherer demography. In Hunter‐gatherers: An interdisciplinary perspective, ed. Panter‐Brick, Catherine, Layton, Robert and Rowley‐Conwy, Peter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Profet, Margie. 1993. Menstruation as a defense against pathogens transported by sperm. Quarterly Review of Biology 68 (3): 335–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quayle, Alison. 2002. The innate and early immune response to pathogen challenge in the female genital tract and the pivotal role of epithelial cells. Journal of Reproductive Immunology 57 (1): 61–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Redman, C., and Sargent, I. 2003. Pre‐eclampsia, the placenta and the maternal systemic inflammatory response—a review. Placenta 24 (S1): S21–S27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, Sarah. 2010. Sexes, species, and genomes: Why males and females are not like humans and chimpanzees. Biology and Philosophy 25 (5): 823–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robillard, Pierre‐Yves, Dekker, Gustav, and Hulsey, Thomas. 2002. Evolutionary adaptations to pre‐eclampsia/eclampsia in humans: Low fecundability rate, loss of oestrus, prohibitions of incest and systematic polyandry. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 47 (2): 104–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robillard, Pierre‐Yves, Dekker, Gustav, Chaouat, Gerard, Chaline, Jean, and Hulsey, Thomas. 2008. Possible role of eclampsia/preeclampsia in evolution of human reproduction. In Evolutionary medicine and health: New perspectives, ed. Trevathan, Wenda, Smith, E. O. and McKenna, James. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruetsche, Laura. 2004. Virtue and contingent history: Possibilities for feminist epistemology. Hypatia 19 (1): 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, Nancy, and White, Heath. 2003. Intellectual virtue: Emotions, luck and the ancients. In Intellectual virtue: Perspectives from ethics and epistemology, ed. DePaul, Michael and Zagzebski, Linda. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Silvia, Paul. 2006. Exploring the psychology of interest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Tara. 2004. “Social” objectivity and the objectivity of values. In Science, values and objectivity, ed. Machamer, Peter and Wolters, G.Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
de Sousa, Ronald. 1987. The rationality of emotion. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Sousa, Ronald. 2009. Epistemic feelings. Mind and Matter 7 (2): 139–61.Google Scholar
Stocker, Michael. 2004. Some considerations about intellectual desire and emotions. In Thinking about feeling, ed. Solomon, Robert. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Strassman, Beverly. 1996. The evolution of endometrial cycles and menstruation. Quarterly Review of Biology 71 (2): 181–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, Randy, and Gangestad, Steven. 2008. The evolutionary biology of human female sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trivers, Robert. 1974. Parent‐offspring conflict. American Zoologist 14 (1): 249–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 2004. Coming to understand: Orgasm and the epistemology of ignorance. Hypatia 19 (1): 194–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wira, C., Fahey, J., Sentman, C., Pioli, P., and Shen, L. 2005. Innate and adaptive immunity in female genital tract: Cellular responses and interactions. Immunological Reviews 206 (1): 306–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed