Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-06T01:15:52.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Might We Put Gender Politics into Science?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Noretta Koertge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feminist proposals for reforming scientific method often ask that political evaluations be introduced into the context of justification. How might this work in practice? Fausto-Sterling's alternative conceptualization of biological sex is analyzed and criticized. We then use this case study to comment on recent work on the role of social values in science by Longino and Kitcher.

Type
Is Methodology Gendered—and Should it be?
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers , December 2004 , pp. 868 - 879
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

Agassi, Joseph ([1963] 1967), Towards an Historiography of Science. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. Facsimile Reprint. Originally published in History and Theory, Beiheft 2.Google Scholar
Blackless, Melanie, Charuvastra, Anthony, Derryck, Asmanda, Fausto-Sterling, Anne, Lauzanne, Karl, and Lee, Ellen (2000), “How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Snythesis”, How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Snythesis 12:151–156.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, Anne (1992), Myths of Gender: Biological Theories of Women and Men, 2nd ed. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, Anne (1993), “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough”, The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough 33 (March/April): 20–25.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, Anne (2000a), Sexing the Body: Gender Politics & the Construction of Sexuality. Boston: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, Anne (2000b), “The Five Sexes, Revisited”, The Five Sexes, Revisited 40 (July/August): 18–23.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, Anne (2003), “Letter to the Editor: Response”, Letter to the Editor: Response 15:115–116.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald (1996), Understanding Scientific Reasoning, 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hull, Carrie L. (2003), “Letter to the Editor: How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Snythesis”, Letter to the Editor: How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Snythesis 15:112–115.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (2001), Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koertge, Noretta (1998), “Postmodernisms and the Problem of Scientific Literacy”, in Koertge, Noretta (ed.), A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 257–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koertge, Noretta (2000), “Science, Values, and the Value of Science”, Science, Values, and the Value of Science 67 (Proceedings): S45–S57.Google Scholar
Koertge, Noretta (2002), “Feminists Take on Science: Tilting at the Evil Empire”, in Patai, Daphne and Koertge, Noretta, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies. New York: Lexington Books, ch. 12.Google Scholar
Koertge, Noretta (2003a), “Feminist Values and the Value of Science”, in Pinnick, Cassandra L., Koertge, Noretta, and Almeder, Robert F. (eds.), Scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology: An Examination of Gender in Science. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Koertge, Noretta (2003b), “Gender and the Genealogy of Scientific Discoveries” in Pinnick, Cassandra L., Koertge, Noretta, and Almeder, Robert F. (eds.), Scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology: An Examination of Gender in Science. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. (2001), “What Does Feminism Contribute to Philosophy of Science?”, paper presented at the 2001 Pacific Division American Philosophical Association Meeting.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. (2003), “Socially Responsible Directions for the Realism/Antirealism Controversy”, in Pinnick, Cassandra L., Koertge, Noretta, and Almeder, Robert F. (eds.), Scrutinizing Feminist Epistemology: An Examination of Gender in Science. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen E. (1990), Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. (1995), “Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues”, Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues 104:383–397.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen E. (2001), The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Patai, Daphne, and Koertge, Noretta (2002), Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies. New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Pinnick, Cassandra L. (2002), “Should Science Have Gender?”, paper presented at the Eighteenth Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Milwaukee, WI, November.Google Scholar
Reinisch, June Machover, Rosenblum, Leonard A., and Sanders, Stephanie A. (1987), Masculinity/Femininity: Basic Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reinisch, June Machover, McWhirter, David P., and Sanders, Stephanie A. (1990), Homosexuality/Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rolin, Kristina (2004), “Why Gender Is a Relevant Factor in the Social Epistemology of Scientific Inquiry”, Why Gender Is a Relevant Factor in the Social Epistemology of Scientific Inquiry 71 (Proceedings): 880–891.Google Scholar
Sargent, Rose-Mary (2004), “Robert Boyle, Chastity and the Masculine Methods of Science”, Robert Boyle, Chastity and the Masculine Methods of Science 71 (Proceedings): 857–867.Google Scholar
Schiebinger, Londa (1993), Nature’s Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar