Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:36:24.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideological Critiques and the Philosophy of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Jane Roland Martin
Jane Roland Martin*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Massachusetts, Boston
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An examination of the growing literature on gender and science leads to the conclusion that Richardson (1984) has underestimated the significance for philosophy of science of ideological critique. After describing one segment of this literature, namely, gender-based analyses of particular branches of scientific research, this paper argues that the function of at least gender ideological critique goes beyond explanation and that its explanatory function itself is broader than Richardson suggests. The paper also questions the thesis that the isolation of an ideological component in scientific research never in itself discredits that work. In so doing, it casts doubt on the adequacy of L. Laudan's taxonomy of scientific problems.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , March 1989 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 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.)

Footnotes

†

Completion of this work was made possible by a National Science Foundation Grant #SES-830509. Evelyn Fox Keller, Helen Longino, Michael Martin, and Patsy Schweickart provided helpful comments on an earlier draft, as did two referees for this journal.

References

REFERENCES

Bleier, R. (1979), “Social and Political Bias in Science: An Examination of Animal Studies and Their Generalizations to Human Behavior and Evolution”, in R. Hubbard and M. Lowe (eds.), Genes and Gender 11. New York: Gordian Press, pp. 49–69.Google Scholar
Bleier, R. (1984), Science and Gender. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Fee, E. (1983), “Women's Nature and Scientific Objectivity”, in M. Lowe and R. Hubbard (eds.). Woman's Nature. New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 9–27.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (1978a), “Animal Sociology and Natural Economy of the Body Politic, Part I. A Political Physiology of Dominance”, Signs 4: 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. (1978b), “Animal Sociology and a Natural Economy of the Body Politic, Part II: The Past as the Contested Zone: Human Nature and Theories of Production and Reproduction in Primate Behavior Studies”, Signs 4: 37–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. (1981), “In the Beginning Was the Word: The Genesis of Biology”, Signs 6: 469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. (1983), “The Contest for Primate Nature of Man-the-Hunter in the Field, 1960–1980” in M. E. Kann (ed.), The Future of American Democracy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, pp. 175–207.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1986), The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, M. B., and Hintikka, J. (1983), “How Can Language Be Sexist?” in S. Harding and M. B. Hintikka (eds.). Discovering Reality. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co., pp. 139–148.Google Scholar
Hubbard, R. (1979), “Have Only Men Evolved?” in R. Hubbard, M. S. Henifin, and B. Fried (eds.) Women Look at Biology Looking at Women. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Publishing Co., pp. 7–35.Google Scholar
Jarvie, I. (1979), “Laudan's Problematic Progress and the Social Sciences”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 9: 484–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, E. F. (1985), Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, E. F., and Segal, L. A. (1970), “Initiation of Slime Mold Aggregation Viewed as an Instability”, Journal of Theoretical Biology 26: 399–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1980), “Views of Progress: Separating the Pilgrims from the Rakes”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 10: 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984), Science and Values. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Leibowitz, L. (1979), “‘Universals’ and Male Dominance among Primates: A Critical Examination” in R. Hubbard and M. Lowe (eds.), Genes and Gender II. New York: Gordian Press, pp. 35–48.Google Scholar
Longino, H. (1983), “Scientific Objectivity and the Logics of Science”, Inquiry 26: 85–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. (1984), “Review of Ruth Bleier Science and Gender”, The Women's Review of Books 1: 15–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. and Doell, R. (1983), “Body, Bias, and Behavior: A Comparative Analysis of Reasoning in Two Areas of Biological Science”, Signs 9: 206–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. (1988), “Science in a Different Style”, American Philosophical Quarterly 25: 129–140.Google Scholar
Merchant, C. (1980), The Death of Nature. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Newman, L. M. (ed.) (1985), Men's Ideas/Women's Realities. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, R. C. (1984), “Biology and Ideology: The Interpenetration of Science and Values”, Philosophy of Science 51: 396–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, H. (1983), “Hand, Brain, and Heart: A Feminist Epistemology for the Natural Sciences”, Signs 9: 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayers, J. (1982), Biological Politics. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar