ATTN: Kai and other science spags.

[Cuddlefish]

So, I have one last paper due for the semester, and it's for my philosophy of science class. The prompt is a two-parter, the first part being that I must compare a non or pseudo science with it's scientific counterpart and tell why one is science and the other is not (f'rinstance, psych/para-psych, astronomy/astrology, etc.). This is the easy bit, it's the second part I want to ask you guys about.

Directly from the prompt:

Can a case be made for scientific knowledge being gendered? To answer this question, you will need to describe the differences asserted to exist between male centered science and female centered science, to talk about your reasons for accepting or rejecting this dichotomy in our scientific and knowledge gathering enterprise, and to work through your decision's impact on the goals and direction of science. Alternatively, if you don't want to work with gender, is science fundamentally biased due to limits set by the people dominating it? (put another way, is science ruled by gendered, racial, ethnic, social, or political factors that separate the powered from the powerless?) given your chosen dominant/dominated dichotomy, use the texts that we have studied to make your case.

Now, I have enough 'ammo' from our class readings and discussions to answer this question properly, but I wanted to get some insight from people closer to these issues.

Any insight would be helpful, as it is easily imagined that, in my current condition of "regular strait white dude," I may have overlooked something important. Thanks, duders.

[LMNO]

LARRY SUMMERS, WHAT HAVE YOU WROUGHT!?

The prof is clearly trolling.

My only suggestion is to look up WISE: Women In Science and Engineering.


Also, I'm being glib right now because I'm actually really pissed off at the question. It's like asking if there's a argument to be made for black people not being good at "scientific knowledge".

[Suu]

The prof is clearly trolling.

Is Krieger, Dimo? Cause like then...you're being fucking trolled.

[MMIX]

Dimo - Midwifery / Obstetrics could be fun to look at

LMNO - could you explain that reaction a bit more clearly or are you too pissed off?

Suu - Google suggests Krieger = dick . . .  is that right?

[LMNO]

It's the equivalent of Intelligent Design, climate change, and "teach the controversy" -- it "sounds" reasonable, but it's a false equivalence, lending some sort of equivalence and worth to what is, ultimately, a stupid, bigoted, and worthless stance which has no value and no meaning.

It lends creedence to the lie that women are somehow not the equal to men, intellectually, simply by suggesting that it may be possible.

[Elder Iptuous]

i assume you mean climate change denial?...

[Suu]

Dimo - Midwifery / Obstetrics could be fun to look at

LMNO - could you explain that reaction a bit more clearly or are you too pissed off?

Suu - Google suggests Krieger = dick . . .  is that right?

Fuck no. Best philosophy prof at the college.

[LMNO]

i assume you mean climate change denial?...

[MMIX]

Suu - Google suggests Krieger = dick . . .  is that right?

Fuck no. Best philosophy prof at the college.

aaaah got ya now. So is he a mover and shaker behind the archaeology in the Holy land project? btw I only got the dick vibe because though he was up for best in show URI teacher there were no obvious links to his work.
/academic cynic

[MMIX]

It's the equivalent of Intelligent Design, climate change, and "teach the controversy" -- it "sounds" reasonable, but it's a false equivalence, lending some sort of equivalence and worth to what is, ultimately, a stupid, bigoted, and worthless stance which has no value and no meaning.

It lends creedence to the lie that women are somehow not the equal to men, intellectually, simply by suggesting that it may be possible.

That is fascinating because my reading [coming from a Women's Studies stance] is exactly the reverse and, for me, this question opens up the whole area of external social influence over, in this case, "science" though it could equally be applied across the full range of human endeavour.

NB italics are used here to indicate that I am speaking purely from a personal position; I am sure that there are Women's Studies buffs who would not agree with my interpretation.

[LMNO]

"Can a case be made for scientific knowledge being gendered?"

"No.  Fuck you."



I think that about sums it up.



I think the question you're reading is, "Can a case be made for scientific knowledge being socially conditioned towards males?"


That is an entirely different question, and it's not a semantic one.

[Cuddlefish]

Thanks, guys. I knew there was something weird going on with that question. The first part of the prompt seemed very ordinary and to be expected, but something just seemed off about that second part.

And, yeh, Suu. Krieger. I s'pose I aughta keep a closer eye on him, eh?

Glad I asked you guys. I almost walked into a trap.

[MMIX]

"Can a case be made for scientific knowledge being gendered?"

"No.  Fuck you."



I think that about sums it up.

I think I get what you are saying here but I would refer you to the history of midwifery vs obstetrics suggestion because its pretty obvious from my POV that scientific knowledge can be gendered. I have to be honest but your "No. Fuck you." reply makes you sound [to me] like a dyspeptic knight on a white charger bent on killing this one particular dragon while refusing to address the issue of where all the other little dragons are coming from.

[/quote]
I think the question you're reading is, "Can a case be made for scientific knowledge being socially conditioned towards males?"


That is an entirely different question, and it's not a semantic one.

[/quote]

Its also not a very well worded one, if you don't mind me saying so.  I think the point at issue between us here is the concept of "scientific knowledge". You seem to be using the term in the reified sense of being both value neutral and socially neutral. Conversely I am using it in the sense of it being a socially dependent activity indulged in by human beings and therefore encompassing all the potential for graft, corruption, confusion and prejudice which that implies. Just a quick example; the "scientific knowledge" of midwives was based on generations of hands-on experience of pregnancy and childbirth as was the associated knowledge of development of herbal remedies. This knowledge base was then cherry picked by the newly developing modern medical profession.
Long story short:-
willow tincture > aspirin
Old Wife/midwife > witch
pregnancy > still regarded today as a "medical problem" and addressed using a disease model though things do seem to be improving

Try Mary Chamberlain; Old wives' tales; Virago Press; (1981) if you are interested

Also; [mild mannered academic] You answered my question with a "No. Fuck you!"  [/mild mannered academic]
Well fuck you too, buddy, guess ya didn't want to pass my course after all. 

@Dimo:- What is this trap of which you speak?

[LMNO]

I'm saying that both the male brain and the female brain are equally capable of gathering, handling, processing, and disseminating scientific knowledge.

You appear to be saying that social conditions have led different genders towards different specificity of knowledge.

So, before you go on some tirade about me white knighting, please take the time to acknowledge what I'm actually saying. THEN you can go all OMGWMIDWIVES on me.

[MMIX]

I'm saying that both the male brain and the female brain are equally capable of gathering, handling, processing, and disseminating scientific knowledge.

You appear to be saying that social conditions have led different genders towards different specificity of knowledge.

So, before you go on some tirade about me white knighting, please take the time to acknowledge what I'm actually saying. THEN you can go all OMGWMIDWIVES on me.

You got it, LMNO, I am not in any way saying that knowledge is gendered. No argument from me on that. I have a hearty distaste for all essentialist arguments; you know the sort of thing, women are too emotional and can't think properly, blacks ditto plus they can't swim, white men can't jump. White men can't jump? But that's a joke isn't it; well no I don't think it is because if you take the trouble to actually address it as an issue it takes you right back to the whole area of blacks can only jump and run and stuff . . .

It isn't the gender of "scientific knowledge" which is at issue but the social morass in which science exists. That was the whole point of my midwife example: "knowledge" per se is not gendered but "scientific knowledge" does not actually exist outside the social framework. The "Knowledge" in and of itself, the experimentation and replicability which supported successful midwifery practice and herbal medicaments is not gendered but the social milieu in which they are enacted is very much gendered. I must admit your "No Fuck you" comment rather put my back up because it sounded like you were refusing to address any issues around the gendering of knowledge. I don't deal well with people refusing to even look at an issue especially one like this which I feel very strongly offers a crucial insight into not only issues of gender but also other areas where the arbitrary delineation of groups leads to a distortion of peoples' potentials and options. However I hereby apologise for my jerky knee., I'll try and keep it under better control.