9 ms·

While all the books he suggests are worth reading, the list as a whole has a major gap: nothing from feminist or post-colonialist perspectives. So I'd add Sand

by jdp23 11y ago

While all the books he suggests are worth reading, the list as a whole has a major gap: nothing from feminist or post-colonialist perspectives. So I'd add Sandra Harding's "Sciences From Below", and perhaps the collection "Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science".

throwawayHN234 11y ago
Of course, it lacked feminist diversity.
trentmb 11y ago
Are there any Marxist or African-American perspectives you might be able to recommend?
- jdp23 11y ago
  Not sure that it's classified as "Philosophy of Science" but Mackenzie Wark's "A Hacker Manifesto" is pretty darn Marxist ... it even has a red cover :) Here's a 10th-anniversary interview of him by Melissa Gregg: https://lareviewofbooks.org/interview/courting-vectoralists-interview-mckenzie-wark-10-year-anniversary-hacker-manifesto https://lareviewofbooks.org/interview/courting-vectoralists-... On the African-American perspective, nothing leaps to mind, sorry. Anybody else have suggestions?
  - trentmb 11y ago
    Thanks- I've recently started a 'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it' sort of pursuit- I'm currently stumbling through Lois Tysons' "Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide" EDIT: I mean that I'm doing my best to suspend/address whatever judgments I currently have, not immediately discard what I read.
    - jdp23 11y ago
      Haven't read it but it looks great. And yes, seems like a great exercise to entertain thoughts while suspending judgement.
    - kwhitefoot 11y ago
      Surely 'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it' is a mark of any competent developer , After all you very often have to entertain competing theories about the inner workings of a program and pretty much everyone involved, users, maintainers, architects, managers, etc., will have a different theory. As a developer you will probably have to be able to discuss all of them without necessarily accepting any. Unfortunately this does not necessarily require an educated mind.
    - cokernel 11y ago
      Thanks for this comment. While trying to track down the source of the quote, I ran into this interesting, if a bit oddly formatted, blog post: http://publicnoises.blogspot.com/2009/02/aristotle-and-accuracy.html http://publicnoises.blogspot.com/2009/02/aristotle-and-accur... There are a few good comments there, too, followed by a bunch of me-toos.
- jboynyc 11y ago
  Marxism is a little tough because for much of the twentieth century you had the split between Soviet and western marxism, where the Soviet branch considered itself properly "scientific" while the western branch engaged with more humanist themes from philosophy. In my opinion the philosophy of science developed in western marxism is much more interesting than the scientism of the Soviets. German philosopher Max Horkheimer's essay "Critical and Traditional Theory" (1937) is a classic and very influential formulation of a western marxist philosophy of science. I don't know about African American philosophy, but among Latin American philosophers Enrique Ambrosini Dussel has done much to advance a unique perspective on epistemology and philosophy of science. In the English-speaking world his work has been championed by Sandra Harding, who was mentioned by another commenter.
MichaelGG 11y ago
Is there a reason that Feminist books would add something particularly special? (Versus books simply written by women?) I don't know much except apparently respected Feminists have said stuff like "E=mc^2" is a "sexed equation" and other inane stuff. (Generally non-physicists talking about physics doesn't end well.) Is there a short, concise, summary of what Feminism has contributed to sciences? (Given that I don't think one's chromosome's or gender should matter much in the first place.) Sorry if this is extremely ignorant; just curious.
- jdp23 11y ago
  Yes, feminist philosophy of science does address things that aren't typically found in non-feminist works, even those written by women. In particular, "situated knowledge" -- knowledge that reflects the particular perspectives of the subject -- plays a very big role, and for example leads to a lot of interesting questions about "objectivity". There are a couple of excellent page on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one on Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science [1] and another on Feminist Perspectives on Science [2]. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/ [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-science/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-science/
  - joepvd 11y ago
    I guess any philosopher of science systematically call into question objectivity, and in recent times will have to come to terms with "situated knowledge" one way or the other. If feminism is defined with these terms, why would e.g. Latour not qualify as feminist?
    - jdp23 11y ago
      Good question ... I didn't mean to reduce feminist philosophy of science only to that, although it's a key element. The most important aspect of feminist philosophy of science is that it looks at things through a gender lens, and Latour explicitly rejects that. From "... That Damned Elusive Bruno Latour": [1] "The social sciences have no 'out there' or 'up there' to serve as a foundation," Latour once told an interviewer. For that reason, Latour objects to feminist critics of science (who elevate gender to a transcendant principle), Marxist critics of science (who do the same with economics), and Foucauldian critics of science (who repeat the process with power). They, in turn, object to him. The British feminist epistemologist Hillary Rose, for instance, in a review of Science in Action, wrote: "By cutting himself adrift from those who point to the dominant interests which science serves and to the masculine composition of its workforce and its knowledge, [Latour] sidesteps the crucial challenge.... Unless feminism engages in a rather sharp struggle for social and conceptual space, both networks and analysis are likely to remain integral to masculinist hegemony.'' http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9410/latour.html http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9410/latour.html
sklogic 11y ago
"Feminist science" is an oxymoron.
- nova 11y ago
  I'd say pattern recognition is a very important aspect of science, and intelligence in general, so every ideology who tries to suppress theories for aesthetic or subjective reasons (criticizing something for being "offensive", instead of "false") is fundamentally anti-science, and anti-intelligence.
  - saulrh 11y ago
    The obvious counterargument is that every ideology that tries to force theories to be accepted for aesthetic or subjective reasons is just as fundamentally anti-science. This situation is more complex than these quotes can handle. The most relevant link I have is to http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/, if anything.

by jdp23 11y ago

throwawayHN234 11y ago

Of course, it lacked feminist diversity.

trentmb 11y ago

Are there any Marxist or African-American perspectives you might be able to recommend?

jdp23 11y ago
Not sure that it's classified as "Philosophy of Science" but Mackenzie Wark's "A Hacker Manifesto" is pretty darn Marxist ... it even has a red cover :) Here's a 10th-anniversary interview of him by Melissa Gregg: https://lareviewofbooks.org/interview/courting-vectoralists-interview-mckenzie-wark-10-year-anniversary-hacker-manifesto https://lareviewofbooks.org/interview/courting-vectoralists-... On the African-American perspective, nothing leaps to mind, sorry. Anybody else have suggestions?
- trentmb 11y ago
  Thanks- I've recently started a 'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it' sort of pursuit- I'm currently stumbling through Lois Tysons' "Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide" EDIT: I mean that I'm doing my best to suspend/address whatever judgments I currently have, not immediately discard what I read.
  - jdp23 11y ago
    Haven't read it but it looks great. And yes, seems like a great exercise to entertain thoughts while suspending judgement.
  - kwhitefoot 11y ago
    Surely 'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it' is a mark of any competent developer , After all you very often have to entertain competing theories about the inner workings of a program and pretty much everyone involved, users, maintainers, architects, managers, etc., will have a different theory. As a developer you will probably have to be able to discuss all of them without necessarily accepting any. Unfortunately this does not necessarily require an educated mind.
  - cokernel 11y ago
    Thanks for this comment. While trying to track down the source of the quote, I ran into this interesting, if a bit oddly formatted, blog post: http://publicnoises.blogspot.com/2009/02/aristotle-and-accuracy.html http://publicnoises.blogspot.com/2009/02/aristotle-and-accur... There are a few good comments there, too, followed by a bunch of me-toos.
jboynyc 11y ago
Marxism is a little tough because for much of the twentieth century you had the split between Soviet and western marxism, where the Soviet branch considered itself properly "scientific" while the western branch engaged with more humanist themes from philosophy. In my opinion the philosophy of science developed in western marxism is much more interesting than the scientism of the Soviets. German philosopher Max Horkheimer's essay "Critical and Traditional Theory" (1937) is a classic and very influential formulation of a western marxist philosophy of science. I don't know about African American philosophy, but among Latin American philosophers Enrique Ambrosini Dussel has done much to advance a unique perspective on epistemology and philosophy of science. In the English-speaking world his work has been championed by Sandra Harding, who was mentioned by another commenter.

MichaelGG 11y ago

Is there a reason that Feminist books would add something particularly special? (Versus books simply written by women?) I don't know much except apparently respected Feminists have said stuff like "E=mc^2" is a "sexed equation" and other inane stuff. (Generally non-physicists talking about physics doesn't end well.) Is there a short, concise, summary of what Feminism has contributed to sciences? (Given that I don't think one's chromosome's or gender should matter much in the first place.) Sorry if this is extremely ignorant; just curious.

jdp23 11y ago
Yes, feminist philosophy of science does address things that aren't typically found in non-feminist works, even those written by women. In particular, "situated knowledge" -- knowledge that reflects the particular perspectives of the subject -- plays a very big role, and for example leads to a lot of interesting questions about "objectivity". There are a couple of excellent page on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one on Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science [1] and another on Feminist Perspectives on Science [2]. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/ [2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-science/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-science/
- joepvd 11y ago
  I guess any philosopher of science systematically call into question objectivity, and in recent times will have to come to terms with "situated knowledge" one way or the other. If feminism is defined with these terms, why would e.g. Latour not qualify as feminist?
  - jdp23 11y ago
    Good question ... I didn't mean to reduce feminist philosophy of science only to that, although it's a key element. The most important aspect of feminist philosophy of science is that it looks at things through a gender lens, and Latour explicitly rejects that. From "... That Damned Elusive Bruno Latour": [1] "The social sciences have no 'out there' or 'up there' to serve as a foundation," Latour once told an interviewer. For that reason, Latour objects to feminist critics of science (who elevate gender to a transcendant principle), Marxist critics of science (who do the same with economics), and Foucauldian critics of science (who repeat the process with power). They, in turn, object to him. The British feminist epistemologist Hillary Rose, for instance, in a review of Science in Action, wrote: "By cutting himself adrift from those who point to the dominant interests which science serves and to the masculine composition of its workforce and its knowledge, [Latour] sidesteps the crucial challenge.... Unless feminism engages in a rather sharp struggle for social and conceptual space, both networks and analysis are likely to remain integral to masculinist hegemony.'' http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9410/latour.html http://linguafranca.mirror.theinfo.org/9410/latour.html

sklogic 11y ago

"Feminist science" is an oxymoron.

nova 11y ago
I'd say pattern recognition is a very important aspect of science, and intelligence in general, so every ideology who tries to suppress theories for aesthetic or subjective reasons (criticizing something for being "offensive", instead of "false") is fundamentally anti-science, and anti-intelligence.
- saulrh 11y ago
  The obvious counterargument is that every ideology that tries to force theories to be accepted for aesthetic or subjective reasons is just as fundamentally anti-science. This situation is more complex than these quotes can handle. The most relevant link I have is to http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/17/the-toxoplasma-of-rage/, if anything.