6 ms·

If I can summarize, the main distinction between feminist philosophy and normal epistemology is that feminists don't seem to believe in objective reality. Most

If I can summarize, the main distinction between feminist philosophy and normal epistemology is that feminists don't seem to believe in objective reality. Most standard epistemologies believe there is an objective reality X, and we humans can make observations o(X) and then infer facts about X. E.g., a Bayesian will then use Bayes rule to compute P(X | o(X) ) = P( o(X) | X) P(X) / P(o(X)). From what I can tell, feminists epistemologists reject this idea. They are generally insufficiently formal for me to figure out what they replace it with. For the most part, they don't seem to actually include objective reality (X in my notation) as a variable at all. They discuss whether certain views are gendered, but the correctness of those views plays a minimal role in the theory. This of course sounds pretty crazy if you apply it to chemistry or physics, so for the most part these theories are simply not applied in those cases.

jdp23 11y ago
For feminist philosophers of science like Donna Haraway and Sandra Harding, it's not about rejecting objectivity, but rather about looking at how different perspectives influence what we mean by "objectivity". Ssndra Harding discusses this in various places, such as her essay "What is Strong Objectivity". For example, think about a medical study where subjects are primarily male. Do the results in fact represent "objective reality" for the general population? Or, using your Bayesian example, consider fields that are disproportionately male, and there are gender differences in the observations o(X) that people make. Do the "facts" that are inferred represent "objective reality"?
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Your examples are not philosophical at all. Sampling error and parameterized observations are both well known problems in statistics. At my company, we are putting various checks in to mitigate sampling error, e.g. flagging A/B tests as potentially erroneous when they terminate at non-integer numbers of weeks. Are we somehow doing feminist philosophy? In your example of gender differences in observations, the correct solution is to parameterize the gender of the observer. I.e., you'd have o_m(X) and o_f(X). This is no different from parameterizing the time since a visitor hit a website in a conversion experiment - a visitor failing to convert after 3 seconds gives you different information than a visitor failing to convert after 3 days. (In this case you'd have o_t(X) instead of o(X).) The facts that are inferred do, in fact, represent objective reality. They just may not provide a lot of information on it.
  - jdp23 11y ago
    How many scientific papers parameterize the gender of the observer? Does your own work do this?
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      My own work has never needed to, nor do most scientific papers. Most observations are made by machines. In my current projects they are made by javascript in the browser. In past experiments they were made by things like CCD cameras or MRIs. I do parameterize other observer properties. For instance, the example of time parameterization is exactly what I'm working on today. Parameterizing space/time in an MRI is an area of active research and is vitally important in the big machines.
      - jdp23 11y ago
        > Most observations are made by machines. ... by machines designed and calibrated by men, and interpreted by men. > In my current projects they are made by javascript in the browser. ... made by code written by a man in a language designed by a man and implemented mostly by men on a platform designed by a man and implemented mostly by men. So, if you don't acknowledge the possiblity that this could lead to observation biases, then no, it doesn't sound to me like you're doing feminist philosophy. On the other hand the way you can simultaneously say "the correct solution is to parameterize the gender of the observer" and "my own work doesn't need to and neither do most scientific papers" certainly does seem to clash with the notion of a single "objective reality"!
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        ... by machines designed and calibrated by men, and interpreted by men...made by code written by a man in a language designed by a man and implemented mostly by men on a platform designed by a man and implemented mostly by men. Are you claiming that if my hit counter were written by a female, in a non-javascript language, then it would yield a different count? Or that if my CCD were designed by a woman, it would take different pictures? I'm really trying to apply the principle of charity here but I'm failing horribly. So please - I'm shining a laser through a dielectric and imaging the output with a CCD. What bias does feminist philosophy think the gender of the experimentalist introduces? Do the pictures become dimmer? Is noise introduced? To clarify my position: ordinary statistics has ways of handling observational bias (parameterizing it, averaging it out). I acknowledge that in some experiments this would affect things. I also believe that in the vast majority of experiments (e.g., shining lasers through materials, mixing chemicals together) that these effects are exceedingly implausible and can be safely ignored. Do you disagree with this claim?
dragonwriter 11y ago
> If I can summarize, the main distinction between feminist philosophy and normal epistemology is that feminists don't seem to believe in objective reality. Philosophies which dispute whether objective reality exists (or even is a coherent concept) predate feminism by, well, quite a lot.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Sure, but I'd hardly characterize them as "normal epistemology".
- jdp23 11y ago
  Indeed. And guys dismissing things they don't agree with or understand as "not normal" also predates feminism by quite a lot.
pron 11y ago
I would like to make one general suggestion. If someone says something that doesn't seem to make sense to you, assume that you have misunderstood something rather than assume they have. If after giving them all the benefit of the doubt and sincerely trying to understand their point you still disagree with them -- after making sure you have understood it completely -- only then can you truly argue with their position. Otherwise you're arguing with your own ungenerous notion of ideas that you believe are held by other people (who you happen to disapprove of for other reasons). Think of it this way: if the other side are truly idiots, then arguing with them is no fun. So, even if they are idiots, even pretending that they're not and giving their arguments a more serious quality than they actually possess would only make everything more interesting, and serve to better define your own views better. Doing the opposite makes sticking to your guns easy, but not for a very good argument (nor for polishing and pondering your own ideas). As you have no clue as to what feminists truly claim -- nor, it would appear, any desire to find out -- all of your inputs on the subject are irrelevant. I have said it many times before and I will say it again -- if any of your discussions of feminism does not mention the word power, then you can be absolutely, positively, 100% certain that you have misunderstood its views. A feminist like me sees your text, looks for the word "power", sees that it's missing, and can immediately tell that you're not even in the right discussion. To me, your comments read like "no it isn't red! it's square!" That someone chooses to analyze a dynamics in the context of power rather than objective reality does not mean that they do not believe in objective reality. It's like discussing an object's color rather than its shape. Yes, I agree, the texts may sometimes be confusing, but none of the various feminist theories are for beginners, and they assume some previous knowledge. There are good reasons to reject feminist epistemology, but they are not the ones you mentioned, and you couldn't have given good ones because you're not interested in the actual argument (again, if the word power doesn't come into play then you can be sure you missed something crucial). So do the following exercise: take the word power (in its social sense) -- and it doesn't even matter how you think others define it; just give it your own best definition, but make it a good one -- and then argue why power may be relevant in epistemology, and try to do a good job at it. Pretend it's debate club and you've been assigned to argue something you disagree with, but are determined to win nonetheless. I can guarantee that the argument you will have come up with will be much, much closer to the actual one made by feminist epistemologist than what you currently believe their argument is. I really hope you do it, because that would make your arguments against feminism have real value, and would make arguing with you actually worthwhile. As the stand, your comments sound to me like, “so I heard those ‘physicists’ claim that everything in the universe is made of potatoes, but that can’t be true, because water doesn’t taste like potatoes, so they must be stupid”. It’s like, how do you even respond to that? If an argument sounds so absurd to you that it couldn’t have possibly been made by anyone with a brain, it is safe to assume you have misunderstood what it is, even if the misunderstanding is completely the other guy’s fault. I cannot claim that we feminists are great at communicating our ideas.

jdp23 11y ago

For feminist philosophers of science like Donna Haraway and Sandra Harding, it's not about rejecting objectivity, but rather about looking at how different perspectives influence what we mean by "objectivity". Ssndra Harding discusses this in various places, such as her essay "What is Strong Objectivity". For example, think about a medical study where subjects are primarily male. Do the results in fact represent "objective reality" for the general population? Or, using your Bayesian example, consider fields that are disproportionately male, and there are gender differences in the observations o(X) that people make. Do the "facts" that are inferred represent "objective reality"?

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Your examples are not philosophical at all. Sampling error and parameterized observations are both well known problems in statistics. At my company, we are putting various checks in to mitigate sampling error, e.g. flagging A/B tests as potentially erroneous when they terminate at non-integer numbers of weeks. Are we somehow doing feminist philosophy? In your example of gender differences in observations, the correct solution is to parameterize the gender of the observer. I.e., you'd have o_m(X) and o_f(X). This is no different from parameterizing the time since a visitor hit a website in a conversion experiment - a visitor failing to convert after 3 seconds gives you different information than a visitor failing to convert after 3 days. (In this case you'd have o_t(X) instead of o(X).) The facts that are inferred do, in fact, represent objective reality. They just may not provide a lot of information on it.
- jdp23 11y ago
  How many scientific papers parameterize the gender of the observer? Does your own work do this?
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    My own work has never needed to, nor do most scientific papers. Most observations are made by machines. In my current projects they are made by javascript in the browser. In past experiments they were made by things like CCD cameras or MRIs. I do parameterize other observer properties. For instance, the example of time parameterization is exactly what I'm working on today. Parameterizing space/time in an MRI is an area of active research and is vitally important in the big machines.
    - jdp23 11y ago
      > Most observations are made by machines. ... by machines designed and calibrated by men, and interpreted by men. > In my current projects they are made by javascript in the browser. ... made by code written by a man in a language designed by a man and implemented mostly by men on a platform designed by a man and implemented mostly by men. So, if you don't acknowledge the possiblity that this could lead to observation biases, then no, it doesn't sound to me like you're doing feminist philosophy. On the other hand the way you can simultaneously say "the correct solution is to parameterize the gender of the observer" and "my own work doesn't need to and neither do most scientific papers" certainly does seem to clash with the notion of a single "objective reality"!
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        ... by machines designed and calibrated by men, and interpreted by men...made by code written by a man in a language designed by a man and implemented mostly by men on a platform designed by a man and implemented mostly by men. Are you claiming that if my hit counter were written by a female, in a non-javascript language, then it would yield a different count? Or that if my CCD were designed by a woman, it would take different pictures? I'm really trying to apply the principle of charity here but I'm failing horribly. So please - I'm shining a laser through a dielectric and imaging the output with a CCD. What bias does feminist philosophy think the gender of the experimentalist introduces? Do the pictures become dimmer? Is noise introduced? To clarify my position: ordinary statistics has ways of handling observational bias (parameterizing it, averaging it out). I acknowledge that in some experiments this would affect things. I also believe that in the vast majority of experiments (e.g., shining lasers through materials, mixing chemicals together) that these effects are exceedingly implausible and can be safely ignored. Do you disagree with this claim?

dragonwriter 11y ago

> If I can summarize, the main distinction between feminist philosophy and normal epistemology is that feminists don't seem to believe in objective reality. Philosophies which dispute whether objective reality exists (or even is a coherent concept) predate feminism by, well, quite a lot.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
Sure, but I'd hardly characterize them as "normal epistemology".
jdp23 11y ago
Indeed. And guys dismissing things they don't agree with or understand as "not normal" also predates feminism by quite a lot.

pron 11y ago

I would like to make one general suggestion. If someone says something that doesn't seem to make sense to you, assume that you have misunderstood something rather than assume they have. If after giving them all the benefit of the doubt and sincerely trying to understand their point you still disagree with them -- after making sure you have understood it completely -- only then can you truly argue with their position. Otherwise you're arguing with your own ungenerous notion of ideas that you believe are held by other people (who you happen to disapprove of for other reasons). Think of it this way: if the other side are truly idiots, then arguing with them is no fun. So, even if they are idiots, even pretending that they're not and giving their arguments a more serious quality than they actually possess would only make everything more interesting, and serve to better define your own views better. Doing the opposite makes sticking to your guns easy, but not for a very good argument (nor for polishing and pondering your own ideas). As you have no clue as to what feminists truly claim -- nor, it would appear, any desire to find out -- all of your inputs on the subject are irrelevant. I have said it many times before and I will say it again -- if any of your discussions of feminism does not mention the word power, then you can be absolutely, positively, 100% certain that you have misunderstood its views. A feminist like me sees your text, looks for the word "power", sees that it's missing, and can immediately tell that you're not even in the right discussion. To me, your comments read like "no it isn't red! it's square!" That someone chooses to analyze a dynamics in the context of power rather than objective reality does not mean that they do not believe in objective reality. It's like discussing an object's color rather than its shape. Yes, I agree, the texts may sometimes be confusing, but none of the various feminist theories are for beginners, and they assume some previous knowledge. There are good reasons to reject feminist epistemology, but they are not the ones you mentioned, and you couldn't have given good ones because you're not interested in the actual argument (again, if the word power doesn't come into play then you can be sure you missed something crucial). So do the following exercise: take the word power (in its social sense) -- and it doesn't even matter how you think others define it; just give it your own best definition, but make it a good one -- and then argue why power may be relevant in epistemology, and try to do a good job at it. Pretend it's debate club and you've been assigned to argue something you disagree with, but are determined to win nonetheless. I can guarantee that the argument you will have come up with will be much, much closer to the actual one made by feminist epistemologist than what you currently believe their argument is. I really hope you do it, because that would make your arguments against feminism have real value, and would make arguing with you actually worthwhile. As the stand, your comments sound to me like, “so I heard those ‘physicists’ claim that everything in the universe is made of potatoes, but that can’t be true, because water doesn’t taste like potatoes, so they must be stupid”. It’s like, how do you even respond to that? If an argument sounds so absurd to you that it couldn’t have possibly been made by anyone with a brain, it is safe to assume you have misunderstood what it is, even if the misunderstanding is completely the other guy’s fault. I cannot claim that we feminists are great at communicating our ideas.