5 ms·

Relevant part of the report: "As these examples show, the STEM syllabi explored in this study demonstrated a view of knowledge that was to be acquired by the s

by Jun8 10y ago

Relevant part of the report: "As these examples show, the STEM syllabi explored in this study demonstrated a view of knowledge that was to be acquired by the student, which promotes a view of knowledge as unchanging. This is further reinforced by the use of adverbs to imply certainty such as “actually” and “in fact” which are used in syllabi to identify information as factual and beyond dispute (Biber, 2006a; 2006b). For example, “draw accurate conclusions from scientific data presented in different formats” (Lower level math). Instead of promoting the idea that knowledge is constructed by the student and dynamic, subject to change as it would in a more feminist view of knowledge, the syllabi reinforce the larger male-dominant view of knowledge as one that students acquire and use make the correct decision."

Practicality 10y ago
The equating of objective facts with "male-dominant views" is just bizarre. I mean, seriously, they are saying that in the feminist view is that there is no objective reality? I suppose they are saying that feminists... don't live in... reality. You can't make this stuff up. At least they're up front about it, I suppose.
- danharaj 10y ago
  A fact is a human construct. It is a symbol. You just conflated facts with reality. A cursory examination of reality will reveal that observations of reality are observer dependent. So what is an objective fact? An objective fact must be one that is covariant in change of observer interpreting the fact. Physical laws like General Relativity are covariant in this way: the facts of relativity differ symbolically depending on the reference frame of the observer but different observers' facts are related in a coherent way. In GR an observer is a reference frame. In order to define objective fact you need to presuppose what an observer is. It is a masculine behavior to consider this question unimportant. A feminine science is much more interested in the study of the subjective because you can't be objective without understanding subjectivity. Ultimately an observer in science is a human. That means objective fact can only be understood by understanding the subjectivity of the scientist. An objective fact is in fact an intersubjective fact, and intersubjectivity is an essential contribution to science by feminism. It's a good keyword to google.
  - Practicality 10y ago
    Ok. So this is semantics and in this science there is a different meaning for the word "fact." What is the utility of redefining a fact as a human construct of accepted information, rather than as data points corresponding to components of objective reality?
    - thaw13579 10y ago
      I think it's important to think about this because we as humans have major limitations in our understanding. For example, we are limited and biased due to the spatial and temporal scales of our senses, and we may be similarly affected by social things such as language, personal beliefs, interpersonal interactions.
    - danharaj 10y ago
      Because you're putting the cart before the horse. Science is building a picture of """objective reality""" from human subjectivity. Data points aren't reality, they have to be interpreted. No matter how you try to do it, at some point you have to accept that a human being is doing science and the way science is done is fundamentally an intersubjective phenomenon. Science isn't reality. Scientific knowledge isn't reality. Science is a human activity and scientific knowledge is a relationship between humans and reality. I'm not redefining what a fact is, I'm unpacking the definition of a scientific fact and scrutinizing its dynamics. Why is this useful? Because if you don't look at science from this point of view, you can't understand or even recognize good or bad science. The scientific method can only fail in its execution. Its execution is fundamentally an intersubjective phenomenon. There is a deeper philosophical advantage to this point of view: This is the correct formulation of science if you want to do science about science. That is, if you want to study scientifically the method by which discoveries are made, become verified, and evolve into commonly held "objective facts", you have to formulate science in this way. If you want to study scientifically how people become scientists, you have to formulate science this way. If you want to study why scientific illiteracy is still a major sociological problem, you have to formulate science this way. Et cetera. In light of all this, I have to ask: What is the utility of the idea of objective facts, objective reality, a science that is not intersubjective, one that is merely acquired and applied in the masculine mode? My answer to that question is engineering: Engineering is not interested in doing science, but applying it. In which case, objective reality is merely a shortcut to using scientific knowledge. I think that's an admissible use, but it is inadequate for science itself and understanding the relationship between science and society. P.S. When I say masculine and feminine, I certainly do not mean qualities intrinsic to men or women. I am referring to archetypal abstract masculinity and femininity which are themselves diffuse aspects of human intersubjectivity the study of which reveals long-scale correlations in human politics and social structure.

by Jun8 10y ago

Practicality 10y ago

The equating of objective facts with "male-dominant views" is just bizarre. I mean, seriously, they are saying that in the feminist view is that there is no objective reality? I suppose they are saying that feminists... don't live in... reality. You can't make this stuff up. At least they're up front about it, I suppose.

danharaj 10y ago
A fact is a human construct. It is a symbol. You just conflated facts with reality. A cursory examination of reality will reveal that observations of reality are observer dependent. So what is an objective fact? An objective fact must be one that is covariant in change of observer interpreting the fact. Physical laws like General Relativity are covariant in this way: the facts of relativity differ symbolically depending on the reference frame of the observer but different observers' facts are related in a coherent way. In GR an observer is a reference frame. In order to define objective fact you need to presuppose what an observer is. It is a masculine behavior to consider this question unimportant. A feminine science is much more interested in the study of the subjective because you can't be objective without understanding subjectivity. Ultimately an observer in science is a human. That means objective fact can only be understood by understanding the subjectivity of the scientist. An objective fact is in fact an intersubjective fact, and intersubjectivity is an essential contribution to science by feminism. It's a good keyword to google.
- Practicality 10y ago
  Ok. So this is semantics and in this science there is a different meaning for the word "fact." What is the utility of redefining a fact as a human construct of accepted information, rather than as data points corresponding to components of objective reality?
  - thaw13579 10y ago
    I think it's important to think about this because we as humans have major limitations in our understanding. For example, we are limited and biased due to the spatial and temporal scales of our senses, and we may be similarly affected by social things such as language, personal beliefs, interpersonal interactions.
  - danharaj 10y ago
    Because you're putting the cart before the horse. Science is building a picture of """objective reality""" from human subjectivity. Data points aren't reality, they have to be interpreted. No matter how you try to do it, at some point you have to accept that a human being is doing science and the way science is done is fundamentally an intersubjective phenomenon. Science isn't reality. Scientific knowledge isn't reality. Science is a human activity and scientific knowledge is a relationship between humans and reality. I'm not redefining what a fact is, I'm unpacking the definition of a scientific fact and scrutinizing its dynamics. Why is this useful? Because if you don't look at science from this point of view, you can't understand or even recognize good or bad science. The scientific method can only fail in its execution. Its execution is fundamentally an intersubjective phenomenon. There is a deeper philosophical advantage to this point of view: This is the correct formulation of science if you want to do science about science. That is, if you want to study scientifically the method by which discoveries are made, become verified, and evolve into commonly held "objective facts", you have to formulate science in this way. If you want to study scientifically how people become scientists, you have to formulate science this way. If you want to study why scientific illiteracy is still a major sociological problem, you have to formulate science this way. Et cetera. In light of all this, I have to ask: What is the utility of the idea of objective facts, objective reality, a science that is not intersubjective, one that is merely acquired and applied in the masculine mode? My answer to that question is engineering: Engineering is not interested in doing science, but applying it. In which case, objective reality is merely a shortcut to using scientific knowledge. I think that's an admissible use, but it is inadequate for science itself and understanding the relationship between science and society. P.S. When I say masculine and feminine, I certainly do not mean qualities intrinsic to men or women. I am referring to archetypal abstract masculinity and femininity which are themselves diffuse aspects of human intersubjectivity the study of which reveals long-scale correlations in human politics and social structure.