6 ms·

I see a fundamental issue with her presentation: she shouldn't have called the non-normative approach to modelling "feminist". Although it might help her grabbi

by fab13n 13y ago

I see a fundamental issue with her presentation: she shouldn't have called the non-normative approach to modelling "feminist". Although it might help her grabbing a gender-studies grant, it's a loaded word, and it's extremely hard to do proper science with loaded words. If she's going to study modelling paradigms based on some variants of fuzzy logic, great; but she gives me the impression that she plans to do little real science, possibly because of limited mathematical abilities, and cover it with some sociological and militant mumbo-jumbo that Sokal wouldn't have disowned. "Non-normative" would then be an euphemism for "accessible to cognitively challenged people", which, ironically, would make this work violently misogynistic.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> I see a fundamental issue with her presentation: she shouldn't have called the non-normative approach to modelling "feminist". Although it might help her grabbing a gender-studies grant, it's a loaded word, and it's extremely hard to do proper science with loaded words. She's probably calling it "feminist" because the entire approach emerges from a strain of thought in feminist theory. That it is pretty far distant from what the average person thinks of "feminism" (and just as distant, though in a different way, to parodies of academic feminism), but that (both, really) is true of most things in of actual academic feminist studies. > If she's going to study modelling paradigms based on some variants of fuzzy logic, great; but she gives me the impression that she plans to do little real science, possibly because of limited mathematical abilities, and cover it with some sociological and militant mumbo-jumbo that Sokal wouldn't have disowned. I don't see support for either side of the dichotomy you propose here -- she discusses a number of concrete issues of interest (none of which are "variants of fuzzy logic", and all of which are serious theoretical areas.) Where, particularly, do you get the impression you report?

by fab13n 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> I see a fundamental issue with her presentation: she shouldn't have called the non-normative approach to modelling "feminist". Although it might help her grabbing a gender-studies grant, it's a loaded word, and it's extremely hard to do proper science with loaded words. She's probably calling it "feminist" because the entire approach emerges from a strain of thought in feminist theory. That it is pretty far distant from what the average person thinks of "feminism" (and just as distant, though in a different way, to parodies of academic feminism), but that (both, really) is true of most things in of actual academic feminist studies. > If she's going to study modelling paradigms based on some variants of fuzzy logic, great; but she gives me the impression that she plans to do little real science, possibly because of limited mathematical abilities, and cover it with some sociological and militant mumbo-jumbo that Sokal wouldn't have disowned. I don't see support for either side of the dichotomy you propose here -- she discusses a number of concrete issues of interest (none of which are "variants of fuzzy logic", and all of which are serious theoretical areas.) Where, particularly, do you get the impression you report?