Women and Values in the Vortex of Objectivity: Sharon L. Crasnow's Contribution to the Feminist Discussion of Philosophy of Science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsshs.v2i08.1136Keywords:
Sharon L. Crasnow, Model-Based Objectivism, Feminist Philosophy of Science, Standpoint Theory, Double-Vision ApproachAbstract
This study investigates Sharon L. Crasnow's perspective on the philosophy of science, specifically exploring its compatibility with feminist ideals. Crasnow introduces her notion of model-based objectivity as a reaction and expansion of the principles advocated by feminist empiricism, postmodernism, and Harding and Wylie's feminist standpoint viewpoint theory. Crasnow holds the belief that there is an inherent connection between science and value. The efficacy of grounding in scientific endeavor and the development of epistemic virtues depend on specific societal principles, such as acknowledging and appreciating women's contributions in scientific discussions. Feminism is not considered a dedicated adherence to a particular set of beliefs or ideology. Instead, people view feminism as a mindset or a critical scientific perspective. According to Crasnow, the best way to understand natural reality is to use a model to achieve a clear and objective understanding. The procedure entails identifying specific values that lay the groundwork for modeling. These values are evaluated by considering pragmatic variables and maximizing the achievement of goals. In this context, objectivity refers to the validation of a value based on its ability to improve people's lives to the fullest extent. This enhances the model's capacity to serve as a means of accomplishing it.
References
T. Nagel, What does it all mean?: a very short introduction to philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1987.
T. Williamson, Doing philosophy: From common curiosity to logical reasoning. Oxford University Press, 2018.
N. Bunnin and J. Yu, The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy. John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
A. F. Chalmers, “What is this thing called science?(4th eds.).” Hackett Publishing, 2013.
S. Crasnow, “Feminist philosophy of science: Values and objectivity,” Philos. Compass, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 413–423, 2013.
S. Okasha, Philosophy of science: A very short introduction, vol. 67. Oxford Paperbacks, 2002.
J. A. Raina, “Feminism: An Overview,” Int. J. Res., vol. 4, no. 13, pp. 3372–3376, 2017.
M. Kavka, “Feminism, Ethics, and History, or What Is the" Post" in Postfeminism?,” Tulsa Stud. Women’s Lit., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 29–44, 2002.
E. Anderson, “Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense,” Hypatia, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 50–84, 1995.
K. Intemann, “Feminism, underdetermination, and values in science,” Philos. Sci., vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 1001–1012, 2005.
E. A. Lloyd, “Objectivity and the double standard for feminist epistemologies,” Synthese, vol. 104, pp. 351–381, 1995.
S. Harding, “Introduction: Standpoint theory as a site of political, philosophic, and scientific debate,” 2001.
J. Rouse, “Standpoint theories reconsidered,” Hypatia, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 200–209, 2009.
A. Wylie, “Feminist philosophy of science: Standpoint matters,” in Proceedings and addresses of the American Philosophical Association, JSTOR, 2012, pp. 47–76.
S. Harding, Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women’s lives. Cornell University Press, 1991.
K. Rolin, “Standpoint theory as a methodology for the study of power relations,” Hypatia, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 218–226, 2009.
A. Wylie, “Why standpoint matters,” in Science and other cultures, Routledge, 2013, pp. 26–48.
E. F. Keller, “Feminism and science,” Signs J. women Cult. Soc., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 589–602, 1982.
S. L. Crasnow, “Can science be objective? Longino’s Science as social knowledge,” Hypatia, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 194–201, 1993.
S. Crasnow, “Feminist philosophy of science:‘standpoint’and knowledge,” Sci. Educ., vol. 17, pp. 1089–1110, 2008.
M. W. Knotts, “Readers, texts, and the fusion of horizons: Theology and Gadamer’s hermeneutics,” Acta Univ. Carolinae Theol., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 233–246, 2014.
C. Daly, An introduction to philosophical methods. Broadview Press, 2010.
T. S. Kuhn and I. Hacking, “The structure of scientific revolutions. 50th anniversary,” EE. UU. Univ. Chicago, 2012.
S. Hekman, “Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited,” Signs J. women Cult. Soc., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 341–365, 1997.
A. M. Jaggar, “Feminist politics and epistemology: The standpoint of women,” Fem. standpoint theory Read. Intellect. Polit. Controv., vol. 11, no. 7, pp. 55–66, 2004.
S. Crasnow, “Objectivity: Feminism, values, and science,” Hypatia, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 280–291, 2004.
S. L. Crasnow, “Models and reality: When science tackles sex,” Hypatia, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 138–148, 2001.
S. L. Crasnow, “How natural can ontology be?,” Philos. Sci., vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 114–132, 2000.
J. I. Hancock, D. G. Allen, F. A. Bosco, K. R. McDaniel, and C. A. Pierce, “Meta-analytic review of employee turnover as a predictor of firm performance,” J. Manage., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 573–603, 2013.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Haekal Pradifa Furqon
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
+62 821 1557 5700
westscience.journals@gmail.com