David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 104 (3):331 - 349 (1995)
Where the old objectivity question asked, Objectivity or relativism: which side are you on?, the new one refuses this choice, seeking instead to bypass widely recognized problems with the conceptual framework that restricts the choices to these two. It asks, How can the notion of objectivity be updated and made useful for contemporary knowledge-seeking projects? One response to this question is the strong objectivity program that draws on feminist standpoint epistemology to provide a kind of logic of discovery for maximizing our ability to block might makes right in the sciences. It does so by delinking the neutrality ideal from standards for maximizing objectivity, since neutrality is now widely recognized as not only not necessary, not only not helpful, but, worst of all, an obstacle to maximizing objectivity when knowledge-distorting interests and values have constituted a research project. Strong objectivity provides a method for correcting this kind of situation. However, standpoint approaches have their own limitations which are quite different from the misreadings of them upon which most critics have tended to focus. Unfortunately, historically limited epistemologies and philosophies of science are all we get to choose from at this moment in history.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Maya J. Goldenberg (2015). Whose Social Values? Evaluating Canada’s ‘Death of Evidence’ Controversy. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (3):404-424.
Maya J. Goldenberg (2013). How Can Feminist Theories of Evidence Assist Clinical Reasoning and Decision-Making? Social Epistemology (TBA):1-28.
Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther (2009). Character Analysis in Cladistics: Abstraction, Reification, and the Search for Objectivity. Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1-2):129-162.
Karyn L. Freedman (2009). Diversity and the Fate of Objectivity. Social Epistemology 23 (1):45-56.
Melinda B. Fagan (2009). Fleck and the Social Constitution of Scientific Objectivity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 40 (4):272-285.
Similar books and articles
Israel Scheffler (1982). Science and Subjectivity. Hackett Pub. Co..
Felix Mühlhölzer (1988). On Objectivity. Erkenntnis 28 (2):185 - 230.
Heather Douglas (2004). The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity. Synthese 138 (3):453 - 473.
Lorraine Daston (2007). Objectivity. Distributed by the MIT Press.
Brian Leiter (ed.) (2001). Objectivity in Law and Morals. Cambridge University Press.
Andrew Collier, Margaret Scotford Archer & William Outhwaite (eds.) (2004). Defending Objectivity: Essays in Honour of Andrew Collier. Routledge.
Rebecca Kukla (2008). Naturalizing Objectivity. Perspectives on Science 16 (3):pp. 285-302.
Sharon Crasnow (2008). Feminist Philosophy of Science: 'Standpoint' and Knowledge. [REVIEW] Science and Education 17 (10):1089-1110.
Jennifer Tannoch-Bland (1997). From Aperspectival Objectivity to Strong Objectivity: The Quest for Moral Objectivity. Hypatia 12 (1):155 - 178.
Michael Ryan (2001). Journalistic Ethics, Objectivity, Existential Journalism, Standpoint Epistemology, and Public Journalism. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 16 (1):3 – 22.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads232 ( #11,743 of 1,911,604 )
Recent downloads (6 months)14 ( #42,712 of 1,911,604 )
How can I increase my downloads?