David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 104 (3):351 - 381 (1995)
The emphasis on the limitations of objectivity, in specific guises and networks, has been a continuing theme of contemporary analytic philosophy for the past few decades. The popular sport of baiting feminist philosophers — into pointing to what's left out of objective knowledge, or into describing what methods, exactly, they would offer to replace the powerful objective methods grounding scientific knowledge — embodies a blatant double standard which has the effect of constantly putting feminist epistemologists on the defensive, on the fringes, on the run.This strategy can only work if objectivity is transparent, simple, stable, and clear in its meaning. It most certainly is not. In fact, taking objectivity as a sort of beautiful primitive, self-evident in its value, and all-powerful in its revelatory power, requires careless philosophy, and the best workers in metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science have made reworked definitions of objectivity absolutely central to their own projects. In fact, classic feminist concerns with exploring the impact of sex and gender on knowledge, understanding, and other relations between human beings and the rest of the world fall squarely within the sort of human and social settings thatare already considered central in most current analytic metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science. I argue that the burden of proof is clearly on those who wish toreject the centrality and relevance of sex and gender to our most fundamental philosophical work on knowledge and reality.
|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
Karyn L. Freedman (2009). Diversity and the Fate of Objectivity. Social Epistemology 23 (1):45-56.
Elisabeth A. Lloyd & Vanessa J. Schweizer (2014). Objectivity and a Comparison of Methodological Scenario Approaches for Climate Change Research. Synthese 191 (10):2049-2088.
Chris Calvert-Minor (2014). Epistemological Misgivings of Karen Barad's 'Posthumanism'. Human Studies 37 (1):123-137.
Joseph Rouse (2005). Epistemological derangement. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (4):835-847.
Joseph Rouse (2009). Standpoint Theories Reconsidered. Hypatia 24 (4):200 - 209.
Similar books and articles
Alessandra Tanesini (1999). An Introduction to Feminist Epistemologies. Blackwell Publishers.
Lorraine Daston (2007). Objectivity. Distributed by the Mit Press.
Alexandra L. Shuford (2010). Feminist Epistemology and American Pragmatism: Dewey and Quine. Continuum.
Sara Ruddick (1993). Review: New Feminist Work on Knowledge, Reason and Objectivity. [REVIEW] Hypatia 8 (4):140 - 149.
Kathleen Lennon & Margaret Whitford (eds.) (1994). Knowing the Difference: Feminist Perspectives in Epistemology. Routledge.
Sandra Harding (1995). “Strong Objectivity”: A Response to the New Objectivity Question. Synthese 104 (3):331 - 349.
Sara Worley (1995). Feminism, Objectivity, and Analytic Philosophy. Hypatia 10 (3):138 - 156.
Louise M. Antony & Charlotte Witt (eds.) (2002). A Mind of One's Own: Feminist Essays on Reason and Objectivity. Westview Press.
Sharon Crasnow (2008). Feminist Philosophy of Science: 'Standpoint' and Knowledge. [REVIEW] Science and Education 17 (10):1089-1110.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads143 ( #6,230 of 1,099,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)38 ( #3,330 of 1,099,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?