Elisabeth Lloyd
Indiana University, Bloomington
Many of the commentators—let’s ignore their sex for the moment—suggested including women in the Feyerabend conference. Then the question was raised, “but are they of the right quality, status, rank?” That is, do they bring down the average quality of the conference in virtue of their being of inferior status, or, in Vincenzo Politi’s words, not “someone whose work is both relevant to the topic of the conference and also as widely recognized as the work of the invited speakers” (HOPOS-L archive, “CFP: Feyerabend Conference,” Tuesday, July 17, 2012, 14:57:20)? It is extremely important that such a discussion of quality, status, and rank recognize the scourge of evaluation bias and its long-term and pervasive consequences. One well-designed study this past year, published by the National Academy of Sciences, established prominent evaluation bias among both male and female science faculty in their evaluations of a student applying for a managerial job, who was randomly assigned either a male or a female name (Moss-Racusin et al. 2012). These professors examined the qualifications of the students and decided whether to hire them, what salary to give them, and whether to mentor themand howmuch to do so.The resultswere that both male and female scientists hired more men, gave them higher salaries, and offered more mentoring to them, even though themale applications were identical to the female applications. When probed about their reasons for not hiring or mentoring the female applicants, the professors explained that they based their decisions on the inferior competence of the applicant: the female applicants were perceived as less competent by all professors (with identical applications between males and females). This is what “evaluation bias” looks like, and it has been established in many, many contexts since the 1970s—this is only the most recent.
Keywords sex bias  discrimination  promotion  implicit bias  discrimination in philosophy  fairness  Feyerabend conference
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1086/669956
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

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

Feyerabend, Mill, and Pluralism.Elisabeth A. Lloyd - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (4):407.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Introduction: Reappraising Paul Feyerabend.Matthew J. Brown & Ian James Kidd - 2016 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 57:1-8.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Michael Young's the Rise of the Meritocracy: A Philosophical Critique.Ansgar Allen - 2011 - British Journal of Educational Studies 59 (4):367 - 382.
Practical Unreason.Philip Pettit & Michael Smith - 1993 - Mind 102 (405):53-79.
The Problems of Correction of the Official Constitutional Doctrine.Egidijus Jarašiūnas - 2009 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 115 (1):39-70.
Autonomous Constitutional Interpretation.Tomasz Stawecki - 2012 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 25 (4):505-535.
Should the Best Qualified Be Appointed?Shlomi Segall - 2012 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (1):31-54.


Added to PP index

Total views
269 ( #39,394 of 2,498,264 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #67,621 of 2,498,264 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes