I’m surprised this is viewed as either groundbreaking (by fans) or absurd (by opponents), rather than standard scholarly stuff. His method of argument also seems like standard history, albeit with lots of irritating Long Theory Words that french people apparently are super into.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This thread has me thinking about this issue more, sorry for spamming you! I take Longino to have four main points: (1) empiricism, the proper evaluative metric in science is whether we are doing well in predicting the outcome of experiments and interventions...
(2) Under-determination, we need to make choices of theories and hypotheses on grounds that can't be fully captured by cognitive virtues (for critical review, http://thehangedman.com/teaching-files/svd/Intemann_2005.pdf …)...
-
-
(3) Diversity, we'd do best by empiricist lights if we allowed for a diversity of sets of non-cognitive values guide judgements, and (4) Feminism, among the non-cognitive values that can form part of a fruitful community of inquiry are characteristically feminist values.
-
My theory of ort predicts that of these you're gonna be sympathetic to (3), and at least not hostile to (1) and (2), so it's gonna be (4) you disagree with? (4) is where "here's a time when feminist principles led to better science" are relevant, but its in the context of (3).
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.