Description: Richardson argues that feminist philosophy of science, though an integral part to POS as a whole, has been and continues to be marginalized in the discipline. She offers a historical view of the sub-discipline and defends its importance within the broader context of POS. The first section of the paper explains the historical backdrop of feminist philosophy of science — where it started, what the main topics are, and the struggles it and its writers have faced. This section isn’t relevant for our project, as it doesn’t discuss methodological questions.
\n\n
In the second section, Richardson discusses methodology in FPOS. She claims that a common method in FPOS is the highly influential case study method: to choose a case study in a particular scientific research program and expose gender bias within it (346). She gives an overview of some prominent examples — e.g., Lloyd, Roughgarden, etc. (347). She claims that it “has led to changes in scientific practice and has aided efforts by feminist and gender-critical scientists to challenge sexist, androcentric, and heterosexist research models in biology” (147-8). Also, FPOS (with a push to focus on the intersections between gender and science) has lead to new kinds of questions that can be asked by scientists the investigate the historical, philosophical, and social dimensions of science (348). Finally, FPOS has added an interdisciplinary dimension to POS as a whole, by engaging with literature in gender studies more broadly, and implementing interdisciplinary methodology (350).
\n\n
In the third and final section, Richardson discusses the marginalization of FPOS (reasons why it continues to be marginalized, misinterpretations, and moving beyond its critiques):
\nMarginalization of feminist philosophy is perpetrated in explicit and traditional ways, including near-exclusion from elite publication venues, lack of tenure-track faculty lines in the field, and failure to integrate feminist philosophy and female philosophers into the philosophical canon and curriculum. It also takes place in subtle everyday ways, through discursive and disciplinary constructions that exclude, other, and delegitimize gender as a properly philosophical topic and feminist thought as a properly philosophical occupation. (350) She also claims that: “There continues to be a strong need for public intellectuals who are engaged with science, philosophy, and gender studies who can flexibly mobilize and apply a critical analytical framework for understanding questions at the intersection of science and gender” (358). Moreover, feminist philosophers of science are well suited for this role, given their training in philosophy, understanding of the science, and interdisciplinary capabilities and fluency. However, Richardson only discusses this briefly (one paragraph at the end of the paper).
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:57:18Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:57:18Z" } }, { "key": "42ZS8HX6", "version": 47, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/42ZS8HX6", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/42ZS8HX6", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/69U7GZ33", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "42ZS8HX6", "version": 47, "parentItem": "69U7GZ33", "itemType": "note", "note": "JM: Her article is quite technical, and focuses on a specific case study in philosophy of biology. Again, this article serves as an example of POS that criticizes scientific practice with the goal of improving science. She does claim that philosophers of science have the conceptual tools to help prevent flawed science, and that they should do so by policing special-interest science (she says this is one way, and indicates that there are other ways to help prevent flawed science) by analyzing complex scientific concepts, looking for problems in reasoning, etc (452). She claims that philosophers of science can help police SIS by: attending to their professional duties to protect the public, attending to their duties as citizens to be involved, can choose some projects with social good in mind, can teach POS that addresses science’s place in society, and they can become involved in local scientific debates (464-5).
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:56:32Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:56:32Z" } }, { "key": "QFUIADSV", "version": 45, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/QFUIADSV", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/QFUIADSV", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/QHM5CV8Q", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "QFUIADSV", "version": 45, "parentItem": "QHM5CV8Q", "itemType": "note", "note": "JM: Reiss is focused on a specific instance of POS as socially relevant within biomedical research. His article points out issues within biomedical research that pertain to the epistemic, social, and moral facets of this research. (I think it’s worth noting that he considers these different dimensions of the research, and that he not only discusses issues with the scientific practice, but looks at its impacts on a social level as well. In line with Douglas, he’s concerned with the science as it is embedded in society.) Though Reiss points out a few reasons why philosophers are in an ideal position to evaluate this research, he is talking specifically about biomedical research, and doesn’t make any claims about what POS’s goals should be or what philosophers of science should be doing outside of this narrow context. Only a short section of the paper addresses philosophers’ suitability to evaluate BMR. In this section, he claims that “Philosophers of science are (or should be) experts in these epistemic and methodological questions and should therefore play a role in designing epistemically and morally/socio-economically sound research institutions” (430). He points out that epistemic issues in BMR (theory choice, choice of research projects) are interconnected with ethical and social issues (patient welfare, global justice). Although this might be more of a stretch in Reiss’ case as opposed to Douglas’, he does seem to suggest that a pluralist approach to POS topics is needed, and that the goals of POS should be multifaceted. However, he also seems to claim, like Douglas, that POS can’t separate out the ethical and epistemic issues, and that POS should aim to address ethical and social issues to a greater degree than it has. This article is also an example of POS that aims to impact science by being critical of it and pointing out its shortcomings.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:56:00Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:56:00Z" } }, { "key": "IGVQJSTZ", "version": 43, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/IGVQJSTZ", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/IGVQJSTZ", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/K9IJ3ADK", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "IGVQJSTZ", "version": 43, "parentItem": "K9IJ3ADK", "itemType": "note", "note": "JM: Douglas makes some relevant claims about the importance of pluralistic goals for POS that make a well-rounded POS. For Douglas, POS can have an impact on science by making relevant values transparent, and working with scientists and the public to explain how science is connected to and embedded in society. However, POS as a field should be free to investigate more traditional and socially relevant topics.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:55:27Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:55:27Z" } }, { "key": "D4EHMFUW", "version": 43, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/D4EHMFUW", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/D4EHMFUW", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/K9IJ3ADK", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "D4EHMFUW", "version": 43, "parentItem": "K9IJ3ADK", "itemType": "note", "note": "Description: Philosophy of science as a field should aim to be socially relevant, though this should be one among a variety of goals (318-319). “Any serious philosophical reflection on science should be considered part of philosophy of science, whether it is on the epistemic, metaphysical, moral, or social aspects of science” (319). She does a historical overview of philosophy of science to show when and how philosophy of science became overly narrow to exclude socially relevant philosophy of science. Douglas is mainly interested in philosophy of science that has social import and impact, and the complex relationship between science and society. Moreover, she seems to think that philosophy of science that examines scientific practice (its merits and issues) can benefit from POS that engages with the same issues from the perspective of that practice’s relationship to society. In other words, she’s arguing for philosophers of science to examine not only the typical topics, such as scientific explanation and epistemic issues, but the social as well, such as policy relevant, science education, the public roles of science, etc., as they are also important and necessary topics in science. “science is not just an epistemic enterprise. It is also a moral, social, and political enterprise. A philosophy of science that can grapple with only the epistemic aspects is impoverished and anemic” (331-2).
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:55:27Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:55:27Z" } }, { "key": "KKGR8ZEN", "version": 41, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/KKGR8ZEN", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/KKGR8ZEN", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/T44TFXDB", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "KKGR8ZEN", "version": 41, "parentItem": "T44TFXDB", "itemType": "note", "note": "JM: Grasswick discusses the benefits and importance of cultivating trust between scientific and lay communities, the ways that scientific communities may damage the trust lay communities have in science, and the negative impacts damaging that trust can have on science. However, she does not address the role(s) that philosophers of science can play in that process, nor does she discuss the goals of the discipline as a whole. Her paper may be an example of a philosopher of science who is aiming to improve science (by showing that trust between scientific and lay communities is an inherent aspect of good science) by criticizing science that fails to meet her standards for trust. It’s worth noting that she seems to be less critical and more helpful; her paper has a positive project, as opposed to Gannett’s paper which seems mostly negative. Grasswick’s goal is to point out the benefits this sort of trust can have for science, and some ways that scientists can improve trust. Her article is very similar to Whyte and Crease’s article, though I see hers as more concerned with the scientist's role in cultivating trust, whereas Whyte and Crease are more concerned with the lay communities.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:54:16Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:54:16Z" } }, { "key": "VIIAFQNB", "version": 38, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/VIIAFQNB", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/VIIAFQNB", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/4FMZKKSA", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "VIIAFQNB", "version": 38, "parentItem": "4FMZKKSA", "itemType": "note", "note": "JM: Gannett doesn’t say anything about POS goals on a general level (e.g., should we be criticizing science or helping, how do we do that well, etc.), and is focused on debates about the biological reality of race and philosophers’ role in those debates. However, I think this article does serve as an example of a philosopher of science who is aiming to improve science by criticizing it.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:53:50Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:53:50Z" } }, { "key": "BT4VBT3M", "version": 37, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/BT4VBT3M", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/BT4VBT3M", "type": "text/html" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 753929, "username": "katieplaisance", "name": "Katie Plaisance", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/katieplaisance", "type": "text/html" } } }, "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "creatorSummary": "Whyte and Crease", "parsedDate": "2010-12-01", "numChildren": 2 }, "data": { "key": "BT4VBT3M", "version": 37, "itemType": "journalArticle", "title": "Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science", "creators": [ { "creatorType": "author", "firstName": "Kyle Powys", "lastName": "Whyte" }, { "creatorType": "author", "firstName": "Robert P.", "lastName": "Crease" } ], "abstractNote": "Trust is a central concept in the philosophy of science. We highlight how trust is important in the wide variety of interactions between science and society. We claim that examining and clarifying the nature and role of trust (and distrust) in relations between science and society is one principal way in which the philosophy of science is socially relevant. We argue that philosophers of science should extend their efforts to develop normative conceptions of trust that can serve to facilitate trust between scientific experts and ordinary citizens. The first project is the development of a rich normative theory of expertise and experience that can explain why the various epistemic insights of diverse actors should be trusted in certain contexts and how credibility deficits can be bridged. The second project is the development of concepts that explain why, in certain cases, ordinary citizens may distrust science, which should inform how philosophers of science conceive of the formulation of science policy when conditions of distrust prevail. The third project is the analysis of cases of successful relations of trust between scientists and non-scientists that leads to understanding better how ‘postnormal’ science interactions are possible using trust.", "publicationTitle": "Synthese", "publisher": "", "place": "", "date": "2010/12/01", "volume": "177", "issue": "3", "section": "", "partNumber": "", "partTitle": "", "pages": "411-425", "series": "", "seriesTitle": "", "seriesText": "", "journalAbbreviation": "Synthese", "DOI": "10.1007/s11229-010-9786-3", "citationKey": "", "url": "http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-010-9786-3", "accessDate": "2013-10-01T18:56:49Z", "PMID": "", "PMCID": "", "ISSN": "0039-7857, 1573-0964", "archive": "", "archiveLocation": "", "shortTitle": "", "language": "en", "libraryCatalog": "link.springer.com", "callNumber": "", "rights": "", "extra": "JM: There’s nothing in this article that touches on POS’s impact on science or the goals of POS more generally. Whyte and Crease are concerned with the relationship between scientists and lay communities, and how to foster trust between them. They claim that philosophers of science are in the unique position to recognize when distrust among lay communities and scientific communities is negatively impacting science, to analyze these controversies, explain why there’s so much distrust, and perhaps suggest solutions to these situations (417). In connection, they briefly mention that philosophers of science can play the role of interactional experts that facilitate communication and foster trust between lay persons and scientists, but they only spend a short paragraph talking about this (p 418), and it’s unclear that philosophers would be impacting science in any significant way while doing so. At the very least, they don’t discuss what possible impact this could have. \n\n“We believe that philosophers of science should follow up on these claims and endeavour to pursue projects that will contribute to enhancing the public benefits of science in the appropriate contexts” (415). This might be a useful quote as well, but they don’t talk about this further. On the whole, Whyte and Crease gesture to philosophers of science and their role in identifying distrust and helping to facilitate trust, but they don’t discuss in much detail or include directions for doing so.", "tags": [ { "tag": "Epistemology" }, { "tag": "Evolution" }, { "tag": "Expertise" }, { "tag": "Logic" }, { "tag": "Metaphysics" }, { "tag": "Philosophy of Language" }, { "tag": "Philosophy of Science" }, { "tag": "Pluralism" }, { "tag": "Science and society" }, { "tag": "Trust" } ], "collections": [], "relations": { "owl:sameAs": "http://zotero.org/groups/218623/items/6Q94FHBI" }, "dateAdded": "2015-10-30T17:47:02Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:53:16Z" } }, { "key": "G3ABCQX3", "version": 36, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/G3ABCQX3", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/G3ABCQX3", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/8MNSQBAM", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "G3ABCQX3", "version": 36, "parentItem": "8MNSQBAM", "itemType": "note", "note": "JM: Her main point seems similar in some ways to Kourany’s argument in her 2010 book — PSs can contribute to scientific practice by clarifying the complex ethical and social issues that are embedded in their science. I think her approach is more interesting in the sense that she wants PSs to be playing a more active role in scientific practice than Kourany does. She seems to want PSs to help clarify those issues while embedded in the research groups and in the practice, as opposed to writing guidelines that are presumably reviewed by scientists. Tuana’s approach requires forming close relationships with the scientists and better understanding their specific areas of scientific expertise and research. This would no doubt be more time consuming and demanding, but would yield better opportunities for PSs to have a direct impact, which is what we’re looking for as well. I wonder, could this also be a case where Tuana has in mind the work she does with climate scientists, and this may not be applicable to other domains of scientific inquiry?
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:51:41Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:51:41Z" } }, { "key": "QQX26GRF", "version": 36, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/QQX26GRF", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/QQX26GRF", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/8MNSQBAM", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "QQX26GRF", "version": 36, "parentItem": "8MNSQBAM", "itemType": "note", "note": "Description: Tuana claims that philosophy of science is missing opportunities to have an impact on and contribute to scientific practice. She is arguing for an embedded philosophy of science that requires scientists to attend to the broader impacts of their work by making salient the coupled ethical-epistemic issues involved in scientific research. In other words, Tuana thinks that philosophers of science should have an impact on science by making the coupled ethical-epistemic issues salient to scientists while being directly involved in their research. She says: “Although admittedly quick, my aim here is to illustrate the value and importance of philosophers of science engaging in analyses of intrinsic ethics with the goal of ensuring that all science, but particularly policy-relevant science, is as transparent as possible concerning embedded values and their intertwined epistemic and ethical import” (485).
\n\n
Tuana draws from a number of case studies in this paper, two case studies in bioethics and some from her own work with climate scientists. She claims that there are a number of helpful lessons and some cautionary tales we can learn from bioethics and the successes and challenges within the case studies she looks at (see pages 474 - 478 for details — each lesson is clearly marked with section titles). Through her own experience with climate scientists, she shows how philosophers can have an impact on science in a direct way — i.e., by working with climate scientists to help them understand their values/coupled ethical-epistemic issues. Finally, she explains that philosophers of science can play a key role in policy making by helping policymakers and the public better understand the coupled ethical-epistemic issues, which seems to be her main concern in this paper.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:51:41Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:51:41Z" } }, { "key": "9RF8EHGG", "version": 34, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/9RF8EHGG", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/9RF8EHGG", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/VRVJTCC6", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "9RF8EHGG", "version": 34, "parentItem": "VRVJTCC6", "itemType": "note", "note": "Description: In defence of her political project, Kourany claims that though it might look like, as Giere suggests, a different philosophy of science, it does resemble work being done in fields like economics, political science, and science studies, and her goals for POS fit within this broader goal of providing (disciplinary?) balanced research on these socially relevant issues. (JM: Important point in her argument defending politically-related projects in POS.)
\n
In defence of her critical project, Kourany claims that there are indeed examples of underdetermination cases in real scientific practice where no amount of data determines theory choice (as Giere claims it should). Kourany claims that Giere is wrong to say (and does not properly argue for this point) hypothesis selection should be determined by data, and that we cannot simply withhold judgment in practice when the evidence doesn’t clearly point us to one hypothesis over the other (as he suggests we can) because doing so can lead to harm and other negative social impacts. She claims that Giere’s reluctance to accept that values will influence science poses a problem for his critical evaluation of her argument, as said values do in fact permeate scientific practice all the time, and it is in our best interest to respond with that in mind. (JM: relevant to her point that examining and making salient the social and political values at play in underdetermination/theory choice debates in science is when POSs are useful.)
JM: Giere seems to think that POS should not be attending to social and political values to the same degree that Kourany does. While he thinks that such values are important in a limited sense, philosophers of science need not solve underdetermination problems in science by examining social and political values, but only by looking at the evidence.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:49:00Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:49:00Z" } }, { "key": "846DXW3U", "version": 32, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/846DXW3U", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/846DXW3U", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/CF2CUADP", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "846DXW3U", "version": 32, "parentItem": "CF2CUADP", "itemType": "note", "note": "Description: Giere claims that Kourany’s paper takes on three distinct projects, and argues that while the naturalistic and critical project she undertakes are well under the purview of POS, the critical project has unrealistic goals, and the political project extends beyond the duties of professional philosophers. Giere claims that politically-oriented projects are not currently rewarded by philosophy departments on the whole. As projects like Helen Longino’s (1990) and Philip Kitcher’s (1996) “require much knowledge of the social and political context of the relevant science, but not beyond what a student of the philosophy of science could be expected to learn,” (18) with some effort, they can be recognized and worthy philosophical projects. However, Kourany’s is too far beyond the scope to receive any recognition within the discipline. Regarding her critical project, Giere argues that theory choice and consensus in science should be grounded in empirical data, and that choosing one theory, hypothesis, etc., over another in cases of underdetermination is not realistically based on ideology and social considerations as Kourany argues it ought to be. He claims that historically speaking, science has not chosen one theory over another for explicitly social reasons, it is supposed to be based on empirical evidence, therefore her critical project fails to align with actual scientific practice.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:49:00Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:49:00Z" } }, { "key": "UIWZZSHM", "version": 30, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/UIWZZSHM", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/UIWZZSHM", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/UQT4K3HZ", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "UIWZZSHM", "version": 30, "parentItem": "UQT4K3HZ", "itemType": "note", "note": "JM: Kourany is arguing that POS should have as one of it’s goals to steer scientific research in the direction of projects that promote equality rather than undermine it, as has been done in the past. Though her project is partly critical, she seems primarily interested in helping science, with the goal of promoting diversity and equality. I think this is a key goal that POS should have that we can speak to directly in our paper as one that has been rigorously discussed in the literature. However, she’s not all that specific about philosophers’ role in promoting that research, beyond supporting funding initiatives that promote good (egalitarian) science, and deprioritizing bad (anti-egalitarian).
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2016-07-04T18:47:36Z", "dateModified": "2016-07-04T18:47:36Z" } }, { "key": "KVZZN2HB", "version": 30, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/KVZZN2HB", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/KVZZN2HB", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/UQT4K3HZ", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "KVZZN2HB", "version": 30, "parentItem": "UQT4K3HZ", "itemType": "note", "note": "Description: Kourany argues that the goals of feminist philosophy of science, to promote scientific research that favours equality over research that undermines equality, should be pursued by POS if it is to be properly socially relevant. Kourany starts by giving a historical overview, claiming that POS was concerned with social relevance in the era of logical empiricism, but after Neurath and Hahn’s death, POS started separating the epistemic and social dimensions of science and remained interested in only the epistemic dimension of science. She claims that the feminist philosophers of science are those responsible for reigniting important social and ethical considerations in POS. FPOS recognized that science is an important ally in the fight for equality despite the harm done to women as a result of past research endeavours to prove the inferiority of women compared to men. Feminists are primarily concerned with science as it relates to society and social welfare (unlike most 20th century POS), as putting science in its social context enables us to evaluate science in terms of egalitarian human flourishing. As such, scientists can be encouraged through funding initiatives to pursue scientific research that will promote equality and deprioritize projects that will do harm to egalitarian efforts.
\n
In response to criticism, she claims that purely epistemic considerations about which research to pursue are a myth, and that scientists are making those decisions based on social factors (funding, etc.). Moreover, the feminist methods for evaluating science are no weaker than others, as there are no criteria that has been shown to assess the truth of scientific research. The feminist project “still allows science to provide us with empirically grounded information to replace society’s prejudices and ignorance and misinformation about women, and hence, it does not undercut science’s ability to be a powerful ally in the fight for equality for women” (10). She claims that POS should pursue the feminist project because science has the ability to shape society in a fundamental way, and should be responsive to society’s needs. Finally, the feminist project does not rule out research that constructively addresses biological explanations for differences among men and women, but simply prioritizes research that is friendlier to egalitarian aims.
JM: I this article can be useful in a limited way, along with Richardson’s 2010 article, to reference scholars who think that feminist philosophy of science goes hand-in-hand with socially relevant philosophy of science. In particular for Harding, that philosophy of science, were it friendly to standpoint theory and feminism more generally, would necessarily take into account the social location of scientific practice and its various experiments and projects, and provide the needed controversy for POS. However, we have to be careful not to generalize her arguments beyond feminist philosophy of science.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2015-11-10T14:10:39Z", "dateModified": "2015-11-25T18:19:46Z" } }, { "key": "DF2PNVKZ", "version": 27, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/DF2PNVKZ", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/DF2PNVKZ", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/6XE63PVU", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "createdByUser": { "id": 2734942, "username": "j.michaud", "name": "", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/j.michaud", "type": "text/html" } } }, "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 753929, "username": "katieplaisance", "name": "Katie Plaisance", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/katieplaisance", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "DF2PNVKZ", "version": 27, "parentItem": "6XE63PVU", "itemType": "note", "note": "Description: This article focuses on explicitly feminist philosophies of science. Harding argues that standpoint theory has been marginalized in philosophy of science, but despite its criticisms, the theory can help facilitate the reflection and debate needed in philosophy of science. (More on page 27-8.) She claims that standpoint theory can provide controversy within POS, which enables POS to remain socially relevant. She claims that POS must have two goals that standpoint theory can help fulfill: 1) “the conceptual resources to recognize a full array of ways in which the sciences, including their cognitive, technical cores, participate in social relations,” 2) “resources to recognize how it, too, is fully participant in the social relations of the day” (39). She also claims that POS is inherently political, therefore she claims that science is necessarily socially relevant, and POS can and should recognize this (with the help of standpoint theory).
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2015-11-10T14:10:39Z", "dateModified": "2015-11-25T18:19:34Z" } }, { "key": "96J87PQU", "version": 26, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/96J87PQU", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/96J87PQU", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/BRIJM7AG", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 753929, "username": "katieplaisance", "name": "Katie Plaisance", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/katieplaisance", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "96J87PQU", "version": 26, "parentItem": "BRIJM7AG", "itemType": "note", "note": "JM: This article is *very* similar to the 2012 article (in fact, there are whole paragraphs from the 2012 article that are also in this one). Despite the similar conclusions in this article to the 2012 article, the content may still be useful. What she says here provides more concrete context for the purpose of the codes of ethics she refers to in the 2012 article, and some motivation for them (i.e., that social values should drive scientific research at all stages, and how scientists can be aware of the appropriate social values). However, how she intends this collaboration to work remains fuzzy, but her examples show that it’s feasible at least in some cases.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2015-11-09T01:52:14Z", "dateModified": "2015-11-11T18:40:41Z" } }, { "key": "NZ4ICNIK", "version": 26, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/NZ4ICNIK", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/NZ4ICNIK", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/BRIJM7AG", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 753929, "username": "katieplaisance", "name": "Katie Plaisance", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/katieplaisance", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "NZ4ICNIK", "version": 26, "parentItem": "BRIJM7AG", "itemType": "note", "note": "Descrption: Brown, Lacey and Potter are concerned about Kourany’s claim that both epistemic and social values must control every aspect of the research process, including the choice of research questions, communication of results, and their application. They (in particular, Brown) claim that while scientists are in the right position and have the training to identify appropriate epistemic values, they do not have the training to properly identify appropriate social values. However, she claims that social scientists and stakeholders should be consulted to ensure that appropriate social values are being taken into account and scientists aren’t expected to know what the social values are themselves. The codes of ethics (the formal ones she talks about in the book and 2012 article) will contain this information for scientists.
\n\n
Potter is concerned that the codes of ethics containing the relevant information about social values with input from stakeholders and social scientists may not be a realistic solution; she doesn’t think all parties will agree on the same values. Kourany claims that this is already being done in some cases and gives examples. Furthermore, Potter claims that the codes of ethics would require coming to some sort of consensus, which she thinks requires exclusion of some voices. Again, Kourany cites two real world example of this working (p 96-7).
\n\n
\n
Lacey claims that Kourany’s improved ideal for socially responsible science is not going to improve “the main deformation of contemporary science”, which he sees as the lack of innovations that serve our interests and economic growth, because the “technoscientific innovations that science is now geared to produce already make it socially responsible, for these innovations support economic development, expand human capacities to control the environment, and so on” (100). However, Kourany discusses a number of innovations that have caused significant social problems, have she claims that such innovations have exacerbated social inequalities rather than serve social goals. Therefore, she claims that her ideal for socially responsible science is an improvement on the current model, as it can help address issues like these.
\n", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2015-11-09T01:52:14Z", "dateModified": "2015-11-11T18:40:37Z" } }, { "key": "BV6X76HJ", "version": 26, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/BV6X76HJ", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/BV6X76HJ", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/WNH4XHVI", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 753929, "username": "katieplaisance", "name": "Katie Plaisance", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/katieplaisance", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "BV6X76HJ", "version": 26, "parentItem": "WNH4XHVI", "itemType": "note", "note": "
JM: I think this article will definitely be useful for the paper, especially if we want to a) demonstrate one way that philosophers are disagreeing about moving forward, and b) be specific about a particular project through which philosophers of science could be having an impact on science, but largely aren’t. I don’t know of any institutionalized, widely-accessible ethics codes written by philosophers that scientists use or would even likely uptake. Though I agree that if an ethics code was created as the result of an interdisciplinary project like the one she’s talking about, it would be helpful, she doesn’t get into the particulars of what that project would look like. As a result of her vagueness, I’m not convinced that this is a realistic impact for philosophers of science to have.
\n\n
\n
She also makes some really general claims about POS’s involvement in public roles (public intellectuals, policy analysts, working with funding agencies, etc.), claiming that we should be taking on these roles as philosophers as a way to make POS more socially responsible (352). Again, what she says is too vague to mean much practically speaking, and she essentially just says that we should be doing it but not how or even really why. My main question is: does she expect philosophers to be taking on these roles in addition to their roles as academics, or instead of them? Practical questions come up for me in either case. If we take on those roles in addition to our current ones, all sorts of issues come up with respect to time, rewards, etc., and it doesn’t seem realistically feasible. If we’re to take them on instead, it’s not clear that we’ll be making any changes to philosophy of science because we’ll likely no longer be involved in the discipline, but trained philosophers working outside of it.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2015-11-09T01:46:44Z", "dateModified": "2015-11-11T18:40:36Z" } }, { "key": "PVFZ2RHU", "version": 26, "library": { "type": "group", "id": 423395, "name": "Impact & Goals of POS", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos", "type": "text/html" } } }, "links": { "self": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/PVFZ2RHU", "type": "application/json" }, "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/groups/impact__goals_of_pos/items/PVFZ2RHU", "type": "text/html" }, "up": { "href": "https://api.zotero.org/groups/423395/items/WNH4XHVI", "type": "application/json" } }, "meta": { "lastModifiedByUser": { "id": 753929, "username": "katieplaisance", "name": "Katie Plaisance", "links": { "alternate": { "href": "https://www.zotero.org/katieplaisance", "type": "text/html" } } }, "numChildren": 0 }, "data": { "key": "PVFZ2RHU", "version": 26, "parentItem": "WNH4XHVI", "itemType": "note", "note": "Description: Expanding on arguments from her 2010 book, Kourany argues that one aim of philosophy of science should be to work through the complex ethical and epistemic entanglements of science, as she calls them, by providing “clear, accessible, well-publicized ethical codes for the various sciences, adequately formulated, […] comprehensive enough, when taken together, to apply to all scientific fields but also specific enough and perspicuous enough, one at a time, to yield the desired concrete results, and authoritative enough to command the respect and adherence of scientists all over the world in each scientific specialty (345-6). (She argues this is in her book as well.) She claims that this large normative project would be highly interdisciplinary in nature and would involve input from experts (scientists within the specialty, sociologists, relevant publics, etc.). (Read page 346 for more.) Replying to Dupre’s concern that scientists will not agree about basic values, Kourany says that scientists don’t need to agree on those values, but need to anticipate them in a formalized/institutionalized way (with the use of ethics codes) as part of ethical scientific practice, but that we should not force them to adopt these values, as it undermines scientific integrity. She says that the ethics codes: “should meet the needs of society, including the justice-related needs of society; they should be the kinds of values that scientists ought to hold, the kinds of values that ought to be enforced by one or more of the various sciences’ ethics codes; and they should be revisable over time as new infor- mation becomes available, new technologies become possible, and societal needs change” (348-9). In short, she thinks that philosophers of science should be proscribing which values are important for scientists to pay attention to, and that we have the ability to do so in particular cases and in general cases with the help of the scientists themselves, sociologists of science, etc.
\n\n
\n
*** Read pages 351 from “First, new challenges…” to the end on 352. *** A lot of useful content here about the various ways that POS should change, but most notably, how POS should critique science moving forward and what public roles philosophers of science should play.
", "tags": [], "relations": {}, "dateAdded": "2015-11-09T01:46:44Z", "dateModified": "2015-11-11T18:40:23Z" } } ]