Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T11:58:42.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Virtues of Feminist Empiricism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Richmond Campbell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the emergence of new forms of feminist empiricism, there continues to be resistance to the idea that feminist political commitment can be integral to hypothesis testing in science when that process adheres strictly to empiricist norms and is grounded in a realist conception of objectivity. I explore the virtues of such feminist empiricism, arguing that the resistance is, in large part, due to the lingering effects of positivism.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , Winter 1994 , pp. 90 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Churchland, Paul. 1985. The ontological status of observables: In praise of superempirical virtues. In Images of science, ed. Churchland, Paul and Hooker, Clifford A.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Code, Lorraine. 1991. What can she know? Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Crasnow, Sharon L. 1993. Can science be objective Longino's Science as social knowledge. Hypatia 8(3): 194–201.Google Scholar
Fausto‐Sterling, Anne. 1985. Myths of gender New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fee, Elizabeth. 1981. Woman's nature and scientific objectivity. In Woman's nature: Rationalizations of inequality, ed. Lowe, M. and Hubbard, R.New York: Pargamon Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 1980. Causal systems and statistical hypotheses. In Applications of inductive logic, ed. Cohen, L. J. and Hesse, M. B.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 1983. Testing theoretical hypotheses. In Testing scientific theories, ed. Earman, J.Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 10. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 1985. Constructive realism. In Images of science, ed. Churchland, Paul M. and Hooker, Clifford A.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Giere, Ronald. 1988. Explaining science Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giere, Ronald. [1979] 1984, 1991. Understanding scientific reasoning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1980. Sociobiology and the theory of natural selection. In Beyond nature/nurture? ed. Barlow, G. W. and Silverberg, J.Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question infeminism Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1989. Feminist justificatory strategies. In Women, knowledge, and reality ed. Garry, Ann and Pearsal, Marilyn. Boston: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1993. Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is “strong objectivity”? In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1980. Revolutions and reconstructions in the philosophy of science Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Jagger, Alison. 1983. Feminist politics and human nature Totowa: Rowman and Allenheld.Google Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1985. Reflections on gender and science New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1977. The essential tension Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1993. Subjects, power and knowledge: Description and prescription in feminist philosophies of science. In Feminist epistemologies, ed. Alcoff, Linda and Potter, Elizabeth. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Longino, , and Hammonds, Evelyn. 1990. Conflicts and tensions in the feminist study of gender and science. In Conflicts in feminism, ed. Hirsch, Marianne and Keller, Evelyn Fox. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Maccoby, Eleanor, and Jacklin, Carol. 1974. The psychobgy of sex differences. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1990. Who knows: From Quine to a feminist empiricism Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Okruhlik, Kathleen. 1992. Birth of a new physics or death of nature? In Women and reason, ed. Harvey, Elizabeth D. and Okruhlik, Kathleen. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Seller, Anne. 1988. Realism versus relativism: Towards a politically adequate epistemology. In Feminist perspectives in philosophy, ed. Griffiths, Morwenna and Whitford, Margaret. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Tanner, Nancy Makepeace. 1981. On becominghuman New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tuana, Nancy. 1992. The radical future of feminist empiricism. Hypatia 7(1): 100–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Paul. 1989. The structure of biological theories Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Wylie, Alison. (forthcoming). The Constitution of archaeological evidence: Gender politics and science. In Disunity and contextualism: New direction in the philosophy of science studies, ed. Galison, Peter and Stump, David.Google Scholar
Wylie, Kathleen Okruhlik, Morton, Sandra, and Thielen‐Wilson, Leslie. 1990. Philosophical feminism: A bibliographic guide to critiques of science. New Feminist Research 19: 2–36.Google Scholar