Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T23:32:03.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taking Gender Seriously in Philosophy of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Helen E. Longino
Helen E. Longino*
Affiliation:
Rice University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The invitation to participate in this symposium was accompanied by a proposal indicating that the symposium topic was “Can we do philosophy of science without taking lnto account the gender, race, and class of scientists?” My own views on the relation of gender, race, class, and science contain an answer to this question, but in the main they run slightly aslant of it. Since my previous work bringing together philosophy of science and questions of gender has consisted in using philosophy to illuminate the role gender and associated ideologies play in certain selected research programs, I took the question as a challenge to articulate a closer relation between gender questions and the philosophy of science or—better—between gender questions and my own approach to the philosophy of science.

Type
Part X. New Directions in the Philosophy of Science: Issues of Gender and Race
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1992 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1992 , 1993 , pp. 333 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by the Philosophy of Science Association

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

Altmann, J. (1974), “Observational Study of Behavior: Sampling Methods”, Behavior 49: 227-67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleier, R. (1983), Science and Gender. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Doell, R. and Longino, H. (1988), “Sex Hormones and Human Behavior: A Critique of the Linear Model”, Journal of Homosexuality 15, no. 3/4: 55-79.Google Scholar
Fausto-Sterling, A. (1985), Myths of Gender, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Ginzberg, R. (1987), “Uncovering Gynecentric Science”, Hypatia :Journal of Feminist Philosophy 2, no. 3: 89-106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, D. (1989), Primate Visions. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, D. (1992), “The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Innappropriate/d Others” in Cultural Studies, Grossberg, Nelson, and Treichler, (eds.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1986), The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, E. F. (1983), A Feeling for the Organism. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Keller, E. F. (1985), Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1977), “Values, Objectivity, and Theory Choice” in The Essential Tension. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R., Rose, S., and Kamin, L. (1984), Not In Our Genes. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. (1990), Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, H. (1983), “Hand, Brain and Heart: A Feminist Epistemology for the Natural Sciences'', Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 9, no. I :73-90.Google Scholar
Rosser, S. (1987), Female Friendly Science. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar