Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-lqqdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-06T00:39:45.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Virtue and Contingent History: Possibilities for Feminist Epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Laura Ruetsche
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some feminist epistemologists make the radical claim that there are varieties of epistemically valid warrant that agents access only through having lived particular types of contingent history, varieties of epistemic warrant to which, moreover, the confirmation-theoretic accounts of warrant favored by some traditional epistemologists are inapplicable. I offer Aristotelian virtue as a model for warrant of this sort, and use loosely Aristotelian vocabulary to express, and begin to evaluate, a range of feminist epistemological positions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 19 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Feminist Science Studies , Winter 2004 , pp. 73 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Elizabeth. 1995. Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and defense. Hypatia 10(1): 50–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antony, Louise. 1993. Quine as feminist. In A mind of one's own, ed. Antony, Louise and Witt, Charlotte. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1926. Nicomachean ethics. Trans. Rackham, H.New York: G. R Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
Bacon, Francis. 1960. The New Organon and related writings, ed. Anderson, F. H.(Indianapolis: Bobbs‐Merrill): I.cxxii. Quoted in Sandra Harding, Whose science? Whose knowledge? (Ithaca: Cornell, 1991), 148.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy. 1997. Nature's capacities and their measurement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cushing, James. 1994. Quantum mechanics: Historical contingency and the Copenhagen hegemony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Earman, John. 1992. Bayes or bust. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Geuss, Raymond. 1981. The idea of critical theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a different voice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Barry. 1994. What could a feminist science be? Monist 77(3): 434–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1982. Language, truth and reason. In Rationality and relativism, eds. Lukes, S. and Hollis, M.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1992a. “Style” for historians and philosophers. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 23(1): 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1992b. The Self‐Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences. In Science as practice and culture, ed. Pickering, Andrew. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1993. Representing and intervening. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hamlyn, D. W. 1967. History of epistemology. In Encyclopedia of philosophy, vol. 3, ed. Edwards, Paul (New York: MacMillan), 8. Quoted in Sandra Harding, Whose science? Whose knowledge? (Ithaca: Cornell, 1991), 107.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. 1961. Is there a logic of discovery? In Current Issues in the Philosophy of Science, ed. Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover (New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston).Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, cyborgs, and women. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hardaker, M. A. 1882. Science and the woman question. Popular Science Monthly 21(March): 15–19. Quoted in L. M. Newman, ed., Men's ideas/women's realities, (New York: Pergamon, 1995), 38.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harding, Sandra. 1996. Rethinking standpoint epistemology. In Feminism and science, ed. Keller, Evelyn Fox and Longino, Helen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl. 1966. Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice‐Hall.Google Scholar
Horgan, John. 1995. The new social Darwinists. Scientific American 273(October): 174–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrdy, Sarah. 1986. Empathy, polyandry and the myth of the coy female. In Feminist approaches to science, ed. Bleier, Ruth. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kukla, Rebecca, and Ruetsche, Laura. 2002. Contingent natures and virtuous knowers: Could epistemology be “gendered”? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32(3): 389–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, Genevieve. 1996. Reason, science, and the domination of nature. In Feminism and science, ed. Keller, Evelyn Fox and Longino, Helen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. 1996. Can there be feminist science? In Women, knowledge and reality, ed. Garry, Ann and Pearsall, Marilyn. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marais, Nina. 1882. Reply to Miss Hardaker on the woman question. Popular Science Monthly 21(May): 42–44. Quoted in L. M. Newman, ed., Men's ideas/women's realities (New York: Pergamon, 1995), 44.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. 1976. Virtue and reason. Monist 62(2): 331–50.Google Scholar
Nelson, Lynn Hankinson. 1993. Who knows? What can they know? And when? Reason Papers 18 (1): 45–56.Google Scholar
Pinnick, Cassandra. 1994. Feminist epistemology: Implications for philosophy of science. Philosophy of Science 61(4): 646–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Railton, Peter. 1994. Truth, reason, and the regulation of belief. Philosophical Issues 5(1): 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Wesley. 1966. The foundations of scientific inference. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. I. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual selection and the descent of man, ed. Campbell, B.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar