Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T14:11:55.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a Female-friendly Philosophy of Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 June 2023

Janet A. Kourany
Janet A. Kourany*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When we think of the relationship between women and science, many of us think of a wholesome array of benefits bestowed on women by science: safer and less painful childbirth and lower infant mortality rates, labor-saving conveniences for the home like washing machines, froren foods, and no-iron fabrics, the exposure and criticism of unhelpful superstitions and prejudices, and the like. For some time now, however, ferninists have been pointing an accusing finger at science, urging that the relationship between women and science has been far from a beneficial one for women.

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. 320 - 332
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.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank the members of the philosophy departrnents of the University of Notre Dame and the University of Utah, and particularly Ed Manier and Phil Quinn, for helpful comments on this paper.

References

Angier, N. (1991), “Women Join the Ranks of Science But Remain Invisible at the Top,” The New York Times, May 21, 1991.Google Scholar
Asquith, P., Hacking, I.(eds.) (1981), PSA 1978, Vol. 2, East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association. Biology and Gender Study Group (1988), “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology,” Hypatia 3 (1).Google Scholar
Dix, L. (ed.) (1987), Women: Their Underrepresentation and Career Differentials in Science and Engineering, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Elshtain, J. (1979), “Methodological Sophistication and Conceptual Confusion: A Critique of Mainstream Political Science” in The Prism of Sex: Essays in the Sociology of Knowledge, J. Sherman and E. Beck (eds.), Madison : University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1962), “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism” in Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time, H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (l984a), “The Natural Ontological Attitude” in Scientific Realism, J. Leplin (ed.), Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Fine, A. (l984b), “And Not Anti-Realism Either,” Nous 18: 51-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gornick, V. (1990), Women in Science, revised edition, New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Gutting, G.(ed.) (1980), Paradigms and Revolutions, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hornig, L., Hynes, H., Traweek, S., Keller, E., Turkle, S., Flonnan, S. (1984), “Women in Technology,” Technology Review 87: 29-52.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. (1986), “Empathy, Polyandry, and the Myth of the Coy Female” in Feminist Approaches to Science, R. Bleier (ed.), New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1988a), “A Mechanism and Its Metaphysics: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science,” Biology and Philosophy 3: 123-155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1988b), Science as a Process, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, E. (1977), “The Anomaly of a Woman in Physics” in Working It Out, S. Ruddick and P. Daniels (eds.), New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Kourany, J. (1982), ‘'Towards an Empirically Adequate Theory of Science,” Philosophy of Science 49:526-548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1976), “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions” in Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences, C. Howson (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (eds.) (1970), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, H. (1990), Science as Social Knowledge, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manis, J., Sloat, B., Davis, C. (1990), University of Michigan Study on Women in Science, Ann Arbor: Center for the Education of Women, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Millman, M., Kanter, R. (1987), “Introduction to Another Voice: Feminist Perspectives on Social Life and Social Science” in Methodology, S. Harding (ed.), Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Mozans, H. J. (1991), Woman in Science, Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Oakley, A. (1981), “Interviewing Women : A Contradiction in Terms” in Doing Feminist Research, H. Roberts (ed.), New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Rosser, S. (1989), “Re-visioning Clinical Research-Gender and the Ethics of Experimental Design,” Hypatia 4 (2)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosser, S. (1990), Female-Friendly Science: Applying Women's Studies Methods and Theories to Attract Students, Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Rossiter, M. W. (1982), Women Scientists in America, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiebinger, L. (1989), The Mind Has No Sex? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1966), “Meaning and Scientific Change” in Mind and Cosmos, R. Colodny (ed.), Pittsburgh : University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Sherif, C. (1987), “Bias in Psychology” in Feminism and Methodology, S. Harding (ed.), Bloomington : Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, D. (1979), “A Sociology for Women” in The Prism of Sex: Essays in the Sociology of Knowledge, J. Sherman and E. Beck (eds.), Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Smith, D. (1987), “Women's Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology” in Feminism and Methodology, S. Harding (ed.), Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1961), Foresight and Understanding, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Vetter, B. (1987), “Women in Science” in The American Woman 1987-88, S. Rix (ed.), New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Walker, B. (1981), “Psychology and Feminism-If You Can't Beat Them, Join Them” in Men's Studies Modified, D. Spender (ed.), Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Weisstein, N. (1977), “'How can a little girl like you teach a great big class of men?’ the Chairman Said, and Other Adventures of a Woman in Science” in Working It Out, S. Ruddick and P. Daniels (eds.), New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H., Cole, J., and Bruer, J. (eds.) (1991), The Outer Circle, New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar