Okruhlik, Gender and the Biological Sciences

1
Okruhlik, Gender and the Biological Sciences

• December 1, 2008

2
Okruhliks Examples
1. Examples where external values are imported
(unknowingly) into science. 2. Examples where
science explicitly has values that are biased.
Tool use hypotheses in Darwinian natural
selection. Sleeping Beauty/Prince
Charming. Intellectual ability and biology.
Skeleton drawings favored because of conformity
with gender ideals. Archetypal members of
species as male
3
(No Transcript)
4
The Sleeping Beauty/Prince Charming Model
It shows us how pre-existing theoretical
assumptions inform which questions we ask, which
hypotheses we investigate, and which data we
decide to ignore as evidentially insignificant.
These considerations are sometimes relegated to
the context of discovery and are said to be
epistemically irrelevant to the actual content of
science. (194)
Q What response to feminist critiques is she
alluding to?
5
The Sleeping Beauty/Prince Charming Model
It shows us how pre-existing theoretical
assumptions inform which questions we ask, which
hypotheses we investigate, and which data we
decide to ignore as evidentially insignificant.
These considerations are sometimes relegated to
the context of discovery and are said to be
epistemically irrelevant to the actual content of
science. (194)
Context of Discovery Concerns how theories are
proposed. Context of Justification Concerns how
theories are selected.
6
The Sleeping Beauty/Prince Charming Model
It shows us how pre-existing theoretical
assumptions inform which questions we ask, which
hypotheses we investigate, and which data we
decide to ignore as evidentially insignificant.
These considerations are sometimes relegated to
the context of discovery and are said to be
epistemically irrelevant to the actual content of
science. (194)
Main Challenge for Feminist Critiques How is
the critique relevant to the normative and
epistemological issues in the philosophy of
science?
7
The UD Argument (p. 195)
T the theoryA1, A2 the experimental
assumptionsO an observation
(T A1 A2) ? O We set the experiment up and
observe O.

• We know that we must reject T or A1 or A2, but
  which one?
• The evidence doesnt determine this for us
• but something must our bias/background
  assumptions.
• Whether a theory is rejected or not is
  normatively important.
• So, bias/background assumptions are normatively
  important.

8
Response to UD Argument
Laudan, Demystifying Underdetermination Possibl
e (Nonuniqueness) UD the inductive methods of
scientific theory choice rationally allow us to
accept more than one theory. Actual
(Nonuniqueness) UD the inductive methods of
scientific theory choice rationally allow us to
accept more than one actually proposed theory.
9
General Okruhlik Argument

• Either theory choice is underdetermined by data
  or it is not.
• If it is, then background assumptions play a role
  in which theory is chosen.
• If it is not, then background assumptions play a
  role in which theories are proposed.
• If background assumptions play a role in which
  theories are proposed, then background
  assumptions play a role in which theories are
  chosen.------------------------------------------
  ------------------------------
• Thus, background assumptions play a role in which
  theories are chosen.

10
The non-UD Argument (p. 203)

• It is normatively significant (n.s.) which theory
  is selected.
• Theory selection is between several options.
• If it is n.s. which decision you make, and your
  decision is only between several options, then it
  is n.s. how you got the options you
  have.--------------------------------------------
  --------------------------------
• Thus, it is n.s. how theories were proposed.

11
The non-UD Argument (p. 203)
VERSION 1

• It is normatively significant (n.s.) which theory
  is selected (out of all possible options).
• Theory selection is between several options.
• If it is n.s. which decision you make (out of all
  possible options), and your decision is only
  between several options, then it is n.s. how you
  got the options you have.------------------------
  --------------------------------------------------
  --
• Thus, it is n.s. how theories were proposed.

12
The non-UD Argument (p. 203)
VERSION 2

• It is normatively significant (n.s.) which theory
  is selected (given the options you have).
• Theory selection is between several options.
• If it is n.s. which decision you make (given the
  options you have), and your decision is only
  between several options, then it is n.s. how you
  got the options you have.------------------------
  --------------------------------------------------
  --
• Thus, it is n.s. how theories were proposed.

13
Questions

• Are both arguments sound?
• Is Version 1, Premise 1 true?

What is relevant when we want to show that
science is rational? Progress1 Scientific
theories get better and better. Progress2
Scientific theories are good theories.
14
Discussion

• Lets grant that unquestioned biases in science
  can have negative effects.
• How does more variance in biases help?
• If we increase the diversity of the scientific
  communitye.g., instituting an aggressive
  affirmative action policy for admittance into
  science PhD programswill this give us more
  variance in biases?
• Call the biases that matter for science
  scientific biases. Does variance in scientific
  biases track variance in gender, race, economic
  class, nationality, religion, etc.?

15
The Sokal Hoax

• December 3, 2008

16
Science Studies

• An amalgamation of history, sociology,
  philosophy, cultural anthropology, classics,
  economics, literary theory, feminist theory,
  cultural studies to study science.
• The aim is to draw on pretty much any field
  that can contribute to our understanding of how
  science developed, how it works, and what role it
  has. (PGS, 144)
• One aspect of Science Studies is postmodernism.
• This lead to

17
CIENCE
18
The Facts

• Alan Sokal, professor of physics, NYU
• Submits a paper to Social Text, Transgressing
  the Boundaries Towards a Transformative
  Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.
• 1996, article is published.
• Sokal claims in Lingua Franca that article is a
  hoax.

19
Sample Quotations
Rather, they physicists cling to the dogma
imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony
over the Western intellectual outlook, which can
be summarized briefly as follows that there
exists an external world, whose properties are
independent of any individual human being and
indeed humanity as a whole that these properties
are encoded in eternal physical laws and that
human beings can obtain reliable, albeit
imperfect and tentative, knowledge of these laws
by hewing to the objective procedures and
epistemological strictures prescribed by the
(so-called) scientific method.
20
Sample Quotations
Thus, a liberatory science cannot be complete
without a profound revision of the canons of
mathematics. As yet no such emancipatory
mathematics exists, and we can only speculate
upon its eventual content. We can see hints of it
in the multidimensional and nonlinear logic of
fuzzy systems theory but this approach is still
heavily marked by its origins in the crisis of
late-capitalist production relations.
21
Sample Quotations
Just as liberal feminists are frequently content
with a minimal agenda of legal and social
equality for women and are "pro-choice," so
liberal (and even some socialist) mathematicians
are often content to work within the hegemonic
Zermelo-Fraenkel framework (which, reflecting its
nineteenth-century origins, already incorporates
the axiom of equality) supplemented only by the
axiom of choice. But this framework is grossly
insufficient for a liberatory mathematics, as was
proven long ago by Cohen 1966.
22
Why Did Sokal Do It?
What concerns me is the proliferation, not just
of nonsense and sloppy thinking per se, but of a
particular kind of nonsense and sloppy thinking
one that denies the existence of objective
realities, or (when challenged) admits their
existence but downplays their practical
relevance. At its best, a journal like Social
Text raises important questions that no scientist
should ignore question, for example, about how
corporate and government funding influence
scientific work. Unfortunately, epistemic
relativism does little to further the discussion
of these matters.
23
Questions Raised
What are the publication standards of Social
Text? Did Sokal violate ethical codes of
academia? Is there a need for science studies
or a purpose it serves? What is the scholarly
merit of sociological/postmodernist criticism of
science? Have we seen any reason to advocate a
kind of epistemic relativism when it comes to
science?
24
Boghossians Take On The Hoax
Postmodernism wants to demote science from
privileged position. Main claim the notion of
objectivity is incoherent.
25
Boghossians Take On The Hoax

• Example The Zuni Myth.
• Postmodernist Claim The Zuni myth (ZM) is just
  as valid as the scientific hypothesis (SH).
• Note this demotes science from its privileged
  position, denying its objectivity or epistemic
  superiority.
• Interpretations
• just as valid equally true
• just as valid equally justified
• just as valid have equal purpose

26
1. ZM and SH equally true
The myths conflict so they cannot both be
true. Response There is a perspective from which
each is true, so both are true. But this is just
to speak in a confusing way.
27
1. ZM and SH equally true
Apply postmodernism to itself. Postmodernism
claims that if there is a perspective from which
something is believed, then that thing is true.
Postmodernism also claims that objective truth
is incoherent. But there is a perspective
realism from which it is true that objective
truth is coherent. So, it is true that objective
truth is coherent. But this contradicts the
postmodernist claim that objective truth is
incoherent.
28
2. ZM and SH equally justified.
It appears false to say that ZM and SH are
equally justified. Response each theory is
judged by its own standards of justification. The
Zuni myth is judged by Zuni standards, and the
scientific story by scientific standards. But
there is no external standards by which to judge
them both. Plausibility of this response. Any
claim? Even Nazism?
29
2. ZM and SH equally justified.
Again, apply postmodernism to itself.
Postmodernism claims that each view is justified
by its own standards, which are incomparable.
Postmodernism claims that we should not adopt
the realist view of justification. The realist
claim Not every standard of justification is
as good as any other can be justified by the
appropriate set of realist rules. So, the
realist view on justification is just as
justified as the postmodernist view on
justification. But then why should we not adopt
the realist view of justification?
30
3. ZM and SH have equal purposes
If this is all we mean when we claim that they
are just as valid, then this does nothing to
show that the objectivity of science is
threatened.
31
Boghossians Main Point
Postmodern critiques of science are either
self-refuting or irrelevant. Either way, they
foster an incorrect view of science.
32
Hilgartners Take On The Hoax
General Point Sokal attempts to parody cultural
studies and ends up parodying himself.
33
Hilgartner Argument 1
Sokals experiment is part of the same discipline
he is criticizing. He is pointing out something
about the standards of publication and bias.
Thus, Sokal refutes himself by engaging in
cultural studies/social science studies.
34
Hilgartner Argument 2
Sokal criticizes Social Text for lax standards of
justification, but he shows the same lack of
justification in criticizing science studies. His
study consists of one sample extrapolated to a
critique of an entire discipline.
35
Hilgartner Argument 3
What made the Sokal response different from the
Epstein response? Status of experimenters
(physics vs social worker) Difference in who
was attacked (social work profession vs cultural
studies)   The Epstein/Sokal comparison shows
that something other than method resulted in the
judgments about the cases. This can only be
explained by a careful study of the social and
cultural aspect of science. So, Sokals Hoax
displays the need for science studies.