Reflection On Subjective Judgment On The Nature Of The Social Structure Of Science

As per research ‘gender’ provides a perspective from which one could examine the biases that exist in the larger society. Some believe that to arrive at a more eloquent understanding of the problems of women in science , one should begin by asking what is the nature of science space that leads to under-representation and marginalisation of women rather than questioning the situation of a woman’s life that makes it difficult for her to pursue science.

Chalmers represents the traditional inductivist view with his statement on science. An inductivist makes observations, then creates a general statement that aims to explain the encountered phenomenon. However, Karl Popper, another scientific philosopher, has completely rejected this scientific method and has argued against the sole use of induction when conducting scientific research. Unsatisfied with Chalmers’ method, and the traditional inductive method in general, he instead made his own ‘version’ of the scientific method, dubbed ‘the hypothetico-deductive method’. These two scientific methods contrast each other, and to demonstrate their difference Chalmers’ statement will be evaluated using the typical view of one who subscribes to Popper’s ‘hypothetico-deductive’ method of falsification. I will then evaluate the two methods, commenting on their individual limitations and merits.

Under the research of J. Michael Bishop, Science is being defended and explored for positive and negative out comes in the past years, to form an argument against the critics who believe science is no longer the answer. Throughout the article I discovered quality examples that support claims of ethos, pathos, and logos. Logos being the most reoccurring from of argument that Bishop chose, in my opinion reveals a stronger argument rather than one that has an argument revolved around pathos.

2. I agree that journalism and policies must give all viewpoints the chance to be shared with the public, but I do not support the false balance of scientific legitimacy being granted to all viewpoints. It is important for the public to be informed of current scientific issues, without a doubt; however, I think the public should hear more about the viewpoint that the majority of the scientific community supports. In the process of weighing the evidence, it is true that the less legitimate viewpoints must also be considered. However, the false balance of viewpoints in journalism and policies makes it harder for the general public, especially the non-scientifically trained, to recognize the viewpoint

“There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. Our political life is also predicated on openness. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress.”

Science is a beauty of discovering the undiscovered. Most of the scientists are generally well respected, and they are the important aspects of the society. What distinguishes the ‘good scientists’ among the ‘bad scientists? Passion and the ethic in the field of the study really show the differences between the good and bad scientists.

Prior to the 1990’s, the problem of scientific objectivity was a question many philosophers tried to grapple with. Initially, the Logical Positivist’s view of scientific objectivity was most popular. They held to the belief that science was overall objective because of the distinction between the “context of discovery” and “context of justification,” which still allowed for science to contain some subjective elements (Longino 172). Basically, Positivist’s allowed for subjective qualities, such as mental makeup of scientists and values scientist brought in to their scientific work, by stating that the initial formulation or “discovery” of hypothesis/theories included subjective qualities. However, these subjective characteristics were

Keller’s argument regarding science being an “objectivist discourse” is a double-edged sword. In her attempts to critique the whole population of “white, middle-class men,” she ultimately generalizes them. In her arguments, she makes a sweeping assumption that science is a white supremacist, capitalistic, and male-dominated discourse. Her generalizations from which her argumentation is based off is flawed. The basis of her arguments are marinated in sexism, classism, and racism. In her criticisms of science as sexist, she herself is sexist for assuming the worst in men. Keller’s entire claim revolves around how science being dominated by middle-class white men is unacceptable. Her claim that science “has evolved under the formative influence of a particular ideal of masculinity” insinuates that science heavily favors white, middle-class men and disregards everyone else. Her assertion of underrepresentation presupposes that these white, middle-class men regard only themselves and fail to represent the rest of the population. This baseless claim paints scientists as egotistical, vain, and selfish. However, this is not

Standpoint theory argues that some subjectivities are scientifically better than others for the basis of knowledge claims, combating critiques that standpoints are relativist (61). Harding also explores why the subjects of standpoint theory are preferable to those of empiricism. Firstly, in standpoint theory, she claims, subjectivities are “embodied and visible” because subjects’ lives, the basis of thought, are present in the results of their thought (63). Secondly, communities and not individuals produce knowledge. A standpoint is collective, legitimated by the group, creating less potential for bias (65). Thirdly, subjectivities are “multiple, heterogeneous, contradictory, and incoherent,” with knowledge coming from many different women’s lives, resisting universalist claims (65). Lastly, Harding places the subject on the same plane as the object. She asserts that when subjects are socially located, it is apparent that they are not fundamentally different from objects of knowledge (64). According to Harding, in order to maximize objectivity, subjects must undergo the same “critical, causal—scientific!—social explanations” as the objects of knowledge (71). This locates both in history, critically investigates any biases or distortions, and gives a strongly objective voice to

While one’s own perspective may help the knower to understand the principle of human sciences, the human sciences are generally objective as they are a science. The knower’s perspective is not as important in the complexities and advanced end of the department, and in many cases can misconstrue or invalidate the findings by wrongly altering the process. To understand why perspective is considered damaging in the field of human sciences, one can research the history of the perception of

Other phrases throughout the first four pages use words like "nightmare", "destroy", "haunt", and "anguish" to attract readers to how seriously society takes awareness of science. These phrases get readers to feel the urgency of the views against science in society. The dark phrasing successfully shows that society has taken a responsible view against incorrect scientific application.

In “Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium,” Donna Haraway profiles the “modest witness” of science, a self-invisible inhabitant of an unmarked category who is authorized to establish facts about the world without his own embodiment clouding or biasing the world’s objective truth. “His subjectivity is his objectivity” (24). Historically, his objectivity has been contrasted with the subjectivity and special interests of women and people of color, among other marginalized people. Thus, they have always been excluded from science and used as determinants of what can and cannot count as knowledge, of scientific fact and popular culture (28-30). Feminist epistemologists such as Haraway call the (lack of) subjectivity of this modest witness into question

Assumptions in the title of this essay imply that results, theories and laws resulting from the current system of peer review multiple perspectives produce completely infallible objective truth, this is a false premise. Whilst the group of knowers known as the scientific community have collectively less bias than one lone knower trying to understand the universe, there is still collective and engrained level of institutional bias. The same problems of confirmation bias and expectation are present in a group of knowers just as they are with one single knower. According to Karl Popper (1902-1994) the best way to eliminate any expectation and confirmation bias was to falsify and disprove rather than confirm one’s hypothesis and predictions. Popper argues: no matter how convincing an argument or theory is, all that is needed to disprove it is one piece of valid counterclaiming evidence. Whilst this theory is valid on an individual level, it really becomes an effective tool in the objectivity of science on a large scale. Despite this attempt at objectifying and ‘protecting against’ error and bias it is inadequate due to inherent flaws in the scientific method. Induction, moving from the specific to the general, is the key element in scientific logic. Any theory or law ‘proved’ through this logic has some key flaws: the main flaw being that inductive logic can never be certain of any event happening or of any prediction. Richard van de Lagemaat

Feminist interaction with the philosophy of science, and in particular a feminist interpretation of epistemology, concerns the extent to which bias influences and shapes knowledge within the scientific community, and means to rectify this. There are three main distinctions of feminist philosophy of science - feminist empiricism, standpoint theory, and postmodernism. I am to be comparing and contrasting two of the three, specifically feminist standpoint theory and empiricism. I shall argue that standpoint theory and empiricism are both legitimate methods for feminist epistemology, yet standpoint theory is a more applicable and plausible method for the analysis of science in particular. I will first explain the main tenets of the feminist philosophy of science, going on to then explain reasons why standpoint theory and postmodernism are legitimate tools of analysis in their own right, and then evaluate their legitimacy.

Before Einstein, Scientists believed that light waves travelled through a medium called ether. Einstein proved that ether was irrelevant and that light doesn’t travel through a medium. Einstein proved this by figuring out that the speed of light was constant, and in order for ether to be the medium light waves travel through, the speed of light would change depending on the observer. This discovery was one piece of the Specific Theory of Relativity.