Sandra Harding's It Started With Copernicus

The controversy surrounding women’s involvement in science is great, and there have been countless instances in history of women’s discoveries and breakthroughs being credited to a man. So many times, in fact, that there is a term specifically for this occurrence. Known as “the Matilda effect”, named after women’s rights activist Matilda Joslyn Gage, it refers to the process of the suppression of women’s contribution to science in regards to incorrect accreditation to a male counterpart for a woman’s research. It has seen a woman’s scientific findings appropriated and Nobel Prizes awarded to male colleagues and supervisors.Not only is this clearly unfair on every conceivable level, it highlights the historically misogynistic

An objective perspective is one based in fact, in things quantifiable and measurable. A subjective perspective relies on personal feeling, emotion, and aesthetics. Helen Longino defends that science is objective because of the natural social nature of the scientific method. The scientific method involves forming hypotheses and collecting data to either approve or refute a hypothesis. Hypotheses are constructed either by one individual or a group of scientists and are therefore subjective Subjectivity and uncertainty lead to competing theories that are pared down since some are proved to be inconsistent with new observations. Allowing subjectivity is a positive aspect of the scientific method. It allows room for taking risks and therefore leading to hypotheses and discoveries that prove to be valid. Relying solely on objective science can lead to something called a Value-Laden Thesis. This occurs when scientists cannot gather evidence and assess theories without making circumstantial value judgments. “Science is a source of objective, value-free, facts about the world. Science has nothing to do with values, either in the statement of its

Frequently, when people think about a scientific breakthrough or discovery, they tend to forget about the person behind it. If you ask someone about the newest technological advancement, most people will be able to tell you about or have an opinion. But, if you ask them about the scientist or researcher behind it, their knowledge becomes severely lack luster. People forget that scientists are real people too, they have real people emotions, real people dreams, and real people problems. They are their own individuals who have developed their own characters, which turned them into the amazing scientists they became.

Science knows no gender as predominant, yet some astute minds believe that women are inferior, acting solely as the men’s impuissant counterpart. During the Scientific Revolution in the 17th and 18th century, women’s contributions to science were largely overlooked by supposedly more radical male scientists such as Galileo and Newton. The controversy circumventing their revelations drew more attention than lesser-known scientists, especially women. Women who scour evidence for their findings remain disputed for inaccuracies not for their content, but for their gender. The stigma against women in scientific fields during the Scientific Revolution revolved around a domestic, passive lifestyle behind their husbands. Thus, women’s participation

Throughout the lifetime of Earth and human life, there has been many ideas and aspects on why things are the way they are. Many individuals challenge their ideas against the public, which gives a broader view. I believe that people change their minds due to new information that is given to them, or the different opinions about things they may hear. Yet, some individuals may disagree on that and say that we change our minds because it’s just what we decide to do, not explanation needed.

Science and Social Inequality is divided into two sections; this paper will examine the structural organization of Harding’s text with particular attention to how the initial section supports her proposed reconceptualization of the sciences on a global scale. My aim is to review themes and key points of the text in order to evaluate the case Harding presents for the utility and necessity of a postcolonial, feminist science studies.

Kay Boyle’s short story titled “The Astronomer’s Wife” shows a relationship without love. When not given the love one deserves in a marriage bond, the relation seems to fall with the lack of its life. When the relationship formed isn’t a strong working one, it will collapse sooner or later. Compromises, tolerance and patience don’t always go the far mile, the feeling of longing and yearning for it comes along the way. This story is about Mrs. Ames, the wife of the dreamer who lives in the skies of heaven, ignoring her existence.

I decided to research the discovery of the planet Uranus. I found an article that gave great information about how it all happened. William Herschel had a hobby of learning about astronomy and often read many books on the subject. He would look through telescopes but found that they were too weak, so he built his own. He was able to see further than everyone else with his telescopes. One day he came across a larger body in the Gemini nebula so he shared it with others and with their help he was able to be awarded and known for discovering Uranus. I think it’s interesting how he shared it with others and they gave their input and helped him to prove his theory. I learned that most discoveries come from being close to something and wanting

In the passage “The great beyond” author John M. Barry Analyzes scientist and their research. He explained the qualities a well rounded scientist should and should not batain, but more importantly the creativity and readiness that a scientist needs to have when facing and exploring the unknown world of science.

My waking brother preparing for work, the only clue that it was seven o’clock already. By this time, I would have made a two hour dent into the endless amount of material and educational videos about science, from recent discoveries and ideas such as the limitless potential of metallic hydrogen, and proposed and conducted treatments for harmful algal bloom in our own Great Lakes to the history of setups and labs that have led to the foundation of knowledge that is studied in school such as the experimentation which led to Sanger

The story I read was“The Sun and the Moon” retold by Jeannette Faurot from the book Asian-Pacific Folktales and Legends, pages 18 through 22. The main characters were two siblings, a son and daughter, and a tricky tiger. The story took place in Korea, way in the past. The conflict involves the tiger, after eating the sibling’s mother, tries to eat the children. The tiger desperately tries to trick the children so it can eat them, but the children keep outsmarting the tiger. While eluding the tiger, the siblings escape into the heavens where they are awarded for escaping the tiger. The daughter is turned into the sun, and the son becomes to moon.

“That is why we are engaged in this business, to feel the joy of discovery,” he said. “Our ancestors did not feel the joy of discovery because they’re not our ancestors. They got out-competed by other tribes who loved to go over the hill to see what was there. Those are the people from whom we are descendants, and those successful tribes from ancient times understood the process of science.”

As time progresses, there will always be a continuous effect of people disagreeing with others viewpoints as well as having a never-ending resolution to it. In The Case Against Copernicus, it clearly shows you this by stating that “They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science”, which just ends to show you that we do not all have the answers to everything that exists in the universe, yet what we do have is the urgency to oppose others to be wrong when we do not know all of the facts (Danielson and Graney 5). As a T-T, given from Shifting the Origin, foretells Galileo’s legacy

Myth 8: In this paragraph, the writer discusses the belief that scientists are objective. He states that scientists do not posses the ability to be objective because of factors such as previous knowledge towards a subject, prejudgment, the role of creativity, and other things of that nature. Everyone holds their own bias, whether or not that bias is desired.

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.