Talk:Criticism of science

Merging Criticism's of Science article with Antiscience article

I want to merge the Criticism of Science article with the Antiscience article because they are both highly critical of the scientific method, scientism, reductionism, listing philosophical as well as political reasons. Both articles as far as content and source material go are almost entirely different, but I feel they compliment each other very well. I also feel that when merged, the 'antiscience' article should be moved into the "Criticisms" article because not all attitudes that are expressed are 100% anti science (even in the antiscience article itself) most are just fairly critical of science. If we merge into the criticism article were not confusing scientific criticism or philosophical reform with anti-scientific attitudes. ProductofSociety (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I do not have strong views, but I think a merge is likely to be difficult to do. Both articles need a lot of work, to make them more coherent and have a better flow. When that is done, it might be clearer whether merging is a good idea or not. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• • I have no problem taking all the time necessary to merge the articles the best i can. Even if the two articles need work, there of the same nature and I feel that merging them together may in fact do them both some good in terms of quality.ProductofSociety (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm for this, the pages go together really well and if they were refined a little bit when merged they would both be in 10 times a better condition then they are now. Part of the reason that either article is a little loose is because they're missing complementary material, or bad wording. This can be easily fixed. Murderd2death (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose the merger. The two articles explore and describe different things. A science supporter or enthusiast may criticize some scientific issues but still recognize the merits of science - it is a constructive criticism. Antiscience refers to people or ideologies that do not recognize any merit on science - it is a vilification of science. Unobjectionable (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'd have to weigh in as apposed to a merger. I am not Anti-science at all, yet there are true and certain limits to the knowledge that science can discover, IMO. To criticize something is not to be against something. TDurden1937 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

• Oppose I believe that the two viewpoints address the issue from two different perspectives and are best left separated. By combining the two, I believe it would cloud the distinction between the two. Tiggerjay (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tiggerjay. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Merge removed from page as per the consensus on this page. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Though I am personally opposed to merging, I am not sure we have a clear consensus here. It seems we still have the exact opposite. I'd suggest instead, (at the very least) leaving this topic un-archived and not marked as resolved while a clear consensus forms. As for the tag itself, as it's designed to attract attention to this, perhaps it should be reinstated. Also, perhaps those editors who indicated a level of ambivalence dependent on the ability to properly merge the articles can be requested to come back to see if other opinions here have swayed them to one side or the other. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Having thought about this again after being asked to do so on my talk page, I agree with Tiggerjay and Unobjectionable. However, both articles need work, to present the points in a cohesive way. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Summary:

• 2 supports
• 5 opposes
• 0 undecided at this time

ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Advocacy Group?

BatteryIncluded posted an alert at the top of the page that says:

"This article relies extensively on quotes that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2011)"

I don't exactly get what this is supposed to mean. I'm a bit flattered that someone would mistake this as group work but all in all I did a lot of the research, compiling, and editing by myself. I am not a group, and I'm not necessarily advocating anything in particular. Some of the views within the article itself are widely divorced from each other (for example, the final paragraph about the military industrial complex has little to do with the section about divination or ecophenomenology, aside from the fact that they're science related). I just compiled many perspectives that related to each other under the same section in the science article, and made it an article unto itself when it got too big.

He also added it to the category of "Anti-Intellectualism". I find that a bit crass. While these views are not held in the mainstay of scientific philosophy, none of the writers/sources in question have ever labeled themselves 'anti-intellectual', and (for the most part) have not been labeled anti-intellectual by anyone else (the exception being Paul Feyerabend's and his misattributed title as an 'enemy of Science'- misattributed because he's a philosopher of science and a science advocate).

I feel this category is being attached to this article as a pejorative, and through it, is suggesting that criticizing certain aspects of scientific method or philosophy is not an intellectual pursuit- or can not be pursued via the intellect. That The 'Anti-Intellectualism' article is part of the 'discrimination' portal on wikipedia doesn't help lessen my suspicion. (ProductofSociety (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

• I have to agree with ProductofSociety here. He has explained the sources he used, and how he compiled this page. What is the problem. Anyone have any evidence that ProductofSociety is the proxy of some special interest group? If not take that "This article relies extensively on quotes that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2011)" notice down.

TDurden1937 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

I took my own initiative to take down the lobbying group box at the top, since i have thoroughly explained myself on several occasions and no one has retorted the past few months. If anyone else has any objections, bring them up in the talk section before you make any motions to try to classify this article as something it is not.(ProductofSociety (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC))

• Thank you ProductofSociety for your above action.

--TDurden1937 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Listing under Anti-Intellectualism

This page is listed under Anti-Intellectualism, and this is not proper. It is pro-intellectual in that it helps understand the limits of scientific knowledge.

It should be removed from the Anti-Intellectualism index.TDurden527 (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden527

I respectfully disagree. Science is the intellectual pursuit of a greater understanding of various subject matter. There are those who are opposed to gaining such an understanding, which means one category that can be applied is anti-intellectualism, since their criticism is based on them simply believing against humans' rights/wants to understand their surroundings and the universe. Please do not confuse certain criticism of science (ie: debating scientific principles or conclusions) with the criticism that science even exists because humans should be kept in the dark ages of understanding. They are both criticism of science, but one most definitely falls into anti-intellectualism. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

This section[1] pretty much states that the views against science based on dismissing the intellectualism of it based on the reasons given. By both definition of intellectualism and the contrary definitions of the reasons to dismiss science for non-intellectual reasons, one comes up with anti(non) intellectualism. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay . . . given that, then I propose to edit the page to remove it from the realm of anti-intellectualism. I am not anti-intellectual, nor am I anti-science. However, criticism as in Criticism of Art can be a constructive thing. I'm not sure what the creator of this page had in mind when he made it, but I will contact him. Does anyone have any objection to moving this page away from anti-intellectualism and anti-science to a constructive criticism of Science? Please comment. I read the reference to divination and I agree it is a stretch (the rolling bones is not a good analogy to Scientific Method, IMHO). I'm not sure that the creator of this page intended that but will ask him. If he is not willing to move this page in the direction of a rational and objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of Science, then there is nothing I can do. I noticed that under Philosophy of Science there is a subheading "Critiques of the Scientific Method." This may be a better place to add what I have in mind, i.e., examination of philosophic underpinnings and assumptions of Science in a way NOT to be confused with Anti-Science or Anti-Intellectualism.TDurden1937 (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)TDurden1937

Why? You seem to be saying "Because I don't like it associated with such, let's pretend such things aren't reality". Please do not insert your POV into trying to decide what content gets included based on your opinions. That's not permitted. Anti-intellectualism is greatly related to this article. Entire, large sects of various religions and non-religions fit within that category. We cannot pretend such is not the case because we do not like the linkages such facts build. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, you can always go create the article that you are suggesting. But, it is against policy to lobotomize this one into that article simply because you don't like the content. You've already admitted it's a valid connection. That leaves nothing other than your dislike of the connection driving your motives. I am more than willing to entertain a (Wikipedia) valid reason for changing this article, but you have not presented one. On that note, as your rationale is solely POV, per the guidelines, your vote on the matter can simply be discarded. What you suggest is a POV fork, which is not consistent with guidelines[2]. As for the consensus part, and why your vote would hold little to no weight, the article on consensus states: "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority." - and your reasonings on the matter definitely do not fall within Wikipedia policy. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi once again. :-) Since I am not uninvolved and am actively participating in this discussion, in the efforts of ensuring both fairness and that I am not inserting any bias I may have into my explanation of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, I am asking two uninvolved admins to stop by here to view both this situation and my interpretations. Even though I try to separate my biases from all things policy (and I don't particularly have any real feelings on this matter), I do not think it otherwise fair for me to be explaining these policies without such explanations being reviewed on the off chance I've unintentionally allowed any bias I may have to slip into my interpretations. I have left a non-biased message on both admins' pages[3][4]. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Durden contacted me through my page and has asked me about how I feel about the page when I created it (about two years ago now, funny how time flies), as if I was somehow inspired to make this out of some 'hate' for Science. This is simply untrue (as untrue as the statement that this article was made by a 'lobbying group'). Many of the sources I sited are very much Science Advocates. I'm going to repeat that one for effect. Many of the people I sourced in this article are advocates for Science. Paul Feyerabend was an advocate of Science. Robert Anton Wilson was an advocate of science. Peter Kropotkin was an advocate of Science. Alan Watts advocates Science. I Am a Science Advocate. But advocates of any system are allowed their criticisms as well. Science is built off of self criticism. The critiques in this article are more or less aimed at the philosophical and political foundations for Science rather then empirical data (indeed, many times has science philosophically criticized itself to come out as something new and different, otherwise people like Hume, Popper and Kuhn don't matter). These criticisms were not meant to be read as ant-intellectual/science propaganda. Virtually all of these sources (save a select few I had nothing to do with) I have in books on my bookshelves. There was no group effort to put this up, I am almost literally the only person who has added any content to this article, and I'm not doing it to be an anti-intellectual. I'm doing it to contribute to the wiki effort, by spreading and share a perspective on the philosophical and political criticisms of the sciences. And I've been able to shrug it off this far, but let it be known that I'm a little offended that my effort is being pigeonholed like this. Does this article need work? Yes. Does it need some more perspective? Yes. Does the lack of either make it anti-intellectual? No.(ProductofSociety (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC))

Thanks - I hope this clarifies this to all. --TDurden1937 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the criticism sources being cited are pro-science, but there are no actual pro-science responses in the article to the criticisms, which means the article remains biased. I'd add some, but I remain without sufficient knowledge to give an accurate view of the pro-science responses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.203.58.98 (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

adding a history of the philosophy of science

I think a good idea for improving this article would be to include a history of the philosophy of science from descartes, to kant to hume to kuhn to feyerabend, etc, etc, to give a bigger perspective on how criticisms of science in the past have helped shape it to become what it is today. I will eventually take this up myself, possibly later this month if i have time, but anyone else is welcome to have a jumpstart at it or help out in some way. (ProductofSociety (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC))

• I would like to see the doubts that some have expressed turned around as to the anti-intellectual, anti-science label some seem to associate with this article. Perhaps we can exchange comments, emails or whatever to co-ordinate an effort. As I have said I am not anti-science/anti-intellectual at all but pro both. However, the natural strengths of science, that is simplification and excluding certain measurable facts or other information, that which gives it so much descriptive power can and does at times become a weakness. As a antidote for this weakness all I propose is to make people who read this article aware that there are certain inherent weaknesses, not to undermine science, but to make it stronger by describing the limits of science.--TDurden1937 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

feminist critique

I do think the feminist stuff has a perfectly valid place in this article, which is why I have restored it. I don't want to get into an edit war, so why can't we just leave it in place for now and edit it to improve it rather than keep deleting and restoring it? Tags could be added to the text where required. If the points are incorrect, or POV, or the sources are biased, then we need to improve them, and find better ones, not delete the whole section. Surely, this is a better path? Just a bunch of thoughts. Views welcome, it is a collaborative project. thanks Peter morrell 06:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD you are expected to discuss material you want to insert. Read it. secondly, if the sources are primary sources and biased as they clearly are, and the text is, then you are putting the cart before the horse by suggesting that they have weight in this article. You are merely asserting they have WP:WEIGHT, while it is the secondary sources that help to dictate weight. A much better solution is to propose independent secondary sources, and then work on text around that. The very first sentence is a WP:SYNTH. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

A perfectly reasonable way forward has been proposed above, but you have deliberately chosen to ignore that and keep reverting. It thus seems very clear that this has nothing to do with procedures but that you dislike feminism and do not wish to see this apsect presented in this article. In which case, it is your own strong POV that is the problem here and not the text in question which seems to be a perfectly valid, reasonable and well-sourced couple of paragraphs. Peter morrell 03:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You are expected to discuss the issue here. You've added SYNTH material, that is material where the sources don't explicitly support the text, but you are combining sources. You've included undue/dubious material such as the claim that "women are passive and men are active are socially constructed attributes of gender which scientists have projected onto the events of fertilization and so obscuring the fact that eggs do play an active role". And you've included irrelevant material you plagiarised from another article (Feminism). You've included off topic material such as "Physicist Lisa Randall, appointed to a task force at Harvard by then-president Lawrence Summers after his controversial discussion of why women may be underrepresented in science and engineering, said, "I just want to see a whole bunch more women enter the field so these issues don't have to come up anymore"", Randall does not appear to be a feminist, nor is this a critique of science. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been some discussion at User talk:Peter morrell. I want to continue it here. Whether a user dislikes feminism should have no place here. Whether a section on feminist critiques of science should be in this article should be discussed. I do not think that IRWolfie- has said that there should be no such section. I think that there should be mention of feminist critiques, but I am not sufficiently with the literature to suggest how it should be written. However, I do not think that the section that is the subject of this edit war is the way to go. The first sentence is synthesis. Some of the references are primary and the others are from a feminist perspective. We need some good independent secondary sources. The whole section "Language in Science" is far to long and gives undue weight to this point. It is best to start again. As an admin, I could just remove the material and protect the article to prevent further edits, but I am hoping that discussion can start here in a sensible way that will lead to progress. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A good place to start 'in a sensible way,' is to be completely transparent: which specific sentences need tagging or revising and why? Take the current edit to pieces here and, line by line, let me see what you say is wrong with it and why. How does that sound? Where specifically is the synthesis and where is the undue weight? There are dozens of sources on this topic; of course they mostly give 'a feminist perspective,' because that is what 'a feminist critique of science' must ipso fact BE! Do you object to a physicist's view of physics? I think not. There are many online sources, including Stanford encyclopedia and I have about 30 texts on the subject. If you are going to start nitpicking about which sources you accept as reliable, then this is going to become a very long and a very tedious job. Please go ahead and enlighten me, line by line, where the issues are. I shall be assuming you both know this subject well, and know what you are talking about. thankyou Peter morrell 00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I clearly highlighted the issues already. You need to start from good sources and work from there. You are combining multiple sources to advance a position that is not in the original sources (first paragraph); you are lumping in women who are not feminists under feminist critiques. You are using primary sources for the opinions of the feminists, rather than establishing they have some due weight in terms of criticism of science. Harding belongs more in Science wars than here. You are giving excessive due weight with "Language in Science" which should be removed. You should start from independent secondary sources and work from there. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So why then have you deleted the whole section YET AGAIN? and then you speak of having 'clearly highlighted the issues already.' Your comments have been as clear as mud so far. What you have highlighted once again is your ownership of this article and your refusal to tolerate the very existence of the feminist critique in it. Thanks for proving that! Now do a self revert to prove that I am wrong. Peter morrell 11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your comment does not address the concerns I raised above. I suggest you also calm down so we can discuss this rationally, IRWolfie- (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am perfectly calm thankyou. Why did you delete the section? What does that reveal about your motivation? Once it is restored it can be worked on. You don't really have any idea about this subject do you? And you talk about rational discussion. Are your deletions so rational? Please be serious. Peter morrell 13:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've full protected for 3 days, it is not an endorsement of the current version. Work it out.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I've highlighted valid issues, Bduke agreed they were valid issues, but Peter keeps inserting changes contrary to WP:BRD. How do you suggest I proceed if he ignores everything I saw each time, and simply attack me, whilst restoring the material each and every time? Why not restore the long term version? IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As I've already done: the first paragraph is a synthesis, "Sandra Harding says that the "moral and political insights of the women's movement have inspired social scientists and biologists to raise critical questions about the ways traditional researchers have explained gender, sex and relations within and between the social and natural worlds." isn't explicitly a criticism of science but rather a bit vague. It's also a quote and hence the book is being used as a primary source, where are the secondary sources showing due weight? The section "Language in Science" gives undue weight to Martin. Bear in mind this section is being given very equal weight at the moment to the philosophical critiques section. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, you know that I'm not going to get involved with the content. I wouldn't know how even if I wanted to, and I won't take sides. I just know that everyone needs to use WP:BRD as a guide. This is my first of two steps to deal with edit warring: protection. Hopefully, no other steps will be needed, as the purpose of protecting was so I didn't have to jump into blocking anyone. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are two secondary sources. My impression is that there are many more.

• Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Eichler, Margrit (1980). The double standard : a feminist critique of the feminist social science. London: Croom Helm. ISBN 9780856645365.

Since no one is saying that there should not be a section on feminist criticism of science, it makes sense to keep the section and modify it. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think dropping all the current text and starting off from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy as a base would be a good idea. It could be done initially as a subsection of the philosophy section in the article lest it is given similar weight to all of the other philosophical critiques put together, or even starting from the current Epistemology section. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

While the article is protected, we could edit a draft on a subpage. It's easier to discuss text if you can see it! RockMagnetist (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should be a subsection of philosophy. The Stanford title implies it is not just epistemology. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Bit late here so it will be tomorrow before I get back to you; I need to read the stanford source and go over it carefully first as well. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It will be a challenge to summarize! RockMagnetist (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on the Stanford reference, the views of Emily Martin seem to get undue weight. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There's been a long-standing requested article on Feminist science studies, it'd be nice to see this section remain in the article with some revisions. I'd like to see some discussion in it of instances where feminist scholars have exposed research bias directly based on issues of gender bias, or gender inequality, or the like. There are scholarly examples of it at this point, medical research is a big one. A good one is the Dissociative Identity Disorder controversy, read Debbie Nathan's expose on Sybil (book). Ok, that's not a scholarly example, but it's a mainstream example I'm using to make my point. Feminist critiques of scientific assumptions aren't so fringe anymore, and there should be adequate secondary sources to provide fodder for a brief explication in a summary article section. I've looked at Gbooks and found a few. OttawaAC (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice any more overviews of the subject like the Stanford article? RockMagnetist (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The section does not have to be long or full of waffle. Here are some suggestions each one of which can be individually referenced quite easily:

• sexist bias in science
• glass ceiling prevents advancement of female scientists
• inequities in practitioners, male domination of science
• gender bias in describing reproductive physiology
• male depiction of menstruation and pregnancy as diseases
• lack of objectivity and neutrality
• projecting gender stereotypes onto observed phenomena
• publication bias - more males get published
• male domination of conferences and peer review
• linear thinking vs lateral and branched thinking
• hard mechanistic thinking lacks holism

More can be added if required. This would make a reasonable start. The published responses to these views by male-dominated science can also be added for balance. Peter morrell 07:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No. We don't decide what to include before looking at the sources, that wouldn't make sense. You've clearly decided what you think the issues are before even looking at the sources. This is evident as some of your complaints don't add up when viewed together like "inequities in practitioners, male domination of science" and "more males get published". It makes sense to start with the tertiary sources to get an overview of the actual issues and then work down. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

And who is this we? a gentleman's science club? Or the royal we? If he had actually studied the subject he would realise that the list above is not mine but comes from reading the literature. These are the main points of the feminist critique of science, but once again he pushes his strong POV while hiding behind a smokescreen of "wiki procedures" and what "we" do. It should be a requirement to actually study the subject before arrogantly choosing to edit an article. You demonstrate once again your lamentable knowledge of this topic, so why not back off and do us all a favour? Let people who know the subject edit the article rather than have to suffer so-called editors who simply go round deleting anything they do not like. That is not collaborative editing or following procedures, it is just causing problems for sincere editors who have valid contributions to make. Peter morrell 12:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool down, everyone! I think you should both avoid arguing about the section as a whole and focus on specific content. I have created Talk:Criticism of science/Feminist with the existing content from the article. Peter morrell, I think there is a lot of overlap between your subjects. It might make sense to create a section on sociological issues for some of them (glass ceiling prevents advancement of female scientists; inequities in practitioners, male domination of science; publication bias - more males get published; male domination of conferences and peer review). RockMagnetist (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well unfortunately feminist works tend to be rather rambling and long-winded (an observation rather than a judgement) and so it's often hard to extract the simple points, and inevitably there are also bound to be some blurring of categories. I have 34 texts that are either specifically by feminist authors about science or which contain significant stuff about feminist views on science. It will take me some time to wade through them all. But the same themes tend to crop up fairly often. My list above is entirely provisional and with some friendly collaboration it can easily be knocked into better shape; its not precious to me but just helps us to make a start. I presume people will want clarity and brevity for this section and hence the bullet points to start us off. It is by no means offered as a definitive final statement but just a few ideas for us to play with. On top of that we also need to post some responses to the feminist ideas and why some miainstream scientists (male) disagree or dismiss their points. This would be for balance. In any case, we can't even start to edit this until the protection is lifted. Peter morrell 17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's why I suggest editing the subpage instead. The contents of the Stanford article are much more philosophical:

1. Situated Knowers
2. Feminist Standpoint Theory
3. Feminist Postmodernism
4. Feminist Empiricism
5. Feminist Science Criticism and Feminist Science
6. Feminist Defenses of Value-Laden Inquiry
7. Feminist Critiques and Conceptions of Objectivity
8. Epistemic Authority, Epistemic Injustice, and Epistemologies of Ignorance
9. Trends in Feminist Epistemology: Interactions of Standpoint Theory, Postmodernism, and Empiricism
10. External Criticisms of Feminist Epistemology

RockMagnetist (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but these are way off the radar for most people and completely opaque. I don't see how we can possibly use them as they are as each one is going to require a detailed explanation before the reader can even get to grasp what it is saying. That is why I thought the key themes approach might be more accessible than all this obscure stuff. What do you think? thanks Peter morrell 17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The truth is that much of it is pretty opaque to me too! I agree that the section should start with simple considerations. I'm a little concerned, though, that it could end up looking like a lot of whining about unfairness unless treated carefully. I think the first paragraph of the Stanford article does a great job of providing context. Do you know of any other good overviews of the subject? RockMagnetist (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, here is my first stab at referencing the list I posted earlier.

• sexist bias in science [1, 4. p.71, 5]
• glass ceiling prevents advancement of female scientists [2]
• inequities in practitioners, male domination of science [1, 3]
• gender bias in describing reproductive physiology [1, 6. p.310]
• male depiction of menstruation and pregnancy as diseases [4. p.104]
• lack of objectivity and neutrality [4. p.376, 7]
• projecting gender stereotypes onto observed phenomena [1, 5. p.239]
• publication bias - more males get published [7]
• male domination of conferences and peer review
• linear thinking vs lateral and branched thinking [1]
• hard mechanistic thinking lacks holism [1]

Sources

1. Alison Wylie, Feminist Perspectives on Science, Stanford Encyclopedia, 2010

2. Sue V Rosser, The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed, New York & London: Routledge, 2004

3. Rene L. Arakawa, Ruth Hubbard's Feminist Critique of Science, ATC 62, May-June 1996 (see also Stanford)

4. Evelyn Fox Keller & Helen E Longino, Feminism & Science, OUP, 1996

5. Cassandra L Pinnick, The Feminist Approach to the Philosophy of Science, in Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd, The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science, London & New York: Routledge, 2008, pp.182-192

6. Ullica Christina Olofsdotter Segerstrale, Beyond the Science Wars, New York: SUNY, 2000

7. Karen Gordrick Haely, Objectivity in the Feminist Philosophy of Science, London & New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008

The book by Psillos & Curd is pretty good Pinnick's chapter in it is pretty sound I would say and fairly jargon free. All the above can be read fairly easily. As I said before, I am only part way checking through the books I have. I have about 15 others which have smaller entries on the topic and which might actually be clearer as well as more concise. I will check and let you know. Peter morrell 18:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good list of sources! The first subject ("sexist bias in science") is vague - it could refer to any of the other subjects. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this grouping of the subjects:

• Inequality in the workplace
  • glass ceiling prevents advancement of female scientists
  • inequities in practitioners, male domination of science
  • publication bias - more males get published
  • male domination of conferences and peer review

• Gender-related health issues
  • gender bias in describing reproductive physiology
  • male depiction of menstruation and pregnancy as diseases

• Epistemology
  • lack of objectivity and neutrality
  • projecting gender stereotypes onto observed phenomena
  • linear thinking vs lateral and branched thinking
  • hard mechanistic thinking lacks holism

- and sexist bias in science (I don't know where to put it). RockMagnetist (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's all good. Sexist bias is vague but its a phrase they use very liberally in the texts. It would need to be clarified probably by using examples. Peter morrell 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to type out all the titles of the texts I have but I will try to do that at some point as it will then give you a better picture not only of the broad field of 'feminist science' but also you can then begin to check out some of them yourself, for example on google books. I think 'sexist bias' would be viewed as an aspect of scientific method, so maybe it would go under epistemology...? Peter morrell 19:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I added your list and citations to Talk:Criticism of science/Feminist. For now, 'sexist bias' is tacked on to the introductory paragraphs. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen an encyclopedic overview of the topic like the one that Stanford has published online, but doing a G search under Books for terms like "feminism" and "science" will bring up a lot of anthologies with great introductions and other survey essays. Personally, I think the section is a tad too focussed on one theme of feminist science studies... It's heavy on the demographic metrics, maybe some more info could be added on feminist challenges to theoretical frameworks currently taken as the standard in science. The feminist philosophy of science. Also, how feminist science studies have impacted specific fields, such as soft sciences, as well as hard sciences. (And I'd like an order of fries with that too please. ;-) OttawaAC (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll soon be seeing a significant expansion of the section. If you get all you ask for, it will make the rest of the article look bad! RockMagnetist (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look at articles on Sybil Exposed, by the way, and couldn't see what the feminist angle was.RockMagnetist (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Another good source with a whole 20 page chapter of relevance, is David Matthews, Science in Society, Palgrave, 2005. But Susan Haack's Defending Science, Prometheus, 2007, is in my view rather disappointing for what we are looking for. More on sources as time permits. thanks Peter morrell 02:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to post up here the titles of all the books I have access to? Just let me know, as I now have the full list ready. thanks Peter morrell 15:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure! Preferably in a new section. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no real point in trying to focus on 30+ texts! And it would be a very long job. I shall henceforth focus only on about 5 key texts. This little snippet is interesting: referring to Harding, Sandra G., Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, and Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991, and Tuana, Nancy, Feminism & Science, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989, (neither of which I have) Hessenbruch says: Sandra Harding "is one of the philosophers who have initiated and developed the feminist critiques of science. Like Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Bloor, she sees scientific knowledge as the result of its social context, and thus argues that the sexist and racist ideologies of Western society are embedded within Western science. Harding provides a critical examination of the various feminist approaches to science, and refines her epistemological standpoint. Nancy Tuana's collection of essays, which originally appeared in two special issues of Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, examines the relationship between feminism and science. These essays focus upon two themes: feminist theories of science, and case studies of gender biases in science. In addition, Tuana provides an excellent bibliography of feminism and science." (Arne Hessenbruch (Ed), Readers Guide to the History of Science, London & Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000, p.561) It gives us a clear indication of some of the issues in this topic. Maybe it can be used? More as time permits. thanks Peter morrell 08:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What the heck are "former female scientists" (1st sentence of Feminist Critiques section)? Did they all get sex change operations? Did they renounce science and join a cult? Kaldari (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed the word 'former' for now. Kaldari (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

They probably just changed jobs, but I agree it does sound a bit curious. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Unabomber?

In the section on Politics, there is a paragraph on the Unabomber's views on science. Is this really worthy of inclusion? It looks to me like little more than the sort of rant you'd expect from him. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

feminism and science texts

Fem Sci Books which I have access to:

J A Kourany, Philosophy of Science After Feminism, 2010

E Potter, Feminism and Philosophy of Science, 2006

Elain V Howes, Connecting Girls and Science, 2002

Londa L Schiebinger, Has Feminism Changed Science, 1999

Maureen McNeil, Feminist Cultural Studies of Science and Technology, 2007

S Harding, Sciences from Below... 2008

K C Haely, Objectivity in Feminist Philosophy of Science, 2008

Heidi E Grasswick, Feminist Epistemology Philosophy of Science, 2011

Angela Calabrese Barton, Feminist Science Education, 1998

M B P Hintikka, Discovering Reality Feminist Perspective, No Date

Jane Duran, Philosophy of Science and Feminist Theories, 1997

Lynn H Nelson and Jack Nelson, Feminist Interpretation of Quine, 1003

Miriam Solomon, Social Empiricism, 2001

Bonnie Spanier, Impartial Science Gender... 1995

Sue V Rosser, Women, Science and Myth...2008

Sue V Rosser, The Science Glass Ceiling, 2004

Longino, Can There be a Feminist Science, Pdf

Segerstrale, Beyond the Science Wars, 2000

William Rehg, Cogent Science in Context 2009

J R Brown, Who Rules Science, 2001

Steve Fuller, Philosophy of Science and its Discontents, 1992

Steve Fuller, The Philosophy of Science and Technology Studies, 2005

Steve Fuller and J H Collier, Philosophy Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge, 2003

Steve Fuller, Social Epistemology Science, Technology and Society, 1991

Steve Fuller, The New Sociological Imagination, 2006

Anne Fausto-Sterling, Myths of Gender, 1992

E Fox Keller & Longino, Feminism and Science, 1996

Kellert, Longino & Waters, Scientific Pluralism, 2006

Kohlsdtedt And Longino, Osiris, 1997

Peggy A Pritchard, Success Strategies for Women in Science, 2005

Patricia Murphy, In Science’s Shadow, 2006

Jill M Bystydzienskii and S R Bird, Removing Barriers Women in Science, 2006

Gender Differences at Critical Transitions, 2010

Nat Academy of Engineering and Inst Of Med, Beyond Bias and Barriers, 2007

Lilli S Hornig, Equal Rites Unequal Outcomes, 2008

Abigail J Stewart, Jane Malley & Danielle Lataque-Manty (Eds), Transforming Science and Engineering

Ronald J Burke and Mary C Mattis, Women and Minorities in Science, 2007

Stephen J Ceci, Why Aren't More Women in Science Top Researchers. 2007

Some titles are incomplete but they can easily be found and made complete. All address the issue we are concerned with and checked through for suitable points or quotations, or simply for citation purposes. Peter morrell 17:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In the next few days I will post here a range of short extracts from some of the above works, to illustrate the themes we have already identified, and any new ones, as well as any responses to them from mainstream philosophers of science, some of which we can then potentially use to embellish the growing article. thanks Peter morrell 05:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a first batch of quotes about dominance and domination.

• "science has been dominated by men, men who have been raised in sexist and androcentric societies and trained within sexist and androcentric scientific traditions." p.13
• "simple dominant-subordinate conceptions of nature that naturalize social domination (as in older active-sperm-fertilizes-passive-egg models of fertilization)." p.54

(from Janet A. Kourany, Philosophy of Science after Feminism, OUP, 2010)

• "standpoint theorists used the notion of “ideology” to explain dominant accounts of relations of gender, race, and class, and to show how groups with different gender, class, and racial locations tend to produce different accounts of nature and social relations (Harding 1997: 384)." p.133-4
• "most scientists are socially dominant men." p.140
• "If the standpoints are used to critique dominant accounts of nature and of the social world, they can reveal hidden androcentric, Eurocentric, or class-based assumptions. It is for this reason that Harding argues on behalf of a more inclusive, more democratic, science: the inclusion of women and men who have standpoints other than the dominant one(s) can help insure the strong objectivity of the sciences." p.141
• "There is a strong pattern of gender segregation in this predominantly male field. Male researchers have focused almost exclusively on stereotypically male activities, concentrating on mammoth and bison kill sites, the remains of technologically sophisticated hunting tools, etc.Women in the field are not found in these core research areas; instead, they work on “domestic” sites, temporary blades, and flake tools associated with women, often focusing on the way their edges wear down.This work has been almost completely ignored." p.148
• "When marginalized outsiders within offer their accounts both of themselves and of those in the “center” or dominant culture, and when these accounts are brought together with accounts of the marginalized and of themselves offered by those in the dominant culture, the resulting conflicts and convergences can help to maximize objectivity and to produce less partial and less distorted accounts." p.150
• (from Elizabeth Potter, Feminism and Philosophy of Science, an Introduction, OUP, 2006)

Hopefully these will be useful. Peter morrell 06:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Here are some other books, which I don't have access to but which look very useful:

• Mario Biagioli, The Science Studies Reader, Routledge, 1999
• Peter Godfrey-Smith, Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Science & Its Conceptual Foundations), Univ of Chicago Press, 2003
• Sandra Harding, Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies (Race, Gender, & Science), Univ Indiana Press, 1998
• Maralee Mayberry, Feminist Science Studies: A New Generation, Routledge, 2001

so maybe someone else can check them out. thanks Peter morrell 08:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite a list! I'm now thinking, by the way, that Feminist Critiques should remain a separate section, since its content extends beyond philosophy into social issues. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't follow what you mean there, sorry! Please clarify. Also, following the theme of dominance and domination, for example, I now have more citations on that theme, but I don't want to just keep dumping stuff here unless you are OK with that? It could turn into a sizeable mass of stuff. If folks are willing to sift through it then fair enough I guess but it might become very laborious. How do you reckon we can we manage that task collaboratively? thanks Peter morrell 17:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Earlier, IRWolfie had suggested making it a subsection of Philosophy, and that made sense at the time.

I would say that we have enough references for now. I have no idea when I'll have time to read them. I don't know much about the subject; my main purpose in joining this discussion was to defuse the conflict and get things moving forward. I'll try to help when I can, though. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Problems with "Scientometric critiques" section

This section makes general statements about scientific research that go well beyond what the sources say. The sources refer only to medical research (except for one that refers to psychology and one that refers to economics, which is not normally considered a branch of science). This raises a big NPOV issue. Would anyone object to deleting this section?NightHeron (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that I have seen similar critiques for some other fields. It would be better to do a literature search. Of course, a more cautious wording would also help. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: Have you seen critiques of the physical/chemical/mathematical sciences? I have the impression that the criticisms in this section cannot be sourced for those fields, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I have, but it was some time ago. I'll see what I can find. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: Okay. Another problem with the section is that criticisms of poorly designed studies and scientific misconduct don't really seem to be what the term scientometrics means. The lede of the Wikipedia article Scientometrics is as follows: "Scientometrics is the study of measuring and analysing science, technology and innovation. Major research issues include the measurement of impact, reference sets of articles to investigate the impact of journals and institutes, understanding of scientific citations, mapping scientific fields and the production of indicators for use in policy and management contexts. In practice there is a significant overlap between scientometrics and other scientific fields such as bibliometrics, information systems, information science and science of science policy."NightHeron (talk) 22:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

"the study of measuring and analysing ..." Poorly worded! This one is easily fixed, though - just substitute metascience. That term is used by some of the sources. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Back to the original subject - I have found some pretty interesting references, some of which are highly critical of the work by Ioannidis. It has opened my eyes to a broader NPOV problem, which I will discuss separately. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I bundled this section with the ones on bias and reproducibility, which were oddly placed in Philosophical critiques, and placed them in a new section, Methodology. These are closely related subjects that should be considered together. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is suffering from a serious bias. It presents a litany of critiques of science without any rebuttal. This one-sidedness is reinforced by dramatic quotes highlighted in boxes. This despite the lead, which says, "Criticism of science addresses and refines problems within science in order to improve science as a whole and its role in society." There is no discussion of how these critiques actually lead to improvements in the scientific method, although some of them have. An overhaul of the article is needed. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

For a particularly egregious example, check out Reproducibility. This subject has an extensive literature, but all the section says is that some problems have been found. I don't even know what that last sentence is supposed to mean, but it is clearly editorializing. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: I think you're correct in identifying a major NPOV problem in this article. In the feminist critiques section I added a substantial amount of well-sourced material to provide balance. My impression is that something similar needs to be done in other sections as well.NightHeron (talk)

Yes, feminist critiques is an exception; it's also better written than many of the other sections. Are you aware of Talk:Criticism of science/Feminist? I created it during an earlier debate (see above), but wasn't willing to put in the time to read all that material. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@RockMagnetist: Thanks for pointing me to your page on the subject and the earlier discussion. Your sources are nice ones. For feminist critiques of primatology see also Donna Haraway's Primate Visions and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's The Woman That Never Evolved. However, I'm not suggesting those sources for this article, since, as you know, feminist critiques of different areas of science form a large topic, and it would be undue emphasis to include all of that here. More generally, I think Criticism of science should focus on criticisms that apply to all of science or to many different areas and should largely avoid getting into criticisms that are directed at only one field of science. For example, I believe that the Ioannidis citations are exclusively about medical research and so do not support any general statements about all or most of science.NightHeron (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, my impression so far is that Ioannidis is basically making a Bayesian analysis of scientific studies that involve statistics - so not only does it potentially apply to a lot of different fields, but even to metascientific analyses! RockMagnetist(talk) 00:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

But does he say that his work applies to other branches of science? If not, then other sources would be needed that say precisely that, or else a general statement about his work applying to science in general would be criticized by other editors for violating WP:OR.NightHeron (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to cite the most useful references I have found here because I'm not sure when I'll have the time to read them properly. The first describes a broad research effort by Ioannidis, although I think most of the subject areas still fall within medicine; the second is perhaps the best critical assessement of their work. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's another reference critical of Ioannidis' claims: DNightHeron (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It's important to remember, though, that a lot of the issues raised by Ioannidis are real and have been discussed elsewhere - including various forms of bias and reproducibility. Which is why I put those sections beside this material. Ideally, it should all be discussed in an organized way. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

@RockMagnetist: Sure, it's just a question of lining up sources, and being sure that what the sources say really backs up the full statement in the text. Here's another pro-Ioannidis source: Freedman, David H. (October 4, 2010). "Lies, damned lies, and medical science". The Atlantic. ISSN 1072-7825.NightHeron (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hard science as the basic flaw

I think the article should show that the harder the science the more theoretical & abstract & therefore arbitrary. Whilst soft sciences produce hard to experiment hypotheses, many of the hard sciences produce infallible, & therefore unscientific, hypotheses, because of their extreme abstraction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoandri Dominguez Garcia (talk • contribs) 05:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yoandri Dominguez Garcia: That's a point of view I haven't heard before. Do you have any sources to back it up? Keep in mind that Wikipedia requires verifiability. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the hard sciences also have predictions that have been verified to fantastic precision (see, for example, this blog). RockMagnetist(talk) 20:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1440-19-xinhang-shen-challenge-to-the-special-theory-of-relativity.html Honestly, it is common sense, because, maybe this is stupid to say, but einsteins mathematics may explain the world as it is but not give any reason for WHY, when, where, whither, thus without predictive power. theyre just pretty equations. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 22:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)