It’s another one of those Real Peer Review things. Sadly the original Real Peer Review was forced to close down after threats to expose the academic behind the account. The new one is a group account run by different people, with the blessing of the original anonymous academic.
In this one, a paper that tries to argue that Chemisty is sexist. As before, I’m not linking to the original to spare the author.
Feminist science criticism has mostly focused on the theories of the life sciences, while the few studies about gender and the physical sciences locate gender in the practice, and not in the theories, of these fields. Arguably, the reason for this asymmetry is that the conceptual and methodological tools developed by (feminist) science studies are not suited to analyze the hard sciences for gender-related values in their content. My central claim is that a conceptual, rather than an empirical, analysis is needed; one should be looking for general metaphysical principles which serve as the conceptual foundation for the scientific theory, and which, in other contexts, constitute the philosophical foundations of a worldview that legitimates social inequalities. This position is not being advocated anywhere in the philosophy of science, but its elements are to be found in Helen Longino’s theory of science, and in the social epistemology and ontology of Georg Lukács.
It goes on
4. Marxist and feminist standpoint theory
In order to establish the claim that certain values found in the theories of the physical sciences are gendered, an alternative epistemological framework is needed. Traditionally, the alternative to empiricism as a theory of knowledge is Marxist epistemology, also known as standpoint theory. The writings of Marx provide grounds for the claim that the two main classes in capitalism (the bourgeoisie and the proletariat) have distinctive viewpoints on reality. The systematic philosophical elaboration of this view is to be found in the work of Georg Lukács. Feminist standpoint theory was developed by means of analogy between the position of women under patriarchy and the position of the proletariat under capitalism. This section examines Marxist and feminist standpoint theory for their potential to conceptualize social ideologies in the physical sciences.
If you’re being generous, you could consider this a case of an academic who’s gone so deep into theory they’ve lost the ability to recognise where their theory doesn”t apply, making the same mistake frequently made by economists and evolutionary biologists. A case of the Richard Dawkins?
But you could argue that things like this are actively harmful. When there’s a movement to get more women involved in STEM fields and challenge harmful stereotypes like “Girls can’t do maths”, do attempts to undermine the theoretical basis of science itself in the name of feminism really help?
Or am I not allowed to criticise such things because I’m a “straight white male”.
Oh spare me… yet I can’t look away.
“This position is not being advocated anywhere in the philosophy of science…”
Gee, I wonder why…
“In order to establish the claim that certain values found in the theories of the physical sciences are gendered, an alternative epistemological framework is needed.”
Class, today we’re going to construct a staw-man. Ahem, sorry, I mean straw-person. Remember kids, if the world doesn’t fit into your particular ideology, just re-define it until it does!
“If you’re being generous, you could consider this a case of an academic who’s gone so deep into theory they’ve lost the ability to recognise where their theory doesnâ€t apply…”
I’d argue this is more your garden variety “I haven’t bothered to familiarise myself with my opponent’s point of view; because if I had, I’d know everything I’ve just been saying doesn’t apply.”
I realise now I was probably pulling too many punches. Too worried about being accused of sexism and racism to call out obvious nonsense.
What I don’t really know is whether is sort of thing is fringe stuff that’s best being ignored, or whether it represents widespread thinking in some parts of academia, in which case the Humanities have a problem. Not being part of academia I can’t answer that question.
At the risk of looking like a complete twat from the Sciences (too late I know), I’ll venture the opinion that it’s pretty much ignored by everyone. Even to academics, rolling your ideas in the chopped nuts of language like that raises the red flag of ‘all fluff and no substance’ – and that’s before we get to the obvious logical fallacies.
To demonstrate this, you should be able to find stats on the number of citations any given paper has received. Flawed as it is, it’s about the only metric we have of quantifying the impact of a paper in the academic world. At least you can in the Sciences, I don’t know about the Humanities.
That people have tried to shut down the Twitter account is concerning. I mean, if publishing papers is for communicating your ideas, you should welcome their inclusion in the theatre of public discourse.
They didn’t just try to shut down the Twitter account, they succeeded. A new account run by different people has taken its place.
Makes me wonder how much of this corner of academia works like a scam; people who have figured out a way of earning a comfortable living without actually contributing anything of value, and that’s why they fear public exposure. It’s why they write in such an opaque sryle; should they actually succeed in communicating their ideas it will be all-too-apparent the ideas are nonsense. Or is that Non/sense?
Or many it’s just another application of Sturgeon’s Law? The dross needs to exist so that the 10% of Humanities research that actually produce important insights can happen?
“They didn’t just try to shut down the Twitter account, they succeeded. A new account run by different people has taken its place.”
Right. I misread that at first. Tell you what, if it was me, I’d've told them to shove it. I don’t know the circumstances of the person who was running it though, so I can’t pass judgement.
As for the Humanities, I hope these are the odd ones out. I know a few people who worked in various philosophy and language departments and they didn’t carry on like that.
I found the quotes so hard to understand that I see no argument about any science being sexist.
It is true that in my sixth-form there was only one girl among the eight of us doing A-level Chemistry. A different girl was among the twelve or so doing Physics, but the two doing Further Maths were equally split gender-wise. Why? No idea, but the fact that I chose Maths, Physics and Chemistry A-Levels had nothing to do with my gender and everything to do with what grades I expected to get and would they be good enough for a university place.
The author of this paper isn’t arguing about not enough girls doing science. The argument is that the actual laws of chemisty are sexist.
My counter-argument is that people who do not actually believe in science have no busisness being taken seriously when they write about science.
The only branch of science which has any rules about sex is Biology.
Biology must lay down advantages and disadvantages for the different genders because that is how the system works.
No other branch of science can possibly have any sexual bias because the things they deal with have no gender.
To assert otherwise needs supporting evidence to be taken seriously.
That would be real evidence, not speculation that such might exist in somesone’s imagination.
But you’re not using Marxist standpoint theory.
The most important thing is that molecules weren’t oppressed. It doesn’t matter if the chemical plant blows up and dozens were killed. Anyway, most of them would be straight white males and the plant would be owned by evil capitalists…..
At the risk of derailing this thing, I’d just like to point out that this
“Biology must lay down advantages and disadvantages for the different genders because that is how the system works.”
is wrong.
In biology, just the fact that there are sexes is the advantage for organisms that reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction mixes genes better than asexual reproduction, significantly improving the speed of selection fitness. Whether or not those sexes are better/worse at doing certain things has no universal bearing on sexual reproduction at all.
Come to think of it, this is all moot, as all sexually reproductive organisms are outnumbered millions of times over by asexually reproducing bacteria; the most successful life forms on the planet. So, you know, I will now return you to your regular programming: The “How to blow up Evil Sexist Capitalistic Chemical Plants and Feel Good About It” Half Hour with Jane Doe.