Re[2]: Science as sexist

From: CMUNSON (CMUNSON@AAAS.ORG)
Date: Tue Apr 29 1997 - 10:48:57 PDT


Neil -- I was not debating that certain laws of physics seem to be
unimpeachably rigid. The original question was about _hard_ science as
sexist. _Hard_ science (among which physics) pretends to fully describe
reality. The problem is that there is a whole bunch of stuff that constitutes
"reality" which is not in the realm of _hard_ science. And is therefore
*devalued*, in terms of describing reality, when contrasted with hard science.
 That's all. Note that under the laws of quantum mechanics, either your
fascist, sexist pig or your pagan feminist may or may not splatter. =) The
odds are pretty heavy that they will, however, you're right.

Heather
idiot extraordinaire =)

     I didn't want this to be my first post to this excellent list, but
     I'll jump right in.

     Science is more than just physical facts. Science in this century has
     certainly moved away from hard deterministic notions that everything
     can be EXACTLY known. (i.e. relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.)

     Please keep in mind that what is researched depends very much on
     worldviews, cultural mores, and politics.

     Why is so much research money getting poured into the biological
     sciences? Because there is profit to be made.

     The science professions are also dominated by men. This has to affect
     how they do science.

     BTW, let me put some positive votes for Slonczewski's "Door Into
     Ocean" and Piercy's "Woman on the Edge of Time" and "He, She and It."

     Chuck Munson
     Webmaster
     American Association for the Advancement of Science



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:07 PDT