Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T00:11:19.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ascetic Intellectual Opportunities: Reply to Alison Wylie

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Sandra Harding
Sandra Harding*
Affiliation:
University of Delaware, Newark, DE19711, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
II—Critiques: Science, Ethics and Method
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume , Volume 13: Science, Morality & Feminist Theory , 1987 , pp. 75 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Whatever that is; for discussion see Chapter 2 of The Science Question in Feminism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press 1986), ‘The Method Question’; Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, forthcoming special issue on feminism and science; and my edited collection Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press 1987).

2 Rudolf, Carnap ‘Autobiographical Statement,’ in Schilpp, P. A. ed., The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap (La Salle, IL: Open Court 1963), 83Google Scholar

3 See, e.g., 162.

4 Chapter 6 discusses these standpoint epistemologies.

5 Two comments: first, in the U.S., though not in France, notions of feminine specificity and essentialism are almost inextricably linked; second, this charge of essentialism is certainly not uniquely made by postmodernist critics, but it is also part of their complaint against feminist theory.

6 Nancy Fraser and Linda Nicholson make this point in ‘Social Criticism Without Philosophy: An Encounter Between Feminism and Postmodemism,’ presented at the Eastern A.P.A., Boston, December, 1986.

7 Kuhn, Thomas S. prepares for this move in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1970).Google Scholar See also David, BloorKnowledge and Social Imagery (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1977).Google Scholar

8 See Hilary, Rose ‘Hyper-reflexivity: A New Danger for the Countermovements,’ in Countermovements in the Sciences: Sociology of Science Yearbook, Helga, Nowotny and Hilary, Rose eds. (Dordrecht: Reidel 1979),Google Scholar and Hilary, Rose and Steven, Rose ‘Radical Science and Its Enemies,’ in Socialist Register, Ralph, Miliband and John, Saville eds. (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press 1979).Google Scholar