Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #663Re: The "validity" of feminist philosophy
From: Randall Holmes
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:58
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:58
43 lines
2834 bytes
2834 bytes
In article <1992Nov9.183535.17268@husc3.harvard.edu> mcrae@husc8.harvard.edu writes: >In article <BxG75H.33@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes: >>>Well, there are a lot of people working in feminist epistemology and >>>feminist ethics, so I think the onus is on you (at the beginning) to offer >>>some reason for thinking that what they're doing isn't worthwhile. >> >> This is my first contribution to this particular thread, and I begin >> with a confession of ignorance. I have no idea at all what 'feminist >> epistemology' would consist of. >> [...] >> But feminist _epistemology_? I honestly confess that I have no idea what >> such a field would study, or why. >> >> So, in this case, I think that the onus is on those _doing_ this kind of >> work to explain to us what it is and why they think it is worthwhile. > >Agreed 100% -- but there are two different things being confused here. I >agree that people working in a field bear, in general, the primary >responsibility for explaining what they're doing and why it's worthwhile. >But if someone comes up and tells me that some field in which lots of >people are working is actually a waste of time, or "invalid" (I wish I >knew what that meant) or whatever, then I think the onus is on that person >to give me some reason to believe them. There are all kinds of reasons >they might give (a good one would be "The people in this field have never >made any effort to explain exactly what it is they're doing and why it's >important") but if they don't give any good reason at all, I'm not going >to take them seriously. > >Andrew. >-- >Andrew McRae Internet: mcrae@husc.harvard.edu > BITnet: mcrae@HUSC Except in extreme cases. Feminist epistemology is absurd, unless one believes in "woman's intuition". The ways in which people know things do not depend on their gender in any _philosophically_ relevant way. -- The opinions expressed | --Sincerely, above are not the "official" | M. Randall Holmes opinions of any person | Math. Dept., Boise State Univ. or institution. | holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Nov10.165822.2107@guinness.idbsu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ornl!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!garnet.idbsu.edu!holmesReferences:
<BxG75H.33@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Nov9.183535.17268@husc3.harvard.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!ornl!utkcs2!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!garnet.idbsu.edu!holmes From: holmes@garnet.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) Subject: Re: The "validity" of feminist philosophy Message-ID: <1992Nov10.165822.2107@guinness.idbsu.edu> Sender: usenet@guinness.idbsu.edu (Usenet News mail) Nntp-Posting-Host: garnet Organization: Boise State University References: <BxG75H.33@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Nov9.183535.17268@husc3.harvard.edu> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:58:22 GMT Lines: 43