🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: sci.philosophy.tech
Article #663

Re: The "validity" of feminist philosophy

#663
From: Randall Holmes
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:58
43 lines
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!holmes
References: <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