![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feminists Again
Dear Post-Modern Feminists,
We keep hearing about this wonderful thing referred to as the Feminist Approach to Physics. We were hoping that you could clarify what it is and what it consists of.
We have looked at several sources, but always found the principals to be outlined in vague, unquantified, and normally specious language. There are several arguments for an "integrated, multi-community, intuition-based" approach, without any accompanying description of what this approach would look like, or how it would affect the construction of an experiment. The fundamental point that seems to be raised, to identify the "biases" of a researcher seems to either be a product of an improper reading of a presentation, or a lack of understanding of the process itself. If this refers to experimental biases, they are clearly listed in the paper references, or available upon request. Any failure of you to reproduce these results should result in a counter-publication, and a great deal of dialogue. However, if you are referring to the ideological biases of the researcher, these should not enter. According to the framework of Science, any person from any ideological background should be able to reproduce the same results at any time. Failure by any party should result in the invalidation of the theory, after an exercise of due process (collaborating results may be required).
Those specifics presented mostly deal with either the presentation of history, or the field of education, both of which are in need of overhaul, but have very little influence over the current conduct of experiment, which seems to be the target. Some of the experimental suggestions seems confusing, such as the term "multi-causal", apparently a great favorite, but one that is ill-defined at best. What does it mean for an experimental measurement to be "multi-causal"? It is already the culmination of a great many effects - all of which have to be measured independently. We cannot determine the meaning of this statement. Other suggestions, to replace "unnatural and invasive" particle experiments with more passive observation have failed to produce any experimental design that would be of current use. Most importantly, it is unclear about how accounting for social biases will work in with experimental designs. Do we use only chips made in certain countries? Considering that we only report the results of very specific results, it seems hard to do anything else.
Maybe the theorists know what you're talking about, but the experimentalists are confused. Could you please provide a properly formatted paper on new experimental techniques and statistical theorems, alone with a series of examples of properly done experiments?
We will be eagerly awaiting your reply,
Physics
We keep hearing about this wonderful thing referred to as the Feminist Approach to Physics. We were hoping that you could clarify what it is and what it consists of.
We have looked at several sources, but always found the principals to be outlined in vague, unquantified, and normally specious language. There are several arguments for an "integrated, multi-community, intuition-based" approach, without any accompanying description of what this approach would look like, or how it would affect the construction of an experiment. The fundamental point that seems to be raised, to identify the "biases" of a researcher seems to either be a product of an improper reading of a presentation, or a lack of understanding of the process itself. If this refers to experimental biases, they are clearly listed in the paper references, or available upon request. Any failure of you to reproduce these results should result in a counter-publication, and a great deal of dialogue. However, if you are referring to the ideological biases of the researcher, these should not enter. According to the framework of Science, any person from any ideological background should be able to reproduce the same results at any time. Failure by any party should result in the invalidation of the theory, after an exercise of due process (collaborating results may be required).
Those specifics presented mostly deal with either the presentation of history, or the field of education, both of which are in need of overhaul, but have very little influence over the current conduct of experiment, which seems to be the target. Some of the experimental suggestions seems confusing, such as the term "multi-causal", apparently a great favorite, but one that is ill-defined at best. What does it mean for an experimental measurement to be "multi-causal"? It is already the culmination of a great many effects - all of which have to be measured independently. We cannot determine the meaning of this statement. Other suggestions, to replace "unnatural and invasive" particle experiments with more passive observation have failed to produce any experimental design that would be of current use. Most importantly, it is unclear about how accounting for social biases will work in with experimental designs. Do we use only chips made in certain countries? Considering that we only report the results of very specific results, it seems hard to do anything else.
Maybe the theorists know what you're talking about, but the experimentalists are confused. Could you please provide a properly formatted paper on new experimental techniques and statistical theorems, alone with a series of examples of properly done experiments?
We will be eagerly awaiting your reply,
Physics
no subject
no subject
no subject
As a feminist, I think females and males have a equal right to do research, and also, an equal right to be wrong, which is most of what physics is.
Besides that, "unnatural and invasive" experiments? "Multi-causal"? "Intuition-based"? WTF are they talking about? Never mind. I'm not sure I want to know.
no subject
The problem with this has been that they've written both articles and essays urging the inclusion of certain feminist traits in Phyhsics without giving us a clear idea of what it would mean to include them. As a result, we're just confused.
no subject
That's not really much of an exaggeration.
As far as I can tell - I've actually read a few screeds on the subject of "feminist" sciences, though it's been few years since then and I've probably forgot a few things - that it considers the "male" perspective flawed (I use the quotations, because I was unaware that the scientific method was sex/equal rights based), because it uses "objective" assumptions and relies on said results and calls for, well, basically what you outlined above. Answers should be "intuited" not aggressively searched out - or if they are, through a method more female friendly. What is intended to replace objective analysis usually points to making assumptions based on intuition and feelings rather than observed and measurable qualities. A.k.a. doctors go back to dressing up like wizards.
Like you've already pointed out, "feminist" approaches to science are hard to qauntify/measure, since they don't acccomplish anything, only make vague assertions about how it should be done and doing it any other way is inherently misogynistic.
no subject
The problem is that they take a self-contained system like science, which has its own assumptions (everyone makes assumptions) and its own self-contained system, claims that the assumptions are wrong, and then tries to make science encompass a different set of assumptions. A better way to proceed would be to create their own system of knowledge based on their own set of assumptions (you would have to find some other name), and then run from there to show people what you want to do. Trying to change a fundamental basis of the system without either showing that it's wrong or that there is another way to produce valuable results that is contradictory is a bit flawed simply in a philosophical matter.
What makes me suspicious, of course, is a number of statements that indicate that some of the critics do not actually understand what is being criticized.
no subject
no subject
Silly math people.
no subject
This would probably be considered misogynistic, although I submit that it's quite difficult to be misogynistic if one is actually female.
no subject
I'm always half-convinced that these people must mean something else when they say this, but I can't shake the feeling that they want to go back to a mythologically-based scientific approach. I really wish they would clarify.
no subject
extortcall for new programs or events within a related field.i.e. "Feminist" (again the quote marks, because while these individuals may have labelled themselves as such, I don't see how demanding the scientific method be overturned as being "too patriarchal" is in any way, shape or form an actual women's rights issue instead of a symptom of deep paranoia and hostility) report at a univerisity harangues the sciences for being patriarchial, exlcuding women, etc.
Administration, terrified of being hauled in front of the national media as sexist, throws "feminists" a bone - whether a gender equality workshop, promises to hire more female profs, whatever.
Then, the "feminist" groups now have both precedent for further
extortionbreakthroughs in women's rights and a stick that has shown to get results when they hit the administration with it. It constantly moves the goalposts. Just my theory, anyways.There are also those in the Completely Insane category, who really believe this as workable and necessary. They do exist.