Should Gender Be Visible in Science - Essay Example

Should Gender be Visible in Science? Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Should Gender be Visible in Science? Introduction In the following paper, it will be argued that science as a process is founded on numerous layers of ideological, social, cultural, and political frameworks and forces that influence its direction, thus gender should play a significant role in the development of scientific investigation and the creation and selection of hypothesis and theory will offer the greatest epistemological value. Science and scientific methodologies knowledge have advanced through history to the current accepted standards. The philosophy behind scientific enquiry and knowledge has shaped the current understanding and composition of science. However, there is still a controversial debate on the role of social, political, and historical contexts in science as a process. The philosophical notion believed by the rational empiricists and like-minded thinkers is that science as an ultimate process is free of the normative influences of the individual and the social contexts in which they exist. Science is abstracted as a system that produces knowledge using a value-neutral procedure of empirical research. Therefore, the value-free feature or concept is a benefit for science since scientists need the acceptance of their theories and hypothesis to be unbiased and not a case of aspiring thinking. Science based on values such as gender or other social contexts often raises concerns that certain values may result in the acceptance of exemplifications of social and natural worlds in hypotheses, models, and theories that favor the interests or concerns of specific groups or members in society over those of others. This popularly held philosophical conception has however faced increased criticism by different philosophers who argue that science is not free from values and gender. Most of the criticism is based on the role of gender in science. To these philosophers, political, social, and historical contexts influence the people and communities involved in science, which inevitably influences the composition of theories they develop and choose to accept. The following paper aims at critically evaluating three main articles including Helen Longino’s Values and Objectivity, Kathleen Okruhlik’s Gender and the Biological Sciences, and Elisabeth A. Lloyd’s The case of the Female Orgasm while using additional resources to support the basic arguments. Through this discussion, the paper aims to illustrate that gender should be visible in science as a means of enriching the scientific process through decision-making facilitated by a greater number of intelligent perspectives. Body Science as a process is meant to be objective and not subjective. However, philosophical empiricists Helen Longino however argues that objectivity in science is safe based on the nature of social frameworks that embrace science. In her paper titled Values and Objectivity, Longino argues that individual empiricist’s values are reasonable and accounted for through her theorized construction of objectivity (Longino, 1990). In fact, it is the different values within society or a community that eventually lead to objectivity. The long held account of objectivity in science is based on a biased or arbitrary framework of discovery and rational framework of justification. The framework/background of discovery is the subjective nature of the situations surrounding the original construction of the hypothesis and caters for the different emotional and mental states of the individual empiricists. This conceptualized context is based on the positivist’s suggestion for objectivity in the scientific process. Positivists negate the subjective origin of hypotheses and theories through the background of justification (Hundleby, 2011). This is where theories are examined in an empirical turf, allowing for only observable implications when determining its appropriateness. Therefore, this method facilitates the acknowledgement of the subjective source of the theory or hypothesis but preserves the objectivity of science. From the main argument presented in this article, it is clear that objectivity remains unharmed even when the subjective origin of scientific hypotheses and theories are recognized (Longino, 1995). Each origin of scientific inquiry or hypotheses is based on the surrounding circumstances including values, social, political, and cultural contexts that all-together shape the overall hypotheses or its formulation (Wylie, Potter & Bauchspies, 2009). This means that subjectivity plays a role in the process of formulation of scientific hypotheses as theories. Therefore, gender as part of a social perspective on different issues, should be included in science. Women of the female gender may be influenced to develop their own scientific hypotheses and theories based on different feminine perspectives that is guaranteed to achieve change and progress in science and the scientific method. Philosophy empiricist, Longino targets traditional empiricists notions on objectivity specifically those developed by traditional empiricists Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn argued that the nature of objectivity in science is better understood and articulated through historical accuracy (Longino, 1990). These traditional empiricists’ notions suggest that science is founded on paradigms where a certain manner of thinking about specific fields is created (through a paradigrim) that is applied and trained for a period until irregularities arise and a paradigm change ultimately occurs (Longino, 1990). This is however unsatisfactory based on the historical inaccuracy and logical inaccuracy found in these proposals. Longino suggests that science should be viewed as a process or practice that is practiced by social groups rather than the individual (Longino, 1990). The main argument is that scientists rely on other scientists for education, skills, tools, and ideas, which enables it to become social groups (Howard, 2009). Such an argument holds much relevance and justification since science is not merely a body of knowledge, but also the practice and methodology of acquiring scientific knowledge. Even scientists who develop hypotheses and theories are by part practicing science, but cannot solely achieve success without the critical evaluation and alteration of their scientific data by the scientific community (Hundleby, 2011). Even scientific projects are normally divided into different phases that can be assigned to different people or groups to ultimately make scientific progress and contribute to the body of scientific knowledge. It is the critical review and alteration of individual’s data that makes Longino believe that science is still objective (Longino, 1990). Nonetheless, a point of contention in her argument means that the idea that people can just read and understand data is a procedure for duplicating mainstream ideology and values. Individuals cannot escape the reality of objectivity by presenting personal preference on events (Carrier, 2013). Longino suggests that such bias is eliminated through agreement of scientific communities in the review and alteration processes (Longino, 1990). However, this is contradictory since it goes to illustrate that objectivity in science is based on agreement or acceptance rather than the truth. This does not truly argue the extent of agreement and the clear picture of objectivity. Moreover, Longino presents a vague on the degree or extent of criticism and evaluation from the scientific community is needed before a hypotheses or theory is considered objective (Wray, 1999). Nevertheless, the closing point in Longino paper is that using sex, race, or gender to bias against the criticism of scientific data is an impediment to developing empirical knowledge. There is actual need to implement equality in intellectual authority. Male-dominated scientific reviews and methodologies have been biased on female-related criticism. Gender should therefore been visible in the critical step and stage of consensus within the scientific community to reflect a truly objective nature of science. Another major contribution to this discussion is Katltleen Okrultlik paper and arguments of gender bias in biological scientific research. Specifically, Okrultlik focuses on scienfic research of the female biological research from historical and scientific contexts. Okrultlik makes it clear that most of the hypotheses developed in this research field are biased. However, the main challenge is the level to which the standard of explanation of the anthropological evidence has been stained with bias (Okruhlik, 1994). Increased research on the female orgasm has been formulated, developed, conducted, and criticized by male-dominated scientific communities. Therefore, there is a significant amount of evidence that illustrates commitments concerning gender and sex can influence judgments concerning which questions are asked, which data is needed and which is to be overlooked, as well as which explanation among those that are scientifically sufficing is actually accepted. Okrultlik focuses on offering examples of the extent that male-domination in the scientific community has created a tendency that has influence science as a process and also its fruits in terms of scientific knowledge (Okruhlik, 1994). Her paper simply tends to illustrate the transformation of scientific practice from the required objective or blind approach to a subjective or peeking approach. For instance, Okrultlik uses the example of an the human egg and sperm where male scientists developed theories and assumptions that the female egg takes an inactive and submissive role in reproduction while the male sperm takes up a more active role in the reproduction process (Okruhlik, 1994). This is however the result of androcentric views and standpoints that initially leads to increased bias within the scientific practice and methodology (Huncileby, 1998). The study of women by men has resulted in interpretations that are founded on the masculine emotions, interests, values, and attitudes. This means that women have been left out in the construction, conduct, and criticism of their own biological studies (Tuana, 1989). The main argument of Okrultlik paper is that the presence of bias in individual scientists and the scientific community will result in scientific knowledge and processes that is full of bias. Males have always viewed themselves as superior to females even in the scientific community. There are numerous studies from history that clearly illustrate increased bias and assumptions that males are superior to females (Okruhlik, 1994). The assumptions may not seem as bias, but research on women illustrates this clear bias. Individual scientists who hold any bias or certain beliefs are not likely to choose or formulate any theory or hypotheses that challenge their beliefs. Therefore, certain beliefs are an impediment scientific discovery (Wylie, Potter & Bauchspies, 2009). Historical research has been dominated by males where much of the theories formulated are androcentric reflecting the values, emotions, and attitudes of males. This has potentially resulted in what can be called “bad science”. The basic aims of any good science and scientist should be to remain rational, but irrationality clearly plays a role in past and current science as a practice and body of knowledge (Wylie, Potter & Bauchspies, 2009). Evidently, gender matters in science based on the commonly held biases and stereotypes that have defined the world over centuries. Female standpoints have been ignored and overlooked in the process of scientific practice and application (Wylie, 2003). What is needed is a balance between genders where the scientific community does not overlook the standpoints of different genders or races, but offers an equal opportunity for different perspective on different problems in science. However, it is clear that historical bias has contributed to the current practice of science resulting in different and varying scientific knowledge that does not illustrate the intended goals of true or rational science (Katila & Meriläinen, 1999). The continued support and lack of recognition for the bias in science may as well lead to further bad science. The current science on female biological studies is a kind of gendered knowledge that does not reflect the intentions of the science. Another major contribution to this debate is Dr. Elisabeth A. Lloyd book on female orgasm and how the research history in this field has been biased as well as not consistent. Lloyd explores how scientists and theorists have handled the complex question of why women experience orgasm. As indicated earlier, theorists in this field have also developed a bias of the female reproductive system. The male orgasm or ejaculation is considered relevant in terms of biological-evolutionary regard. This is because the orgasm is a type of reward for unloading or depositing one’s seed or sperms that are necessary for the purpose of reproduction (Lloyd, 2009). However, for the case of women, orgasm is unrelated to reproductive success, since women can easily conceive through intercourse that may not involve orgasm. The whole process of developing, conducting, and criticizing research in this area has been termed as the collection of scientific dysfunction. Almost all the studies reviewed in the book believe that the female orgasm is an adaptation or a trait that has advanced to serve a specific fitness-improving purpose (Lloyd, 2009). The basic assumption that orgasm in humans is based on reproductive success is the prime problem in science and scientific study. Women do not need to experience and orgasm for their reproductive system to function successively. The main foundation of reproductive success is sexual intercourse. However, historical research has had a pre-determined assumption that the female reproductive system is expected to function in a similar manner as that of male reproductive system (Lloyd, 2009). The collection of data on female orgasm has illustrated increased flaws that have ended up developing biased and unsatisfactory theories in this area (Tuana, 1989). With all the evidence presented in through the years of research, no amount of evidence can link orgasm to reproduction as research has always suggested. In fact, Lloyd suggests that the female orgasm is an evolutionary byproduct just like the nipples of males. The evidence presented supports increased dysfunction in the scientific research (Lloyd, 2009). Scientists who have believed that the female orgasm is adaptive have gone down the wrong path. This has over and over been replicated through history based on the lack of equality in scientific criticism and reviews. The male-dominated field has led to increased lack of balanced criticism into different theories and hypothesis developed (Brown, 2001). Moreover, if the onset of scientific inquiry is flawed, its results and application will also be flawed. The sheer amount of scientific misconceptions and poor work raises increased concerns on how previous and current scientists will handle science in the future. It also raises issues as to whether the current scientific knowledge is to be trusted or re-considered. Science is always intended to remove all the irrational elements and offer the complete truth that can help change the world. This does not mean that that scientific inquiry is not founded on irrational issues such as emotions and attitudes. Nonetheless, science has now for long ignored the gender issues. Philosopher Eric Schliesser called for a clarion to all men in the area of science to not accept invitations to male-only events on science and technology. The result of the campaign was a change in events where women were substantially included in male-dominated events (Howard, 2009). The number of men in the science fields is increasingly dominant with no room for women perspectives. The main challenge women face is the original and commonly known stereotypes of gender. Increased challenges facing women in almost all other areas of life from a historical context are also reality in the science field, scientific inquiry and practice has also advanced without the inclusion of gender a significant foundation for advancing and changing science. Women have been locked out of scientific communities resulting in androcentric hypotheses and criticisms (Longino, 1995). Science has come a long way through history to its current stage, but the role of gender in science has for long been ignored. Gender should become visible in science to offer increased perspectives of intellectual knowledge on different subjects. Historical research could not be as flawed as it is if the scientific community as well as scientific processes involved gender equality or equality in intellectual control. Women should be offered a voice in airing their perspectives and standpoints (Wylie, 2003). This combination of both female and male standpoints will mean that initial judgments of science will be informed by a bigger source of intelligent perspectives that can only enhance the scientific process (Martin, 1991). Conclusion In conclusion, science as a process is founded on numerous layers of ideological, social, cultural, and political frameworks and forces that influence its direction, thus gender should play a significant role in the development of scientific investigation and the creation and selection of hypothesis and theory will offer the greatest epistemological value. The need to make gender visible is to ensure that the values that influence the development of scientific hypotheses and theories as well the values of interpreting the data are informed or come from an collection of women and men. References Brown, J. R. (2001). Who rules in science?: an opinionated guide to the wars (pp. 49-71). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Carrier, M. (2013). Values and objectivity in science: Value-ladenness, pluralism and the epistemic attitude. Science & Education, 22(10), 2547-2568. Howard, D. (2009). Better red than dead—Putting an end to the social irrelevance of postwar philosophy of science. Science & Education, 18(2), 199-220. Huncileby, C. (1998). Where standpoint stands now. Women & politics, 18(3), 25-43. Hundleby, C. (2011). Feminist empiricism. Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis, 28. Katila, S., & Meriläinen, S. (1999). A serious researcher or just another nice girl?: Doing gender in a male‐dominated scientific community. Gender, Work & Organization, 6(3), 163-173. Lloyd, E. A. (2009). The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Harvard University Press. Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton University Press. Longino, H. E. (1995). Gender, politics, and the theoretical virtues. Synthese, 104(3), 383-397. Martin, J. R. (1991). What should science educators do about the gender bias in science. History, Philosophy and Science Teaching: Selected Readings, OISE Press, Toronto and Teachers College Press, New York, 151-166. Okruhlik, K. (1994). Gender and the biological sciences. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 24(sup1), 21-42. Tuana, N. (Ed.). (1989). Feminism and science. Indiana University Press. Wray, K. B. (1999). A defense of Longino's social epistemology. Philosophy of science, S538-S552. Wylie, A. (2003). Why standpoint matters. Science and other cultures: Issues in philosophies of science and technology, 26-48. Wylie, A., Potter, E., & Bauchspies, W. K. (2009). Feminist perspectives on science. Read More