Strong Objectivity in Science: Harding & Longino Explained

The 1990s saw a surge in feminist science studies - researchers examining how technology and science are gendered. Examples include studies of IVF (where language excluded single women) and the design of women's razors (which lacked repair mechanisms). This research showed how seemingly neutral technologies actually reinforce gender hierarchies.

Three case studies demonstrate diverse feminist strategies against propagandistic scientism. The 'Latte Dad' case analyzes Swedish policy (1974 parental leave, 1995 mandatory quotas) enabling fathers' childcare participation. Sara Blaffer Hardy's alternative evolutionary hypothesis shows humans have latent care capacity activated by social conditions, not biological necessity. Biology is a field of competing hypotheses, not univocal discourse. The Clara Mucio tweet analysis uses John Dupre's critique of evolutionary psychology: evolution has limited utility for explaining human nature, and comparing human behavior to other species (e.g., ducks harassing females) produces poor analogies. The 'Hashag Tetas' case reveals a double standard: conservatives denounce sex education as ideological while accepting scientific categories like 'mammal' (1758 Linnaeus classification emphasizing female lactation) forged in patriarchal contexts. Recognizing scientific historicity is fundamental to democratizing knowledge.

This section traces the historical emergence of feminist academic study alongside women's entry into higher education globally from late 19th century through 20th century. It explains how women formed networks of teaching and research, eventually institutionalizing feminist knowledge. The presentation highlights two major theoretical traditions within feminist science studies: continental philosophical approaches resonating in social sciences and humanities, and Anglo-American analytic philosophy traditions more connected to science and technology studies. This diversity explains varying degrees of penetration into different scientific disciplines, with greater acceptance in social sciences and more resistance in traditionally 'harder' sciences. The section sets up the contrast between these traditions and the traditional vision of empirical sciences that dominates STEM fields.

Feminist scholarship systematically challenges dominant knowledge systems by questioning who can be subjects of legitimate knowledge, what objectivity requires, and the researcher-research subject relationship. Science has maintained ideological purity while leaving technology to bear responsibility for negative consequences. Historical case studies like Paul Broca's craniometry demonstrate how scientific methods were weaponized to reinforce racial and gender hierarchies. The X chromosome's persistent gendering in scientific literature despite biological evidence shows scientific truth claims are shaped by and reinforce existing power relations. Feminist scholars develop methodologies to recover subjugated knowledges disqualified from mainstream discourse, including retrieving biographies of marginalized figures like women scientists in CV Raman's laboratory. Border cases in feminist science studies break down disciplinary boundaries and make visible science's impact on women's lives. Patricia Hill Collins argues that knowledge without wisdom serves the powerful, while wisdom is essential for the subordinate's survival. However, current academic pressures push social sciences to mimic natural sciences, producing timely, objective results with neat conclusions. This creates discomfort with theory and uncertainty, threatening critical questioning. Feminist ethnography centers women's voices as active participants rather than passive objects, challenging medicalized discourses that view women as instruments of reproduction.

Traditional science was believed to be objective, neutral, and universal, but this ideal was borrowed from physics—a rare exception rather than the rule. Feminist scholars challenged this myth, revealing that science reproduces gender schemas and prejudices. Three main analytical axes emerged: numerical inequality in science, feminist epistemology/methodology, new technologies and gender, and political aspects of science. This critique showed that scientific knowledge is socially constructed and shaped by power dynamics, not purely objective.

Standpoint theory as method faces multiple problems. The weak method of listening to the oppressed is parasitic on pre-existing theories of oppression, undermining claims of epistemic privilege. It trivializes standpoint theory by suggesting oppressed are privileged only in discovery, not justification. Empirical verification fails because concepts like 'woman' as eroticizing subordination prevent recognizing genuine resistance. The strong method of deferring to the oppressed is circular—it requires deferring to determine who deserves deference. Neither approach provides a viable method while maintaining epistemic privilege claims.

Standpoint theory claims that marginalized groups have epistemic advantages over dominant groups, but this claim faces significant challenges: (1) The theory lacks empirical evidence that marginalized people have more true beliefs about oppression than anyone else; (2) It fails to specify which voices within marginalized groups should be privileged, leading to internal conflicts; (3) It improperly overrides traditional scholarly expertise with identity-based claims; (4) It promotes resentment over appreciation as epistemically superior, which is not empirically justified; (5) In a polarized society, it undermines the Enlightenment values of objectivity and self-doubt that are needed for constructive dialogue.

Standpoint theory is an interpretive approach that suggests readers should understand scripture through the lens of their own identity, experiences, and cultural background rather than seeking the original author's intent; this approach, which began in the late 1960s and has evolved through multiple waves, is criticized for being fundamentally unbiblical because it prioritizes subjective reader response over objective authorial meaning, potentially leading to inconsistent interpretations based on personal characteristics like gender, ethnicity, or social position rather than the text's intended message.

Feminist standpoint theory, which posits that one's identity determines the validity of their arguments, can lead to incoherent worldviews when applied to fundamental questions like the definition of 'woman.' In this debate, Australian feminist Clementine Ford's definition of a woman as 'someone who has at least at one point in her life felt scared of a man' demonstrates how identity-based epistemology can produce logically inconsistent conclusions, as the speaker (a man) would technically qualify as a woman under this definition. This illustrates the broader tension between feminist standpoint theory and objective analysis, where the speaker argues that evidence, logic, and research should determine argument validity rather than the speaker's identity.

Modern deconstruction is heavily influenced by postmodern philosophers like Michel Foucault, who urged seeing truth claims as bids for power. Kristen DuMez explicitly cites Foucault, Gramsci, Adorno, and Habermas as influences. Standpoint epistemology holds that those with power determine accepted truths while marginalized groups have greater access to truth about oppression due to 'double consciousness.' Critics note this leads to relativism—if all interpretations are equally valid, no interpretation can be corrected. The alternative is recognizing biblical texts have objective meaning discoverable through proper hermeneutics and the Holy Spirit's guidance, while acknowledging our cultural conditioning.

Indigenous epistemologies represent a form of knowledge that is inherently diverse, interconnected with territory and spirituality, and serves as a form of resistance against colonization; true decolonization requires not just representation but the integration of diverse knowledge systems that recognize the fundamental connection between land, community, and intellectual production, challenging the notion that universities should only form professionals without transforming consciousness.

This concluding section explores the spatial dimensions of decolonial studies and presents concrete examples of indigenous epistemologies. Space is important in decolonial studies as they involve interconnected disciplines including philosophy, sociology, political science, anthropology, linguistics, cultural studies, and education. Coloniality of being and knowledge refers to how colonial power structures affect not just knowledge production but also the very being and existence of peoples, percolating through spatial questions and traversing bodies. The section introduces inverted maps as a provocation to rethink spatial and epistemological questions, challenging traditional maps that center Europe or the Global North. It presents onto-epistemologies of marginalized peoples as alternative ways of being, knowing, and existing that differ from dominant Western narratives. Using examples from Conceição Evaristo's 'Olhos d'Água' and the Guarani people in São Paulo, the section demonstrates how marginalized communities actively produce and maintain their own knowledge systems as forms of resistance and cultural preservation, representing desires not just for existence but for survival.

Feminist and decolonial epistemologies (hooks, Haraway, Boaventura de Sousa Santos) critique Eurocentrism and patriarchy in science, emphasizing situated knowledge and intersectionality (race, gender, class, sexuality). They value local and indigenous knowledge, focusing on marginalized subjects (women, Black people, indigenous peoples, LGBTQ+ communities). They propose science committed to epistemic justice and recognition of diversity. However, they risk being interpreted as overly subjective or identity-focused, may neglect macro-structural economic factors, and could fragment analysis if not critically applied.

This lecture by Fernanda Vieira, a professor at the University of State of Minas Gerais, explores indigenous epistemologies in basic education, emphasizing that the entire Brazilian territory is indigenous land and that indigenous peoples represent less than 1% of the population while maintaining 274 distinct languages and 305 nations. The presentation addresses critical terminology (avoiding pejorative terms like 'índio' and 'lenda'), discusses the growth of indigenous self-declaration from 896,917 in 2010 to 1.69 million in 2022, and highlights the importance of laws 10.639 and 11.645 for indigenous education. Vieira emphasizes that 1500 is a year that never ended for indigenous peoples, as colonial education systems historically suppressed indigenous knowledge and languages, and advocates for an alliance of knowledges that values both Western and indigenous epistemologies for building a more equitable society.

Decolonial epistemologies challenge the dominance of Western capitalist knowledge systems by recognizing and validating diverse knowledge traditions from the Global South, including indigenous, feminist, and solidarity economy perspectives. These epistemologies prioritize life reproduction over capital accumulation, viewing alternative economic practices as valid knowledge systems that deserve recognition within scientific production. The concept of 'Buen Vivir' (Good Living) represents a paradigm that values ancestral knowledge, community-based practices, and non-capitalist rationalities as essential for addressing contemporary global challenges. This approach requires not only recognizing these alternative epistemologies but also developing pedagogical methodologies that socialize and integrate them into broader knowledge production, thereby challenging the hegemonic narratives that dismiss non-Western knowledge as inferior or irrelevant.

This segment articulates the government's commitment to evidence-based public policy and the central role of science in democratic governance. The speaker explains that vaccine negationism during the pandemic was an orchestrated effort to spread false information questioning scientific methods, with consequences including reduced vaccination coverage and renewed outbreaks of eradicated diseases. The speaker positions science as an instrument for generating value, innovation, wealth, solutions to social inclusion challenges, and improvement of quality of life. The speaker argues that knowledge is a variable of freedom, and the more society understands phenomena around it, the more it can act upon and transform reality. The segment emphasizes that in this government, public policies are based on scientific evidence across multiple areas including combating hunger, addressing climate change, energy transitions, and digital transformation.

Effective science policy requires long-term funding commitments (such as the Liberal Democrats' proposed 3% annual increase above inflation for 15 years), improved science education starting at primary level with specialist teachers, and public engagement strategies that make science accessible and inspiring to non-experts, enabling citizens to participate in evidence-based debates on issues like climate change and drugs policy.

The speaker argues that in a democracy, if the people don't know anything about science and technology, they cannot effectively govern. This represents a fundamental concern about democratic participation in scientific policy decisions. The speaker suggests that when citizens lack understanding of scientific methods and evidence, they become vulnerable to manipulation by those who control scientific narratives, undermining democratic governance.

Managing diverse publics in science policy presents fundamental challenges: determining whether vocal minorities should stop majority-supported actions, defining stakeholder authority, and balancing expert consensus with public views. True democratic engagement requires educated citizens willing to deliberate on evidence and value differences, not merely public education to align with expert views. The tension between expertise and public opinion remains unresolved, with public engagement sometimes reduced to education rather than genuine democratic deliberation.

The public faces enormous challenges in understanding complex scientific information, particularly in medical contexts. Despite this complexity, ordinary people are capable of understanding what they need to understand to make decisions when given opportunity and motive. The scientific community is increasingly challenged in language to give good account of itself, forcing a change in how scientists speak. Consensus conferences represent a new approach pioneered in Denmark, where lay people drive the agenda and write reports after being told everything they need to know. Agricultural research has traditionally been driven by producers rather than consumers, excluding those who eat the food or drink water polluted by agricultural chemicals. The fundamental challenge is that science is not a commodity that can be directed by market forces or government planning.