From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: "Feminist Science" and Pseudoscience 
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 03:40:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

                   The following is re-posted from the BITNET
                   "SKEPTIC" conference. 


Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 13:58:45 EDT
Reply-To:     SKEPTIC Discussion Group <SKEPTIC%YORKVM1.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
From:         Bernard ortiz de Montellano <BORTIZ%WAYNEST1.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject:      Feminist science
To:           Multiple recipients of list SKEPTIC <SKEPTIC%YORKVM1.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>

A comment on the book described by Taner Edis, *the Mismeasure of
Woman.* This book as well as another book, *Myths of Gender.
Biological Theories About Men and Women* by Anne Fausto-Sterling,
NY: Basic Books, 1985, cover a number of valid criticisms, on
topics such as sociobiological claims about the innate nature of
men and women; sex differences in brain structure and
mathematical ability; pre-menstrual syndrome, etc. Fausto-
Sterling, who is a scientist, does a good job of documenting her
statements (something which the reviewer of the Mismeasure of
Woman said was not well done).

I agree with many of the feminist critiques of science. However,
it must be pointed out that most of the valid ones involve areas
in biology, ethology, medicine, and psychology. All of these
areas concern complex organisms and\or humans and research which
involves few organisms and\or are areas in which it is difficult
to do experiments in which a single variable is involved.
Examples of "Male" science in chemistry and physics are much more
difficult to find. Another aspect of the feminist critique of
science is that criticisms deal mostly with who gets to do
science (i.e. exclusion of women), research agendas (what areas
are considered important), and sexist biases on the part of male
chauvinist researchers. Although valid, none of these criticisms
really demonstrates that there is "male" and "female" science
these are not fundamental epistemological or philosophical
characteristics of science. Can it be shown that the results of
genome sequencing will differ if "feminine" science or scientists
did the work?

The question arises because some Afrocentric scholars are using
feminist critiques to support their arguments that African and
"Egyptian" "scientific paradigms," which claim that ESP and
supernatural causation exist, are just as valid as "Western male"
science. Some feminist critics like Sandra Harding in *Whose
Science Whose Knowledge* are returning the favor by uncritically
swallowing a number of ridiculous Afrocentric claims to early
scientific knowledge in Africa.
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 13:44:32 EDT
Reply-To:     SKEPTIC Discussion Group <SKEPTIC%YORKVM1.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
From:         Bernard Ortiz de Montellano <BORTIZ%WAYNEST1.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>
Subject:      feminist science
To:           Multiple recipients of list SKEPTIC <SKEPTIC%YORKVM1.BITNET@pucc.Princeton.EDU>

                         Feminist Science
Taner Edis requested examples of Sandra Harding's acceptance of
Afrocentric science. The following are rough notes I wrote after
reading the relevant passages.
     Bernard Ortiz de Montellano


S. Harding. *Whose Science? Whose Knowledge*, Ithaca: Cornell U.
Press. 1991. Harding is a philosopher and I have serious doubts
about her judgement. Reviewers have mentioned that she bases most
of her arguments on biological, ethological examples but does not
really make the case for harder sciences such as chemistry and
physics. What really disillusioned me about her competence is her
uncritical acceptance of all the claims made in Van Sertima's
edited book *Blacks in Science*. She claims that " They make a
persuasive case for considering Western obliviousness to these
constraints not as an innocent oversight on the part of Westeners
but as an important piece of racist and imperialist ideology that
has helped to justify to Westeners the inevitability of the
scientific and technological gap between the First and Third
worlds (pp 222-223)."

She accepts uncritically claims that "[300 BC old, Observatory in
Kenya]... those that built and used it possessed one of the most
accurate of pre-Christian calendars." This is not what the
authors of the article itself said "It strongly suggests that an
accurate and complex calendar system based on astronomical
reckoning was developed by the first millennium B.C. in eastern
Africa (B. M. Lynch and L.H. Robbins, "Namoratunga: The First
Archaeoastronomical Evidence in Sub-Saharan Africa, *Science,
200*, 766-768 (1978)." By this time, the Mesoamerican Long count
calendar had been developed, which is much more accurate than
this and for which we have much more evidence.

She accepts the whole story about the Dogon's knowledge of Sirius
B and also "The discovery of perfectly spherical and very precise
crystal lenses that date back to the period when Egypt was
occupied by "Africans" (before the eleventh-century spread of
Islamic culture) provide evidence for supposing that the ancient
Africans had invented telescopes." Harding is citing an article
by Hunter Havelin Adams. What Adams actually says is, "The
Russian have recently discovered a crystal lens, perfectly
spherical and of great precision, used in ancient Egypt. It is a
short and simple step to place one lens in front of another to
make a basic telescope and the chances are that it could have
happened many times." Adams' source for the "Russian" discovery
is Peter Tompkins, *Secrets of the Great Pyramid*. NY: Harper and
Row 1971 p. 219 which says,"According to Peter Kolosimo in *Terra
Senza Tempo* published in Milan in 1969, the Russians have
recently brought to light some fascinating secrets of Egyptian
archeology. The Russians *are said to have found* [BOM underline]
astronomical maps of surprising correctness with the position of
the stars as they were several thousands of years ago. The
Russians *are also reported* [BOM underline] to have dug up
several objects, many not yet identified, including crystal
lenses, perfectly spherical, of great precision, possibly used as
telescopes. Kolosimo says similar lenses have been found in Iraq
and central Australia, but that they can only be ground today
with a special abrasive made of oxide of cerium which can only be
produced electrically." A footnote says "Several attempts to
check these data with Soviet academicians have so far been
without result." Tompkins is an extremely unreliable source and
this book is an excellent example of pyramidology. His
reliability can be judged from another of his books, Peter
Tompkins and Christopher Bird, *The Secret Life of Plants* NY:
Harper & Row 1973 which claims that plants talk to people and
that plants "...appear to perceive and to react to what is
happening in their environment at a level of sophistication far
surpassing that of humans." The "Russian" discovery turns out to
be an unsubstantiated 3rd hand report.

Harding uncritically accepts a number of other claims which have
little or no evidence: that 8000 years ago Africans had a lunar
calendar, that agricultural science developed in Africa at least
seven millennia before they appeared on any other continent, that
"[Africans had] effective treatments for abortion, retarded
labor, malaria fever, rheumatism, neurotoxic venoms, snakebite,
intestinal parasites, skin ulcers, tumours, catarrh, convulsions,
venereal disease, bronchitis, conjunctivitis, urethral stricture
and others." All of these are dubious and not supported by
evidence. What this does is raise a question about Harding's
judgment is general. If she demonstrates such gullibility and
ignorance in these questions, why should one take the rest of her
book seriously? I agree with Harding's point that women (and
minorities) have been excluded and discouraged from  science and
that they can make great contributions. However, this does not
prove that apart from changing the organization of science or the
research agendas that this will produce a fundamental difference
in how one does science. Science will still have to postulate
that there is a reality that can be dealt with by natural laws,
that falsifiability is essential, etc.


                 ----------------------------------

Just a reminder that the forthcoming CSICOP Conference in Dallas, Oct. 16-18,
includes panel discussions of "Multicultural Science," with de Montellano
as a participant, and "Feminist Science" including Carol Tavris and
Steven Goldberg. For more information on the conference, call 716-636-1425.
                                   - RS
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins