From: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: Re: Someone Convince Me
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 25 Jan 93 23:15:20 GMT

In <1993Jan23.155518.27659@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.EDU (Yamanari) writes:

>	I don't consider that narrow at all.  Science is inherently
>	less narrow minded than "feelings" because feelings are
>	centered on the specific individual, while science draws it's
>	conclusions from *information*.  Often, science forces a
>	person to accept a conclusion that disturbs their feelings.
>	Take, for instance, claims that blacks are inferior to whites.
>	Science can show that blacks and whites seem to have equal
>	capacity.

This is a red herring.  What is the underlying motivation to study
something?  A person who feels that something must be right or wrong
is often the instigator of such studies above.  You should look at
these books:

Gould, Steven Jay. _The Mismeasure of Man_.  Norton, New York.  1981.
    A lucid description of how researcher expectations can influence
    experimental findings (gender issues is peripheral, but the
    analogies are clear).

Travis, Carol.  _The Mismeasure of Woman_.  Simon and Schuster. 1992.
    The theme is that women are criticized for being too female, or
    not female enough - but are mismeasured - by how well they fit
    into a male world.  Further that the social system dislikes
    *angry* women, and that men avoid the responsibility for changing
    laws and economic or political policies that hurt women.  Travis
    takes a thoughtful rather than combative approach and is more
    likely to poke fun rather than harshly criticize.

to gain an idea of how "scientific objectivity" can be misused (in
either direction) in the name of a deeply felt belief.  Both of these
books look at scientific studies that were deliberately (and
accidentally) undertaken to prove a particular viewpoint.  Even
underlying assumptions color many studies (why study this aspect and
not that aspect -- it is a scientist's assumptions and prejudices, in
short, *feelings* that will direct which aspects are studied).

>	So, which is more narrow?  A person who feels that blacks are
>	inferior, or science that is willing to consider other
>	possibilities even when run by people with anti-black
>	feelings?

But you can have a person who feels that blacks are superior, and you
can have a science that supresses findings that show blacks and whites
are equal.  Read Thomas Kuhn's book for an understanding of how
systematic opinion can keep an outdated paradigm in place until the
evidence is just too overwhelming to ignore.  There's ample evidence
of how "scientific objectivity" is a complete misnomer.

In fact, in my experience, it is those scientists who understand the
shortcomings of the scientific method that are the best researchers,
since they take feelings into account.

Using only feelings is narrow; using only the "scientific method" is
narrow.  Feelings themselves cross a wide gamut; the "scientific
method" is a particular, single system that is but one way of looking
at something.  When you say that one or the other is "narrow", it's
hard to see what you are talking about.

>>Why not challenge your ingrained assumptions.  I challenge you to
>>read "Women's Realities" by Anne Wilson Schaef. After reading this
>>book you might be able to come back with more cogent criticisms on
>>this "feeling" issue.

>	Publisher, please?

Schaef, Anne Wilson.  _Women's Reality: An Emerging Female System in the
White Male Society_.  New edition.  Harper and Row, Publishers.  1985.
ISBN: 0-86683-753-1.
    From blurb: "_Women's Reality_ is one of the few books that is
    supportive of women's changing roles without putting men down.  It
    allows men and women to see each other as friends rather than
    enemies...A brillian dissection of the psycho-social differences
    between male and female experience."

>	Further, I have no misunderstandings as to what feelings *are*
>	or how they *work* but rather have utter disgust for people
>	who base their lives around "feelings" instead of something a
>	little more open minded.

Hm, sounds like a feeling to me, not a rational, scientifically based
supposition to me...  In fact, a truely rational scientific approach
would (as I said earlier) take into account feelings.

--Cindy
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.