Skip to main content
Log in

The context distinction: controversies over feminist philosophy of science

  • Original paper in Philosophy of Science
  • Published:
European Journal for Philosophy of Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The “context of discovery” and “context of justification” distinction has been used by Noretta Koertge and Lynn Hankinson Nelson in debates over the legitimacy of feminist approaches to philosophy of science. Koertge uses the context distinction to focus the conversation by barring certain approaches. I contend this focus masks points of true disagreement about the nature of justification. Nonetheless, Koertge raises important questions that have been too quickly set aside by some. I conclude that the context distinction should not be used to block feminist philosophy of science because the use of the context distinction is deeply ambiguous, masking underlying debates about naturalism and the nature of justification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Authors in the debate tend to use “philosophy of science” and “epistemology” interchangeably, although the context is usually within philosophy of science.

  2. See Helen Longino on constitutive and contextual values (1990, 4).

  3. See especially Gross and Levitt (1994).

  4. Also Helen Longino (1990), Sandra Harding (1986), Elizabeth Potter (2001), etc.

  5. Although this phrasing might make it sound as though the context of discovery always precedes the context of justification, Koertge acknowledges that in practice the two processes are not necessarily “temporally disjoint”; scientists might be continuously generating, testing, and altering hypotheses (Koertge 1993, 126).

  6. See also Paul Boghossian (1998, 26), Susan Haack (1996, 262), and Noretta Koertge (2000, S53).

  7. Marxist dialectic materialism emphasized that nature is made up of interrelated, ever changing processes (Sheehen 1985, 38); some see Lysenkoism as more consistent with dialectic materialism than rival views in which individual genes controlled heredity, since genes might be viewed as inappropriately “individualistic” and deterministic (Sheehen 1985, 224). For an insightful critique of this view, see (Jarovsky 1970, Ch. 8).

  8. The reader might notice here that I am interpreting Koertge as applying the distinction normatively to scientists. In contrast, I read Reichenbach as applying the distinction only to philosophers studying scientists, not to scientists themselves.

  9. When put this way, we can see that an additional argument is needed to determine which factors to keep out of the context of justification. Many have attempted to determine this, including Helen Longino (1990), Noretta Koertge (1996b), and Thomas Kuhn (1977).

  10. For more on framework assumptions, see (Putnam 1962a and b). For a nice discussion of Putnam’s views, see (Mueller and Fine 2004).

  11. Part of why Marxist ideology was able to be so versatile is that it was so vague. See (Jarovsky 1970, 234).

  12. Graham distinguishes between “authentic” and “calcified” dialectic materialism (1993, 119–121). I contend that ideology is problematic primarily when it is rigidly “calcified” and used by political entities to suppress and persecute those who work outside of a (narrow version) of the framework. Thus, the problem lies with political oppression, not the ideology itself.

  13. Graham makes this point himself, after receiving criticism for linking both eminent and disreputable scientists with Marxism (1998, 7 & 26).

  14. As mentioned earlier, Koertge tends to treat all feminist epistemologies as the same. There are, however, significant differences between views. For simplicity, I will consider objections and responses to features of Lynn Hankinson Nelson’s views.

  15. Koertge is opposed to using ideology in the context of discovery, as well, if it will limit the kinds of questions scientists are allowed to pursue (Koertge 2003b p. 226, 227, 233), so it is not clear that she would find Anderson’s response (below) convincing.

  16. Although an impressive work of reconciliation, I think Antony’s response ultimately fails to capture the full force of some of Anderson’s and Nelson’s worries. For a critique of Antony, see especially (Campbell 1998).

  17. To some readers, this move may appear to expose Nelson’s view to the charge of relativism, a charge that Anderson’s view can avoid. Nelson emphatically wishes to reject relativism, and argues that her emphasis on empirical adequacy and reliability keeps her holism from becoming relativistic (Nelson 1990, 40 and 295). Unfortunately, I cannot survey those arguments here. Suffice to say that this criticism of Nelson’s feminist epistemology is distinct from the criticism considered in this paper.

  18. Koertge offers a particularly vivid example of the dangers here: “The assessment of the probability that the O-ring on the Challenger will fail must be independent of how personally, politically or financially undesirable the result of that assessment will be” (Koertge 1993, 134). I suspect that Nelson and Anderson would both agree that this kind of “wishful thinking” should be avoided.

  19. Pinnick expresses similar worries, making reference to “politically motivated science, such as Shockley’s eugenic or Brigham’s and Grant’s aptitude- and intelligence-test design” (Pinnick 2003, 22).

  20. See footnote 18.

  21. Popper writes, “It was the summer of 1919 that I began to feel more and more dissatisfied with these three theories—the Marxist theory of history, psycho-analysis, and individual psychology; and I began to feel dubious about their claims to scientific status. My problem perhaps first took the simple form, ‘What is wrong with Marxism, psychoanalysis, and individual psychology? Why are they so different from physical theories, from Newton’s theory, and especially from the theory of relativity?’” (Popper 1963, 34).

References

  • Almeder, R. (2003). Equity feminism and academic freedom. In C. Pinnick, N. Koertge & R. Almeder (Eds.), Scrutinizing feminist epistemology: An examination of gender in science. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

  • Anderson, E. (2004). “How not to criticize feminist epistemology: Review of Pinnick, Koertge, and Almeder’s scrutinizing feminist epistemology” (self published on the Internet: http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Eeandersn/hownotreview.html).

  • Anderson, E. (1995). Feminist epistemology: An interpretation and a defense. Hypatia, 10(3), 50–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antony, L. (2002). In L. M. Antony & C. Witt (Eds.), “Quine as feminist: The radical import of naturalized epistemology,” a mind of one’s own: Essays on reason and objectivity (2nd ed., pp. 93–109). Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boghossian, P. (1998). What the Sokal Hoax ought to teach us. In N. Koertge (Ed.), A house built on sand: Exposing postmodernist myths about science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Campbell, R. (1998). Illusions of paradox: A feminist epistemology naturalized. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R. (2003). “Feminist epistemology naturalized” in Nelson and Nelson (2003).

  • Diamond, M. C., Dowling, G. A., & Johnson, R. E. (1981). Morphologic cerebral cortical asymmetry in mate and female rats. Experimental Neurology, 71, 261–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. (2000). Inductive risk and values in science. Philosophy of Science, 67, 559–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geschwind, N., & Behan, P. (1982). Left-handedness: Association with immune disease, migraine and developmental learning disorder. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 79, 5097–5100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geschwind, N., & Behan, P. (1984). Laterality, hormones, and immunity. In N. Geschwind & M. Galaburda (Eds.), Cerebral dominance: The biological foundations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, L. (1993). Science in Russian and the Soviet union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, L. (1998). What have we learned about science and technology from the Russian experience? Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, P., & Levitt, N. (1994). Higher superstition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haack, S. (1993). “Knowledge and propaganda: Reflections of an old feminist.” Partisan Review: 556–564.

  • Haack, S. (1996). Towards a sober sociology of science. In P. Gross, N. Levitt, & M. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.

  • Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harraway, D. (1989). Primate visions. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarovsky, D. (1970). The Lysenko affair. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koertge, N. (1993). “Ideology, heuristics and rationality in the context of discovery.” In S. French & H. Kamminga (Eds.), Correspondence, invariance, and heuristics: Essays in honour of Heinz Post (pp. 125–136). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koertge, N. (1996a). Wrestling with the social construction. In P. Gross, N. Levitt, & M. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.

  • Koertge, N. (1996b). Feminist epistemology: Beating an un-dead horse. In P. Gross, N. Levitt, & M. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.

  • Koertge, N. (2000). “Science, values, and the value of science.” Philosophy of science, vol. 67, supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part II: Symposia Papers (Sep., 2000), pp. S45–S57.

  • Koertge, N. (2003a). Gender and the genealogy of scientific discoveries. In C. Pinnick, N. Koertge & R. Almeder (Eds.), Scrutinizing feminist epistemology: An examination of gender in science. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

  • Koertge, N. (2003b). Feminist values and the value of science. In C. Pinnick, N. Koertge & R. Almeder (Eds.), Scrutinizing feminist epistemology: An examination of gender in science. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

  • Kuhn, T. (1977). “Objectivity, values, and theory choice.” In The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Kukla, R. (2008). “Naturalizing objectivity.” Perspectives on Science, 16(3).

  • Longino, H. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiland, J. (2001). In R. Audi (Ed.), “Category mistake,” Cambridge dictionary of philosophy (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, A., & Fine, A. (2004). Realism, beyond miracles. In B. Manahim (Ed.), Contemporary philosophy in focus: Hilary Putman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, L. H. (1990). Who knows: From Quine to a feminist empiricism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, L. H. (1995a). “The very idea of feminist epistemology.” Hypatia, 10(3).

  • Nelson, L. H. (1995b). “Feminist naturalized philosophy of science.” Synthese, 104.

  • Nelson, J. & Nelson L. H. (1994). “No rush to judgment.” Monist, 77(4).

  • Nelson, J., & Nelson, L. H. (2003). Feminist interpretations of W. V. Quine. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinnick, C. L. (2003). Feminist epistemology: Implications for Philosophy of Science. In C. Pinnick, N. Koertge & R. Almeder (Eds.), Scrutinizing feminist epistemology: An examination of gender in science. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

  • Popper, K. ([1963] 2002). Conjectures and refutations. New York: Routledge.

  • Potter, E. (2001). Gender and Boyle’s law of gases. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, H. ([1962a] 1975b). “The analytic and the synthetic.” In Philosophical papers II. Mind, language, and reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Putnam, H. ([1962b] 1975a). “It ain’t necessarily so.” In Philosophical papers I. Mathematics, matter, and method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and prediction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. ([1949] 2000). The concept of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Schickore, J., & Steinle, F. (Eds.). (2006). Revisiting discovery and justification: Historical and philosophical perspectives on the context distinction. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheehen, H. (1985). Marxism and the philosophy of science: A critical history. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soble, A. (2003). Keller on gender, science, and mcclintock. In C. Pinnick, N. Koertge & R. Almeder (Eds.), Scrutinizing feminist epistemology: An examination of gender in science. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

  • Thomasson, A. (2008). “Categories”. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Fall edition, forthcoming URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/categories/>.

Download references

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the participants of the 2009 Society for Philosophy of Science in Practice conference, as well as Ben Almassi, Asia Ferrin, Stephen Gardiner, Lynn Hankinson Nelson, Arthur Fine, Alison Wylie, and Andrea Woody for their insightful discussions and comments on this paper. I would also like to thank anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Aufrecht.

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 1
figure 1

Koertge’s Stages of Scientific Inquiry from (Koertge 2003b, 227)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aufrecht, M. The context distinction: controversies over feminist philosophy of science. Euro Jnl Phil Sci 1, 373 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0031-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-011-0031-9

Keywords

Navigation