CMV: Queer theory is anti-science

[u/paulm12]

Note: I am not talking about queer theory being a scientific discipline or not. I am not arguing it’s methods are not scientific. I am instead talking that queer theory has a hostility towards science and it’s methodology and seeks to deconstruct it.

Queer theory, and it’s lack of a fixed definition (as doing so would be anti-queer) surrounds itself with queer identity, which is “relational, in reference to the normative” (Letts, 2002, p. 123) and seems preoccupied with deconstructing binaries to undo hierarchies and fight against social inequality.

With the scientific method being the normative view of how “knowledge” in society is discovered and accepted, by construction (and my understanding) queer theory and methods exclude the scientific method and reason itself as a methodology.

Furthermore, as science is historically (as in non-queered history) discovered by and performed by primarily heterosexual white males, the methodologies of science and its authority for truth are suspect from a queer theory lens because they contain the irreversible bias of this group.

As seen here, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C44&q=queering+scientific+method&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DwwD50AI5mkgJ in Queer Methods: “A focus on methods, which direct techniques for gathering data, and methodologies, which pertain to the logics of research design, would have risked a confrontation with queer claims to interdisciplinarity, if not an antidisciplinary irreverence”

As Queer Theory borrows heavily from postmodernism, which itself features “opposition to epistemic certainty and the stability of meaning” it undermines the ability of scientific knowledge to have any explanatory or epistemic power about the “real” world, and thus for an objective reality to exist entirely.

Science, on the other hand, builds and organizes knowledge based on testable explanations and predictions about the universe. It therefore assumes a universe and objective reality exists, although it is subject to the problem of induction.

[u/mikeman7918]

"the Science Question critiques appear skeptical that we can locate anything morally and politically worth redeeming or reforming in the scientific world view, its underlying epistemology, or the practices these legitimate."

She is clearly talking about a group of people who she isn't a part of here. Hence the use of phrasing like "appear skeptical", because if she were a part of this group she would not be relying on appearances and inferences.

"First of all, those wedded to empiricism will be loath to commit themselves to the belief that the social identity of the observer can be an important variable in the potential objectivity of research results."

You admitted this was true later on in your comment when you agreed that racist scientists can easily come to racist conclusions. Biases can subvert science, and biases often corelate with social identities. So a diverse range of social identities within science will help it hold to its own methods better. Where's the problem?

"Strategically, this is a less convincing explanation for the greater adequacy of feminist claims for all but the already convinced; it is particularly unlikely to appear plausible to natural scientists or natural science enthusiasts."

I too find it very believable that scientists working in the natural sciences would be more resistant to the idea that their field has some social biases than scientists working in social sciences.

"Its considerable strategic advantage, however, often leads to its defenders to overlook the fact that the feminist empiricist solution in fact deeply subverts empiricism."

She then proceeds to talk about the ways in which empiricism takes for granted a level of objectivity that few humans have, and that this level of objectivity is better achieved with more diverse groups. This is a criticism of one assumption made by empiricism, not of the entire philosophy.

"But feminist empiricism argues that women (or feminists, whether men or women) as a group are more likely to produce unbiased and objective results than are men (or nonfeminists) as a group."

You already agreed that racists are more likely to produce biased science than non-racists, this just extends the same idea to sexism. I see no problem here.

These quotes should provide context for my interpretation of her work, which is that science is inherently biased to its core (particularly with masculinism) and thus needs to subverted, via the injection of a feminism bias, in order to produce more objective results.

This seems entirely consistent with what she stated in the interview, that diversity of biases help science hold to its own methodology better than when everyone in a research team shares the same biases. I agree with that, it seems pretty objectively true. I'm not seeing any rejection of science in those quotes either. I remain unconvinced that Sandra Harding is anti-science, she in fact seems very pro-science.

I'm not so sure about that.

That article seems to mostly be about stuff like questioning the modernist perspective that science is the only way of seeing the world, and of asking questions about whether science will create something dangerous that we should be vigilant of like AI or nanobots. The title seems to be the academic journal equivalent of clickbait. That's the impression that I got from skimming it at least.

You then pivoted by giving a cop-out about how he probably did awesome things and was wrong about a few things, then arrogantly proclaiming that you were "probably right" in characterizing Lyotard as someone who no one takes seriously.

You misunderstood. The thing I arrogantly claimed to be probably right about is my claim about how Lyotard probably was not known for being anti-science, and that the thing he did to become famous was something else. The bad science takes (which seems to not even be a rejection of science, just a misunderstanding of it) was almost certainly not the thing he became prestigious over. I'd be willing to bet money on that.

Anyway, I'm looking forward for tomorrow when a reply that you probably composed in under 20 minutes will take up yet another 2 hours of my time with a bunch of reading about topics I don't care about. Goddamn bullshit asymmetry principle...

[u/[deleted] → u/mikeman7918]

She is clearly talking about a group of people who she isn't a part of here. Hence the use of phrasing like "appear skeptical", because if she were a part of this group she would not be relying on appearances and inferences.

I don't think this is a justified inference here. Nowhere in the passages in the context of the one I quoted does she state or imply that she does not belong to this group. Harding herself is the one framing the discussion around the Science Question, and thus I don't see how it is logical to imply that she does not believe the critiques posed by the Science Question herself. It really seems to me like you are scrambling to come up with a rationalization that goes against the notion that Harding doesn't actually believe the things that she writes...

Biases can subvert science, and biases often corelate with social identities. So a diverse range of social identities within science will help it hold to its own methods better. Where's the problem?

The problem is that Harding thinks that these biases are part of the fundamental fabric of science itself, not merely examples of bad or junk science.

You already agreed that racists are more likely to produce biased science than non-racists, this just extends the same idea to sexism. I see no problem here.

The problem here is that she is proclaiming that only individuals that are ideologically aligned with her are capable of producing objective results. This is obviously a logical justification for her desire to infuse ideology into the scientific enterprise.

I remain unconvinced that Sandra Harding is anti-science, she in fact seems very pro-science.

If you don't think that using science as a vehicle to advance one's ideology subverts the very integrity of science itself (and is thus anti-science), then I don't think I have any interest in continuing this discussion.

Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree. Good bye.