Résumés
Abstract
In this paper, I examine how Cate Hundleby’s work in feminist standpoint epistemology and feminist argumentation theory might shore up Helen Longino’s contextual empiricism and offer suggestions as to its effective application. I show how, despite the complexities of intersectionality and shifting power relations, feminist standpoint theory offers useful suggestions for scientific practice, particularly the inclusion of marginalized voices throughout the scientific process. I then show how feminist argumentation theory provides insight into the challenges of meeting the ‘tempered equality of epistemic authority’ that Longino requires as well as approaches to argumentation that might better serve this goal.
Keywords:
- argumentation,
- Cate Hundleby,
- contextual empiricism,
- feminist epistemology,
- Helen Longino,
- invitational rhetoric,
- scientific epistemology,
- standpoint theory,
- transformative criticism,
- understanding
Résumé
Dans cet article, j’analyse comment les travaux de Catherine Hundleby en épistémologie féministe du point de vue et en théorie féministe de l’argumentation peuvent renforcer l’empirisme contextuel d’Helen Longino et en éclairer les modalités d’application concrète. Je démontre que, nonobstant la complexité de l’intersectionnalité et la fluidité des rapports de pouvoir, la théorie du point de vue féministe propose des orientations précieuses pour la pratique scientifique, notamment en matière d’intégration des voix marginalisées à toutes les étapes du processus de recherche. J’explique ensuite en quoi la théorie féministe de l’argumentation permet de mieux cerner les défis associés à la réalisation de « l’égalité tempérée de l’autorité épistémique », telle que défendue par Longino, et je présente des stratégies argumentatives susceptibles de favoriser cet idéal.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Alcoff, Linda. 1988. Cultural feminism versus post-structuralism: The identity crisis in feminist theory. Signs 13(3): 405-436.
- Alcoff, Linda and Elizabeth Potter. 1993. Feminist epistemologies. New York: Routledge.
- Borgerson, Kirstin. 2021. Feminist empiricism. In The Routledge handbook of feminist philosophy of science, eds. Sharon Crasnow and Kristen Intemann, 79-88. New York: Routledge.
- Brown, James R. 2008. The community of science®. In The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: Science and values revisited, eds. Martin Carrier, Don Howard and Janet A. Kourany, 189-216. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Burrow, Sylvia. 2010. Verbal sparring, Informal logic 30(3): 235-262.
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada [CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC]. 2022. TCPS2 2022: Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans.
- Code, Lorraine. 1996. Rhetorical spaces: Essays on gendered locations. New York: Routledge.
- Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of empowerment. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
- Collins, Patricia Hill. 2013. On intellectual activism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
- Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43: 1241-1299.
- De Regt, Henk and Dennis Dieks. 2005. A contextual approach to scientific understanding. Synthese 144: 137-170.
- Elliott, Kevin and Rebecca Korf. 2024. Values in science: What are values, anyway? European Journal for Philosophy of Science 14(53). <https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-024-00615-3>.
- Foss, Sonja and Cindy Griffin. 1995. Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62(1): 2-18.
- Frigg, Roman and Stephan Hartmann. 2024. Models in science. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2024 edition), eds. Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. URL accessed: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/models-science/>.
- Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2009. Natural selection and its representation. In Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Gordon, Heather and Deana Around Him. 2024. Conducting research “in a Good Way”: Relationships as the foundation of research. Arctic Science 11: 1-6. <https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2023-0078>.
- Harding, Sandra. 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
- Hebda, Richard, Sheila Greer and Alexander P. Mackie. 2012. Kwädąy Dän Ts’ìnchį: Teachings from Long Ago Person Found. Victoria, BC: Royal BC Museum. <https://issuu.com/royalbcmuseum/docs/kdt_highlights>.
- Henning, Tempest. 2021. ‘I said what I said’—Black women and argumentative politeness norms. Informal Logic 41(1): 17-39.
- hooks, bell. 1984. Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End Press.
- Howes, Moira and Catherine Hundleby. 2021. Adversarial argument, belief change, and vulnerability. Topoi 40: 859-872. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-021-09769-8>.Hundleby, Catherine. 1997. Where standpoint stands now. Women & Politics 18(3): 25-43.
- Hundleby, Catherine. 2013. Critical thinking and the adversary paradigm. Newsletter on feminism and philosophy (the American Philosophical Association) 13(1): 2-8.
- Hundleby, Catherine. 2016. The status quo fallacy: Implicit biases and fallacies of argumentation. In Implicit bias and philosophy, volume 1: Metaphysics and epistemology, eds. Michael Brownstein and Jennifer Saul, 238-264. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Hundleby, Catherine. 2019. Live to argue another day. TEDxUniversityofWindsor. <https://www.ted.com/talks/catherine_hundleby_live_to_argue_another_day?subtitle=en>.
- Hundleby, Catherine. 2021. Thinking outside-in: Feminist standpoint theory as epistemology, methodology, and philosophy of science. In The Routledge handbook of feminist philosophy of science, eds. Sharon Crasnow and Kristen Intemann, 89-103. New York: Routledge.
- Hundleby, Catherine. 2023. Feminist perspectives on argumentation. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2023 edition), eds. Edward N. Zalta and Uri Nodelman. URL accessed: <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/feminism-argumentation/>.
- Intemann, Kristen. 2010. 25 years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now? Hypatia 25(4): 778-796.
- Ivanova, Milena and Steven French (eds). 2020. The aesthetics of science: Beauty, imagination and understanding. New York: Routledge.
- Jordan-Young, Rebecca. 2010. Brain storm: The flaws in the science of sex differences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Kourany, Janet. 2021. Bacon’s promise. In Science, freedom, democracy, eds. Peter Hartl and Adam Tuboly, 88-109. New York: Routledge.
- Levy, Arnon and Peter Godfrey-Smith, eds. 2020. The scientific imagination: Philosophical and psychological perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Lloyd, Elisabeth. 2005. The case of the female orgasm: Bias in the science of evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Longino, Helen. 1990. Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Longino, Helen. 1994. The fate of knowledge in social theories of science. In Socializing epistemology, ed. Frederick Schmidt, 135-157. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
- Longino, Helen. 1997. Feminist epistemology as a local epistemology. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: Supplementary Volume 71: 19-35. Oxford University Press
- Longino, Helen. 2002. The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister outsider: Speeches and essays. Berkeley: The Crossing Press.
- Lugones, María. 1987. Playfulness, “world”-travelling, and loving perception. Hypatia 2(2): 3-19.
- Lugones, María. 2003. Pilgrimages/perigrinajes: Theorizing coalition against multiple oppressions. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
- Lugones, María and Elizabeth Spelman. 1983. Have we got a theory for you! Feminist theory, cultural imperialism and the demand for ‘the woman’s voice’. Women’s Studies International Forum 6(6): 573-581.
- Meynell, Letitia. 2018. Picturing Feynman diagrams and the epistemology of understanding. Perspectives on Science 26(4): 459-481. doi:10.1162/posc_a_00283
- Meynell, Letitia. 2020. Getting the picture: Towards a new account of scientific understanding. In The aesthetics of science: Beauty, the imagination and understanding, eds. Milena Ivanova and Steven French, 36-62. New York: Routledge.
- Meynell, Letitia and Clarisse Paron. 2023. Applied ethics primer. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
- Mills, Charles. 1997. The racial contract. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
- Okruhlik, Kathleen. 1994. Gender and the biological sciences. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 24(Sup1): 21-42. doi:10.1080/00455091.1994.10717393
- Reydon, Thomas and Marc Ereshefsky. 2022. How to incorporate non-epistemic values into a theory of classification. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 12(4). <https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00438-6>.
- Rippon, Gina. 2019. Gender and our brains: How new neuroscience explodes the myths of the male and female minds. New York: Pantheon.
- Roughgarden, Joan. 2004. Evolution’s rainbow: Diversity, gender, and sexuality in nature and people. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
- Sandoval, Chela. 2000. Methodology of the Oppressed. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
- Weil, Vivian and Robert Arzbaecher. 1995. Ethics and relationships in laboratories and research communities. Professional Ethics: A Multidisciplinary Journal 4(3&4): 83-125.
- Wylie, Alison. 2015. A plurality of pluralisms: Collaborative practice in archaeology. In Objectivity in science: New perspectives from science and technology studies, eds. Flavia Padovani, Alan Richardson and Jonathan Tsou, 189-210. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Yap, Audrey. 2012. Ad hominem fallacies, bias, and testimony. Argumentation 27: 97-109.

