Prof. Sandra Harding - Objectivity and Diversity: Tensions for Feminist Postcolonial Research

From the iSchool's 2013-2014 Colloquium Series, "Feminist & Queer Approaches to Technoscience"

[@oceania2385]

Could you guys stay out of STEM ? We have no use for bridges that don't work- Thanks !

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

who guys, hun?

[@oceania2385]

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 The 2+2=5 guys...

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

@@oceania2385 ...what made you think of the orwellians?

[@sarlardar]

I'm the physicist in the room, fascinated by all she has to say and definitely not angry with her XD

[@maapaa2010]

Its fortunate this lady still has time to understand her trueself, instead of hold true to such divisive theory laden epistemological doubt. Unlike many of those who have held true to such beliefs and passed away, in the clutches of their doubts.

[@kuhdelrosario]

Really enjoyed this talk, although I am a bit uncomfortable with the continual use of 'third world'.

[@estfms8770]

hi, can u explain it to me? why u feel desconfortable? Im from brazil (third world) and dont understand english very well... so i want to understand what she say about that... (I Will use Google tradutor for understand)

[@estfms8770]

Is this because this term is outdated?

[@bend0matic]

Harding weakened scientific objectivity by inserting non scientific claims into it.

[@kyraocity]

24:20 women weren't left out, their exclusion was envisioned in early UN development documents. Land rights and labor of peasants around the world were exploited.

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

*our* exclusion :)

[@arpanasingh8790]

Dialogical epistemology of Nira Yuval Davis seems to be the defining concept of coaolitional politics

[@arpanasingh8790]

Transversal politics is more clear in this regard

[@alastairmoody798]

I’m sympathetic with Sandra Harding, who describes herself as “a recovering Logical Positivist”. I can relate. But her uptake of standpoint epistemology (the historical lineage of which she herself acknowledges to be Marx/Lukács) is very sad and not helped by the apparently common mis-reading of Popper in the US academy as a species of Positivist. (Popper is not a Positivist but a non-foundationist interpretation of Kant - see, for example, Duke University’s Malachi Hacohen ‘Popper, early years’). If Only Professor Harding could be persuaded to turn some pages of Popper again and get off the ludicrous Utopianism she clings to (as she admits in response to one of the questioners here). If feminist and post-colonialist STS scholars come up with different answers to the question “Who should lead the transformation of our science and societies?”, I can give an answer, none of them in the first place. Link to a 1994 interview with Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia, who offer correction to this sad paranoid stuff from Harding. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXTFqo2ifpaUgrM

[@sarlardar]

I have no idea how the video you link to fits with your comment. If anything, the whole point of thinking about epistemology is whether that video is even useful to any discussions of how gender impacts society. Very odd.

[@alastairmoody798]

Popper (who never fell for Logical Posotovism) talks for 50 minutes here, criticising ‘the myth of the intellectual standpoint’. Essential listening / reading kzbin.info/www/bejne/kHe8aoCPnpWJipY

[@bowecho]

Oh dear........I hear an asteroid headed this way 🤡

[@warrenrandall6936]

This woman wants politics in science. She is not a scientist.

[@Petrhrabal]

...what...a...twisted...disgusting...creature... :p