Gender Sensitive and Socially Responsible Philosophy of Science

  1. Inmaculada Perdomo Reyes 1
  1. 1 Universidad de La Laguna
    info

    Universidad de La Laguna

    San Cristobal de La Laguna, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01r9z8p25

Revista:
Philosophy Study

ISSN: 2159-5313,  2159-5321

Año de publicación: 2019

Volumen: 9

Número: 8

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.17265/2159-5313/2019.08.007 GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Otras publicaciones en: Philosophy Study

Resumen

The aim of this paper is to defend a view of the philosophy of science as a practice that should reflect not onlyabout the disciplinary classical topics: science methodology, the practice of model construction, explanation orrelations with technology. Philosophy of science should reflect also on the directions science might take and thegoals sought, and ponder; as well, must include questions concerning who should make these decisions and inaccordance with what procedures to promote a more inclusive and democratic science. It’s an agenda that includesgender and ethical topics and a commitment with responsible research and innovation in the context of ourdemocratic societies.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Balsamo, A. (2011). Designing culture. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.
  • Bleier, R. (1984). Science and gender. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
  • Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world. A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Corneliussen, H. L. (2010). Cultural perceptions of computers in Norway 1980-2007. In T. J. Misa (Ed.), Gender codes (pp. 175-176). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  • Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. NY: Basic Books, Inc.
  • Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice. Power & the ethics of knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Graswick, H. (2017). The Routledge handbook of epistemic injustice. NY: Routledge.
  • Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell U.P.
  • Hewlett, S. A., Luce, C. B., & Servon, L. J. (June 2008). Stopping the exodus of women in science. Harvard Business Review.
  • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. NY: Prometheus Books.
  • Kitcher, P., & Fox Keller, E. (2017). The seasons alter. How to save our planet in six acts. NY: Liveright Publishing Corporation.
  • Longino, H. (2001). The fate of knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Misa, T. J. (2010). Gender codes. Defining the problem. In T. J. Misa (Ed.), Gender codes. Why women are leaving computing (pp. 3-24). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society, Wiley.
  • Perdomo, I. (2011). The characterization of epistemology in Philip Kitcher: A critical reflection from new empiricism. In W. González (Ed.), Scientific realism and democratic society. The philosophy of Philip Kitcher (pp. 113-138). NY: Rodopi, Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities, 101.
  • Perdomo, I. (2014). Scientific activity as an interpretative practice. Empiricism, constructivism and pragmatism. In W. González (Ed.), Bas van Fraassen’s approach to representation and models in science (pp. 39-61). NY: Springer, Synthese Library 368.
  • Potter, E. (2006). Feminism and philosophy of science. An introduction. NY: Routledge.
  • Schiebinger, L. (2011). Interdisciplinary approaches to achieving gendered innovations in science, medicine, and engineering. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36(2), 154-167.
  • Van Fraassen, B. (2008). Scientific representation. Paradoxes of perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Zafra, R. (2013). (H)adas. Mujeres que crean, programan, prosumen, teclean. Madrid: Páginas de Espuma.