Tecnociencia feminista. Una propuesta de demarcación

  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:
CTS: Revista iberoamericana de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad

ISSN: 1668-0030,  1850-0013

Año de publicación: 2024

Volumen: 19

Número: 55

Páginas: 127-143

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.52712/ISSN.1850-0013-424 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: CTS: Revista iberoamericana de ciencia, tecnología y sociedad

Resumen

The recent debate on the feasibility of devising a new demarcation criterion to limit the role of undesirable values in technoscientific practice addresses different strategies. It is presented as a starting point that this problem cannot be delimited with fixed demarcation criteria, since the role of values is an open, contextual issue and subject to critical and situated evaluation. This article proposes to recover some of the findings of feminist philosophy of science to advance in a general framework of proposals and strategies that, in a combined way and from a pragmatist philosophical perspective, can increase the rigor, integrity and reliability of technoscientific practice, and direct it towards ethically and democratically defensible goals.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Alcoff, L. & Potter, E. (1993). Feminist Epistemologies. Nueva York: Routledge
  • Bleier, R. (1991). Feminist Approaches to Science. Nueva York: Teachers College Press.
  • Callon, M. (1999). Actor-network theory-The Market Test. En J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after. Oxford & Malden: Blackwell.
  • Carter, S. M., et al. (2020). The ethical, legal, and social implications of using artificial intelligence systems in breast cancer care. The Breast, 49, 25-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.10.001.
  • Coeckelbergh, M. (2021 [2020]). Ética de la Inteligencia Artificial. Madrid: Ediciones Cátedra.
  • Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.
  • Echeverría, J. (2003). La revolución tecnocientífica. Madrid: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  • Eubanks, V. (2021 [2018]). La automatización de la desigualdad. Madrid: Capitán Swing S.L.
  • Fricker, M. (2017 [2007]). Injusticia epistémica. Barcelona: Herder Editorial.
  • Franssen, M. & Kroes, P. (2009). Sociotechnical Systems. En J. Olsen, S. Pedersen & V. Hendricks (Eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Technology. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  • Goisauf, M. & Cano Abadía, M. (2022). Ethics of AI in Radiology: A Review of Ethical and Societal Implications. Frontiers in Big Data, 5, 850-383. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2022.850383.
  • Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, Cyborgs and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. Londres: Free Association Books.
  • Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan©_Meets OncoMouse™. Feminism and Technoscience. Nueva York: Routledge.
  • Haraway, D. (2019 [2016]). Seguir con el problema. Bilbao: Consonni.
  • Harding, S. (1986). The Science Question in Feminism. Nueva York: Cornell University Press.
  • Harding, S. (1991). Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Nueva York: Cornell University Press
  • Harding, S. (2015). Objectivity and Diversity: Another Logic of Scientific Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Holman, B. & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 211-220.
  • Intemann, K. (2010). 25 Years of feminist Empiricism and Standpoint Theory: Where Are We Now? Hypatia, 25, 778-796.
  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of Knowledge. The Co-production of Science and Social Order. Londres: Routledge.
  • Jasanoff, S. (2016). The Ethic of Invention. Technology and The Human Future. Nueva York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd.
  • Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, Truth, and Democracy. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a Democratic Society. Nueva York: Prometheus Books.
  • Kitcher, P. (2021). Moral Progress. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
  • Koskinen, I. & Rolin, K. (2022). Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate roles for values in transdisciplinary research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 191-198.
  • Latour, B. (1992 [1983]). Ciencia en acción. Barcelona: Labor.
  • Longino, H. (1990). Science as Social Knowledge. Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Longino, H. (2002). The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Perdomo, I. (2016). Género y tecnologías. Ciberfeminismos y construcción de la tecnocultura actual. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad -CTS, 11(31), 171-193. Recuperado de: https://www.revistacts.net/contenido/numero-31/genero-y-tecnologias-ciberfeminismos-y-construccion-de-la-tecnocultura-actual/.
  • Pérez Sedeño, E. (2019). Feminist epistemologies and objectivity: moving towards a feminist science. En E. Pérez Sedeño et. al. (Eds.), Knowledges, Practices and Activism from Feminist Epistemologies. Wilmington: Vernon Press.
  • Pinch, T. & Bijker, W. (2012). The Social Construction of Facts and Artifacts: Or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology Might Benefit Each Other. En W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. Pinch (Eds.), The Social Construction of Technological Systems. New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  • Resnik, D. B. (2009). Playing Politics with Science. Nueva York: Oxford University Press.
  • Resnik, D. B. & Elliot, K.C. (2023). Science, Values, and the New Demarcation Problem. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 54, 259-286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-022-09633-2.
  • Richardson, S. (2010). Feminist Philosophy of Science: History, Contributions, and Challenges. Synthese, 177, 337-362.
  • Rolin, K. (2021). Objectivity, Trust, and Social Responsibility. Synthese, 199(1-2), 513-533. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-020-02669-1.
  • Schiebinger, L. (1999). Has Feminism Changed Science? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Schiebinger, L. (2008). Gendered Innovations in Science and Engineering. Standford: Standford University Press.
  • Schiebinger, L. (2020). Gendered Innovation 2: How inclusive analysis contribute to research and innovation. Publicaciones de la Comisión Europea.
  • Wacjman, J. (2006 [2004]). El Tecnofeminismo. Madrid: Cátedra.
  • Wylie, A. et al. (1990) Philosophical Feminism. A Bibliographic Guide to Critiques of Science. Resources for Feminist Research, 19, 2-36.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet