Androcentrism, Anti-Realism, and Bayesianism. Social Sciences Essay
Write on one of the topics below. Write 2000 words (+/- 10%), including any
footnotes but not including references. Papers are due on November 27. Submit your
paper through Canvas.
Write in a clear, direct style. Give as much introduction as you think is needed
(perhaps not much) and then get straight down to answering the question. Avoid
discursive footnotes. Talk to your tutor about further reading.
1. For many decades now, feminist philosophers of science have argued that scientific
work in biology and related fields is affected by "androcentric bias." (See Kathleen
Okruhlik's "Gender and the Biological Sciences" for discussion of this concept.) One
possible reply is that bias of this kind was indeed once a problem, but not any more –
so much attention has been directed on the issue that bias of this kind is now rare.
Find a recent example (no more than 20 years old, preferably newer) where you think
that bias of this kind might be operating, or has been alleged by others, and assess
whether it is actually present.
2. If you are a scientific realist, it is probably not surprising that science sometimes
reaches consensus on a question being investigated. In the last week of the course we
look at several forms of anti-realism about science (see also Theory and
Reality chapter 12). Choose one of these anti-realist views to discuss – you don’t need
to look at all of them. What happens to the idea of scientific consensus within a view
of this kind? Does consensus, when it exists, become surprising or hard to explain?
3. Lecture 14 and Theory and Reality Chapter 7 discussed Laudan's distinction
between the "acceptance" and "pursuit" of theories. The distinction was presented as a
helpful one. Then, in later lectures and other parts of Theory and Reality, we looked at
the idea of "degree of belief," and also at the distinction between deciding what to
believe and deciding how to act (see especially lectures 18 and 20). Suppose we
assume that subjectivist Bayesianism is a good model of belief change, and also a
good model of the role of belief in action. What happens to Laudan's distinction
between pursuit and acceptance? Is it still useful in thinking about science? Use at
least one scientific example or case study as part of your answer.
Androcentrism, Anti-Realism, and Bayesianism
[name]
[school/course]
[professor]
[date]I - Introduction
II - Body
Androcentric Bias in Medical Science
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth on Scientific Consensus
Bayesianism
III - ConclusionIntroduction
In the academic field, Science and Philosophy seem to have different views and expertise. While Science deals with specific answers and concrete evidence, Philosophy leans on more abstract beliefs (Shapere, 1982). It is not news that these two fields are somewhat contrasting and of different positions. However, there ways to combine them in one discussion.
Science still has a lot to explore despite the vast knowledge it has contributed to the world. It is yet to explore and prove other intangible matters which are mostly formulations of the mind.
If we ask what Science knows of the mind, it would probably answer the anatomical structure and functions of everything in the mind. Science also knows the magic behind thought-processing and cognitive abilities. Beyond those physical explanations is what Philosophy is exploring. Philosophy, on the other hand, draws conclusions and ideologies from the existing thoughts of people and practices of the world. It uses the thought formulation of people in building ideas and beliefs that shape how people perceive the world (Shapere, 1982).
In this paper, let us discuss the combination of Science and Philosophy. This paper will look at the Scientific application of androcentric bias in medical Science, the pragmatic theory of truth as applied to Scientific consensus, and the discussion on Bayesian probability.
Androcentric Bias in Medical Science
People would most often perceive traditional masculine roles as superior among anything and that they entail high regard from the public (Thompson, Grisanti, & Pleck, 1985). Some of the traditional male roles that everyone, even women, looked up to were corporate employee, physical laborer, and father-figure. These roles would receive positive recognition from people. The patriarchal system was on the pedestal that androcentrism had to come into existence. Androcentricism looks at everything through the lens of male perception and standard (Hibbs, 2014). It means that it assesses, for instance, professions and practices based on the masculine pattern of behavior or characteristics. Moreover, androcentrism treats male dominance as the norm of many previous and present societies.
In the field of science, androcentric bias used to exist in researches, analyses, experiments, and even philosophies (Fehr, 2011). They often rely on male characteristics as the standard of observation, identification, or classification. However, as times have become modernized and less conservative, science has become more open to looking at perspective different from that of male or masculinity. Medical researches and practices have looked at both genders as of equal importance when it comes to treatments, investigations, and interventions. Despite the modern approach to medicine, androcentric bias still leaves a trace in some aspect of the field. Medical studies would still look favorably on the androcentric bias and apply them to their analysis.
In an article by Holdcroft (2007), it says that men would get more funding than women for coronary artery medication. Despite women being at risk of the disease, funding is larger for male patients than females. Thus, lowering the research opportunities for women who are more vulnerable to the disease. Aside from the inequality in funding, the disparity in treatment and medical intervention also limited access for women (Weisz, Gusmano, & Rodwin, 2004). Women received less treatment for coronary artery disease not because they need less medication. Rather, women were underdiagnosed for the disease, therefore, being underqualified for necessary medical intervention. The same reason applies to why women would receive lesser funding for the disease. Despite being more vulnerable to coronary disease, women are not acknowledged because their diagnosis is either incomplete or inaccurate.
The medical system that unfairly provides medical intervention rather than focusing on medical issues exemplifies an androcentric bias, especially that it particularly favors men in its system. Because the health system regards men as a priority in receiving medication despite both gender-based patients having the disease, it creates a notion that the favor lands conveniently on men. The fact that there is lesser accuracy of medical diagnosis for women says that the bias in medical science is still in existence. Although the claim may say that androcentric bias is not part of the practice anymore, some medical researches and outcomes hint at the previous biases in the field of science. As an example, the disparity in funding and intervention for coronary disease between males and females implies that there have been still unfair treatment and biases happening.
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth on Scientific Consensus
Science is known to serve accurate, well-calculated, and definite conclusions in everything it explores. The scientific processes and methods see to it that they include the right details and variables to end with the accurate result. Usually, there is one specific explanation and outcome to scientific studies and explorations. These outcomes, no matter how many times researchers experiment, reveal the same result unless one or two variables change (Kahan, Jenkins‐Smith, & Braman, 2011).
On the other hand, while it is true that Science reveals a particular and accurate result, some scientific aspects require consensus. The scientific consensus is the decision on which the scientists and researchers collectively agree (Kahan, Jenkins‐Smith, & Braman, 2011). This decision is either on statements, variables, contributing factors, and many more. The people in the scientific field productively discuss and debate their scientific consensus so that it will meet the scienti...