How many scientific papers parameterize the gender of the observer?
Does your own work do this?
Does your own work do this?
I do parameterize other observer properties. For instance, the example of time parameterization is exactly what I'm working on today. Parameterizing space/time in an MRI is an area of active research and is vitally important in the big machines.
... by machines designed and calibrated by men, and interpreted by men.
> In my current projects they are made by javascript in the browser.
... made by code written by a man in a language designed by a man and implemented mostly by men on a platform designed by a man and implemented mostly by men.
So, if you don't acknowledge the possiblity that this could lead to observation biases, then no, it doesn't sound to me like you're doing feminist philosophy.
On the other hand the way you can simultaneously say "the correct solution is to parameterize the gender of the observer" and "my own work doesn't need to and neither do most scientific papers" certainly does seem to clash with the notion of a single "objective reality"!
Are you claiming that if my hit counter were written by a female, in a non-javascript language, then it would yield a different count? Or that if my CCD were designed by a woman, it would take different pictures?
I'm really trying to apply the principle of charity here but I'm failing horribly. So please - I'm shining a laser through a dielectric and imaging the output with a CCD. What bias does feminist philosophy think the gender of the experimentalist introduces? Do the pictures become dimmer? Is noise introduced?
To clarify my position: ordinary statistics has ways of handling observational bias (parameterizing it, averaging it out). I acknowledge that in some experiments this would affect things. I also believe that in the vast majority of experiments (e.g., shining lasers through materials, mixing chemicals together) that these effects are exceedingly implausible and can be safely ignored. Do you disagree with this claim?
I'm claiming that if the experiment that involved a hit counter was designed and implemented by women, in a language designed and implemented by women, running on a platform designed and implemented by women, and the results were interpreted by a woman, it might well lead to a different conclusion about "objective reality".
And I'm suggesting that your unwillingness to acknowledge that possibilty is an indication that you're not doing feminist philosophy.
Now you are discussing whether social experiments in an alternate universe might come out different. Of course they might.
I don't claim to be doing feminist philosophy - given how rapidly the definition shifts, how could I possibly know if I am? I certainly do feminist philosophy as per your first definition (worrying about biased samples and observers), and I certainly don't do it as per your second (thinking about alternate universes).
The idea that someones' chromosomes (or identified gender?) influence the outcome of machines seems like it'd need some rather massive evidence. Is there a short summary of this evidence? And why stop at XY vs XX? Why not include hair colour or other things?