Reading Questions for Okruhlik’s “Gender and the Biological Sciences”

Due Date: 10/11

1. Why does it not matter to Okruhlik whether or not the rival theories she discusses (193-195) are true? What does matter about these rival theories? Why?

What is the importance, according to Okruhlik, of theory-ladenness of observation, underdetermination, and the Duhem-Quine thesis of holism in examining cases of potential gender bias?

2. Okruhlik points out that in the medical sciences value judgements (what counts as healthy, normal, desirable) are more explicit than in biological (and other) sciences, and that this leads to two additional types of gender bias. What are these two additional types and how do they differ from the more recognized sources of subjectivity (theory-ladenness, underdetermination, holism)?

Why is it important to Okruhlik to make the point about corsets? What is the point she is trying to make?

3. In your own words explain as best you can Harding’s three-way division of feminist critiques of science.

4. What does Okruhlik mean by the claim that “theory choice is irreducibly comparative” (201)? How does she use this point about theory choice to show that even if we distinguish the context of discovery from the context of justification, and assume that choice criteria are purely objective, this still does not guarantee elimination of gender bias (or other subjective factors) from the content of science? How does this show that the context of discovery (despite the traditional view) has normative significance?

5. How does Okruhlik see her view as fitting into Harding’s three-way distinction of feminist critiques of science?