Abstract

Kathleen Okruhlik argues that science is gendered. Suppose scientists act independently of ideology in evaluating theory against evidence. Even so, theory acceptance is always comparative; X is accepted because it is better than Y or Z with respect to the currently available evidence. But ideological assumptions play a role in the generation of theories. So gender plays a role in the construction of the alternatives between which scientists choose. Hence, the very content of science may be sexist. No doubt there is something right about this. But I have a few reservations. First, Okruhlik’s examples often involve extreme underdetermination. I think we can legitimately wonder whether examples which even at the time were seen as speculative are typical enough to show a pervasive ideological role in generating the set of theoretical options. Second, scientific thought does not just consist of choice points between independent theories. Theories are developed as a result of the problems they face. To think that gender plays a significant role in explaining the content of science, we need evidence for thinking that development does not involve correctional mechanisms, or that these are, in general, ineffective. Of course, it is hard to come up with examples of the failure of correction mechanisms, since Okruhlik’s cases are known only through their operation.