Objectivity and orgasm: the perils of imprecise definitions

Synthese 199 (1-2):2315-2333 (2020)

Abstract

Lloyd analyzes every proposed evolutionary explanation of female orgasm and argues that all but one suffers from serious evidential errors. Lloyd attributes these errors to two main biases: androcentrism and adaptationism. This paper begins by arguing that the explanation Lloyd favors—the by-product account—is guilty of the androcentrism which supposedly implicates the other explanations of female orgasm with numerous evidential discrepancies. This suggests that there is another error afflicting orgasm research in addition to the biases Lloyd identities. I attempt to diagnose and characterize this additional error. In short, I think the error is using an imprecise definition of the trait in question. Further, Lloyd takes her analysis to support Longino’s contextual empiricist model of scientific objectivity. I consider what implications this analysis has for contextual empiricism. Finally, I argue that theorizing about female orgasm should be done from a conceptual engineering approach.

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,660

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-10-02

Downloads
42 (#273,924)

6 months
2 (#259,908)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Similar books and articles

Science, Politics, and Evolution.Elisabeth A. Lloyd - 2008 - Cambridge University Press.
An Evolutionary Behaviorist Perspective on Orgasm.Diana S. Fleischman - 2016 - Socioaffective Neuroscience and Psychology 6.
The Morality of Faking Orgasms: Deception in a Dishonest World.Stephen Kershnar - 2012 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (1):85-104.

Author's Profile

Samantha Wakil
University of Nevada, Las Vegas