the Oxford admission came through. I am still ridiculously excited and it has made all this decision making much easier, since it really was my first choice above and beyond anything else. Still don't know details of college and funding, but keeping my fingers crossed and hoping things work out.
In other news, off to Bali for a week today. Will be back with photos - and yes, more need to be posted.
Showing posts with label Academics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Academics. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Science and Feminism
One of the courses I am doing this term (arguably the best course I am doing this term) is on the Philosophy of Science. I have wanted to write a post on feminism and science for a while but haven’t had the time. Most of the data of the post comes from Kathleen Okruhlik’s Gender and the Biological Sciences[1]. I thought it would make for interesting reading. (That apart I really have nothing to post about. Life is as dull as dull can get).
Traditionally the philosophy of science has placed a very limited premium on the role social and psychological factors play in influencing the scientific process. (The most revolutionary work in this vein was Thomas Kuhns’ The Structure of Scientific Revolutions[2])
The traditional view of science is of a process that aims at objectivity and achieving a better understanding of reality. In the context of discovery or theory generation how one comes up with a hypothesis is irrelevant[3]. What is important is having a strict and rigorous process of falsifiable experiments and tests. This process will naturally act as a filter to separate the good theories from the bad[4].
The problem with this view of the scientific process arises when we consider the fact (as Okruhlik points out) that in actuality science doesn’t work like this. A scientific theory is chosen as the best available explanation of a certain phenomena over other theories, not necessarily because it is the best explanation of reality per se. This makes sociological influences at the level of theory generation particularly important.
Take for example theories the aim to explain female behavior. The theories may be different from each other in many respects but if they all arise in a deeply sexist culture, they will all be contaminated by sexism. Non sexist rivals will not be generated at all. Thus having a rigorous, objective scientific process does not automatically eliminate the sexist or androcentric bias from science.
I reproduce just two of the many examples Okruhlik gives to support her case.
One example is nineteenth century craniometry’s attempt to explain inferior female intelligence by appealing to brain size. It was suggested that the true measure of intelligence lay in the proportion of brain to body mass. But this index favoured women and the hypothesis was discarded. It was then suggested that frontal lobes were the seat of intelligence and men have bigger frontal lobes (women have bigger parietal lobes). However when research pointed to parietal lobes being the seat of intelligence the data was evaluated to argue that in actuality women have smaller parietal lobes. The one underlying assumption that scientists were unwilling to give up was that women are biologically less intelligent than men.
In another example, take the case of the lab rat. An ideal healthy lab rat is by default male. Female hormones and their effects are taken simply as nuisance variables that prevent experimenters from getting at the pure, clean, stripped down essence of rat hood as presented by the male model. (This held true for human experiments as well. Until quite recently the default archetype for medical research was a (white) male). The female species is thus covered by research on males; if she is not included it is because she is not an archetypal member of her own species.
The question that arises therefore is this: Do we simply accede that science is not as rational and objective as we want or think it to be, or do we attempt to alter the process of science so that it takes into account the normative aspects of theory generation?
To achieve the latter it is important, Okruhlik argues, to recognize that there is a bias present in the social arrangements that govern the scientific process and to try and control for these. Secondly, it is important to note that the traditional rationality of the scientific process is a simple summation of individual rationalities. It is only the inclusion of diverse standpoints that can lead to a questioning of certain underlying sociological biases and pave the way for change.
It is for this reason that the feminist standpoint and critique of science is so important. It is not that this view is more holistic, intuitive, objective or nurturant. It is important because it comes from a social and political view point that is different from the one that has dominated science. That said, real change in the scientific process will be possible only when theories are developed by scientists who not only have a solid grounding in their own disciplines but who are also open and committed to questioning the sociological biases that seep into science.
[1] From Biology and Society, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary vol. 20 (1994): 21 -42
[2] Kuhns fundamental argument is that all normal science essentially works within a given paradigm and is thus constrained by the boundaries of the very paradigm it works within
[3] The method of Conjecture and Refutation as well as the notion of ‘falsifiability’ were put forth by Karl Popper.
[4] In Popper's opinion theories are not true or false, but rather good or bad. Once a theory has been corroborated it is accepted as the ‘current’ best theory available.
Traditionally the philosophy of science has placed a very limited premium on the role social and psychological factors play in influencing the scientific process. (The most revolutionary work in this vein was Thomas Kuhns’ The Structure of Scientific Revolutions[2])
The traditional view of science is of a process that aims at objectivity and achieving a better understanding of reality. In the context of discovery or theory generation how one comes up with a hypothesis is irrelevant[3]. What is important is having a strict and rigorous process of falsifiable experiments and tests. This process will naturally act as a filter to separate the good theories from the bad[4].
The problem with this view of the scientific process arises when we consider the fact (as Okruhlik points out) that in actuality science doesn’t work like this. A scientific theory is chosen as the best available explanation of a certain phenomena over other theories, not necessarily because it is the best explanation of reality per se. This makes sociological influences at the level of theory generation particularly important.
Take for example theories the aim to explain female behavior. The theories may be different from each other in many respects but if they all arise in a deeply sexist culture, they will all be contaminated by sexism. Non sexist rivals will not be generated at all. Thus having a rigorous, objective scientific process does not automatically eliminate the sexist or androcentric bias from science.
I reproduce just two of the many examples Okruhlik gives to support her case.
One example is nineteenth century craniometry’s attempt to explain inferior female intelligence by appealing to brain size. It was suggested that the true measure of intelligence lay in the proportion of brain to body mass. But this index favoured women and the hypothesis was discarded. It was then suggested that frontal lobes were the seat of intelligence and men have bigger frontal lobes (women have bigger parietal lobes). However when research pointed to parietal lobes being the seat of intelligence the data was evaluated to argue that in actuality women have smaller parietal lobes. The one underlying assumption that scientists were unwilling to give up was that women are biologically less intelligent than men.
In another example, take the case of the lab rat. An ideal healthy lab rat is by default male. Female hormones and their effects are taken simply as nuisance variables that prevent experimenters from getting at the pure, clean, stripped down essence of rat hood as presented by the male model. (This held true for human experiments as well. Until quite recently the default archetype for medical research was a (white) male). The female species is thus covered by research on males; if she is not included it is because she is not an archetypal member of her own species.
The question that arises therefore is this: Do we simply accede that science is not as rational and objective as we want or think it to be, or do we attempt to alter the process of science so that it takes into account the normative aspects of theory generation?
To achieve the latter it is important, Okruhlik argues, to recognize that there is a bias present in the social arrangements that govern the scientific process and to try and control for these. Secondly, it is important to note that the traditional rationality of the scientific process is a simple summation of individual rationalities. It is only the inclusion of diverse standpoints that can lead to a questioning of certain underlying sociological biases and pave the way for change.
It is for this reason that the feminist standpoint and critique of science is so important. It is not that this view is more holistic, intuitive, objective or nurturant. It is important because it comes from a social and political view point that is different from the one that has dominated science. That said, real change in the scientific process will be possible only when theories are developed by scientists who not only have a solid grounding in their own disciplines but who are also open and committed to questioning the sociological biases that seep into science.
[1] From Biology and Society, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary vol. 20 (1994): 21 -42
[2] Kuhns fundamental argument is that all normal science essentially works within a given paradigm and is thus constrained by the boundaries of the very paradigm it works within
[3] The method of Conjecture and Refutation as well as the notion of ‘falsifiability’ were put forth by Karl Popper.
[4] In Popper's opinion theories are not true or false, but rather good or bad. Once a theory has been corroborated it is accepted as the ‘current’ best theory available.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
An Update & A Tag
I finally stopped being a lazy arse and updated my blogger profile, added my email and made a blogroll! Considering this is midterm break and I have basically turned into a slob I am very pleased that I actually managed to get at least this much done.
Also, Edmund S. Phelps won this years Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Which is cool and freaky. He was my macro profs PhD advisor at Columbia and they collaborate on a gazillion papers. My one degree of separation from a Nobel Laureate. I still don’t think very highly of economics though.
Ok, moving on, I have been tagged by Panacea. The task is simple enough – to list the ten most played songs on my iTunes player. So here goes:
Aicha, by Khaled. I love raï music and I absolutely adore this song. It is a million times better than the rehashed version by Outlandish. French and Arabic make for a potent musical combination. Who’d have thunk?
Omkara, from the OST. It’s my favourite track and I loved the way it was used in the movie. Gulzars lyrics are fabulous (as always). He is hands down the best lyricist and poet in the country and he really outdid himself with the songs in Omkara. On the other hand we have Javed Akhtar who has taken to writing stuff like 'Where’s the party tonite?' *Cringe*
Sinnerman, by Nina Simone. I first heard this song (eons ago now) in a Nokia commercial. And that was how I discovered Nina Simone. Oh and I loved that scene in the Thomas Crown Affair where the entire song plays in the background and the police are trying to figure out which of the many, many, many men in bowler hats is Pierce Brosnan. I have always seen repeats of the movie to catch that scene and listen to this song. Fabulous.
The Rising, by Bruce Springsteen. The Boss. Nothing much to say. Except that I think The Rising is his best album and I still can’t believe they gave the grammy to Norah Jones that year!
Rang De Basanti, from the OST. Can A.R. Rahman do anything wrong when he’s in form??
Dicholo, The Constant Gardener OST. Ahh, one of my favourite movies of last year. And I cannot believe Fiennes wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. Though I really shouldn’t have been surprised. (I mean they gave Tommy Lee Jones an Oscar for The Fugitive over Fiennes for Schindlers List. I mean, COME ON!!)
Anyway, back to the song. It’s terribly catchy and was extremely difficult to get track off to download. So for a long time I kept playing it by fast forwarding the copy of the movie I have on my comp to the credits just to listen to it!
Govinda, by Kula Shaker. Hmm this is a bit of surprise. I used to find the song and the video terribly amusing but it slowly grew on me. I think I was listening to it a great deal before my macro exam. Perhaps a subconscious bid for good karma?
Moon River, by Henry Mancini. I know Mancini didn’t sing it. But every time I think Moon River I think Henry Mancini. And Breakfast at Tiffany’s. And Holly Golightly.
Thank You, by Dido. I quote J.D. from Scrubs: "If my heart could write songs they would sound like these".
J'y Suis Jamais Allé, Yann Tiersen from the OST of Amélie. If I ever feel sad or low, I watch Amélie. And I feel better and happier. The soundtrack of the movie reflects that. It’s wonderful and heart warming.
In turn I tag TR, MT, Roswitha and Cyberswami.
Also, Edmund S. Phelps won this years Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Which is cool and freaky. He was my macro profs PhD advisor at Columbia and they collaborate on a gazillion papers. My one degree of separation from a Nobel Laureate. I still don’t think very highly of economics though.
Ok, moving on, I have been tagged by Panacea. The task is simple enough – to list the ten most played songs on my iTunes player. So here goes:
Aicha, by Khaled. I love raï music and I absolutely adore this song. It is a million times better than the rehashed version by Outlandish. French and Arabic make for a potent musical combination. Who’d have thunk?
Omkara, from the OST. It’s my favourite track and I loved the way it was used in the movie. Gulzars lyrics are fabulous (as always). He is hands down the best lyricist and poet in the country and he really outdid himself with the songs in Omkara. On the other hand we have Javed Akhtar who has taken to writing stuff like 'Where’s the party tonite?' *Cringe*
Sinnerman, by Nina Simone. I first heard this song (eons ago now) in a Nokia commercial. And that was how I discovered Nina Simone. Oh and I loved that scene in the Thomas Crown Affair where the entire song plays in the background and the police are trying to figure out which of the many, many, many men in bowler hats is Pierce Brosnan. I have always seen repeats of the movie to catch that scene and listen to this song. Fabulous.
The Rising, by Bruce Springsteen. The Boss. Nothing much to say. Except that I think The Rising is his best album and I still can’t believe they gave the grammy to Norah Jones that year!
Rang De Basanti, from the OST. Can A.R. Rahman do anything wrong when he’s in form??
Dicholo, The Constant Gardener OST. Ahh, one of my favourite movies of last year. And I cannot believe Fiennes wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. Though I really shouldn’t have been surprised. (I mean they gave Tommy Lee Jones an Oscar for The Fugitive over Fiennes for Schindlers List. I mean, COME ON!!)
Anyway, back to the song. It’s terribly catchy and was extremely difficult to get track off to download. So for a long time I kept playing it by fast forwarding the copy of the movie I have on my comp to the credits just to listen to it!
Govinda, by Kula Shaker. Hmm this is a bit of surprise. I used to find the song and the video terribly amusing but it slowly grew on me. I think I was listening to it a great deal before my macro exam. Perhaps a subconscious bid for good karma?
Moon River, by Henry Mancini. I know Mancini didn’t sing it. But every time I think Moon River I think Henry Mancini. And Breakfast at Tiffany’s. And Holly Golightly.
Thank You, by Dido. I quote J.D. from Scrubs: "If my heart could write songs they would sound like these".
J'y Suis Jamais Allé, Yann Tiersen from the OST of Amélie. If I ever feel sad or low, I watch Amélie. And I feel better and happier. The soundtrack of the movie reflects that. It’s wonderful and heart warming.
In turn I tag TR, MT, Roswitha and Cyberswami.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
The one in which Szerelem realises she is royally screwed.
I shouldn’t even be blogging. But after spending the whole morning working on problems like the one below (and that’s an easy one), I desperately need a break.
I have blogged about the pain that is my advanced macroeconomics class. But as of now it’s simply killing me. I have my midterm early next week and I thought it would be ok. Despite that fact that its 40% of my grade. And then at the end of class this week I asked my prof “It’s an open book exam, right?” and he looked at me with raised eyebrows and as if I had gone mad and said “No”. How was I to know??!! He never specified and in all the courses I have done under him the exams have always been open book. Well, that was that.
C and I looked at each other. “Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck.”
Not helping is the fact that there are people in my class who can solve lagrangians mentally. I mean what kind of alien freaks are they?? Anyway, I have till Tuesday to study like mad and pray that this exam doesn’t turn into the unmitigated disaster I have a feeling it will be. So, wish me luck!!!
TR, in response to your comment here, my current love for econs is a grand total of zilch. Partly because I spent the most frustrating last two hours trying to mathematically derive the econometric regression equation for growth. And somewhere in the midst of it realized that Edith Piaf on my ipod was crooning La Vie On Rose. Even the universe was conspiring to mock me. And then, Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien. So not true. What I regret is thinking I am smarter than I actually am and taking a grad school course. GAH!!!
I also ditched M and cancelled our meeting for tomorrow. Because, I explained, having a relaxed conversation is best saved for a time when I don’t have integrals and difference equations floating in front of my eyes.
M: So, next you’ll tell me you saw an indifference curve crossing the road?
Szerelem: That is SO not funny. Do you realize this exam is half my grade??!!
M: What’s the point of doing well in a subject when it turns you into such a paranoid maniac? You are already complaining you don’t have enough time to read. I can imagine you’ll soon start gushing about Jeffrey Sachs instead of Albert Camus.
S: What?? No!! Sachs is an idiot. And undergrad econs was fun. This is different.
M: Well, videogames are fun too and less stressful.
S: I am totally not in the mood to have this conversation again. I need to study.
M: Fine. Run along. Channel your inner geek. I know you can do it.
S: *groans* Can you not mock me??!!!
Before I take off to solve more economics. The New Yorker has a really nice article on string theory and the problems physics is facing now. (Also, read Brian Greene people. He’s brilliant.) C and I were talking about physics in macro class this week. How math is the language of physics. How physicists are driven by a certain sense of ‘beauty’ and ‘elegance’. And as rudimentary as my physics is even I can see the beauty in E = mc2.
It may be my frustration of having spent most of the day working with clucky mathematical equations, but beauty in economics? I just don’t see it.
I have blogged about the pain that is my advanced macroeconomics class. But as of now it’s simply killing me. I have my midterm early next week and I thought it would be ok. Despite that fact that its 40% of my grade. And then at the end of class this week I asked my prof “It’s an open book exam, right?” and he looked at me with raised eyebrows and as if I had gone mad and said “No”. How was I to know??!! He never specified and in all the courses I have done under him the exams have always been open book. Well, that was that.
C and I looked at each other. “Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck.”
Not helping is the fact that there are people in my class who can solve lagrangians mentally. I mean what kind of alien freaks are they?? Anyway, I have till Tuesday to study like mad and pray that this exam doesn’t turn into the unmitigated disaster I have a feeling it will be. So, wish me luck!!!
TR, in response to your comment here, my current love for econs is a grand total of zilch. Partly because I spent the most frustrating last two hours trying to mathematically derive the econometric regression equation for growth. And somewhere in the midst of it realized that Edith Piaf on my ipod was crooning La Vie On Rose. Even the universe was conspiring to mock me. And then, Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien. So not true. What I regret is thinking I am smarter than I actually am and taking a grad school course. GAH!!!
I also ditched M and cancelled our meeting for tomorrow. Because, I explained, having a relaxed conversation is best saved for a time when I don’t have integrals and difference equations floating in front of my eyes.
M: So, next you’ll tell me you saw an indifference curve crossing the road?
Szerelem: That is SO not funny. Do you realize this exam is half my grade??!!
M: What’s the point of doing well in a subject when it turns you into such a paranoid maniac? You are already complaining you don’t have enough time to read. I can imagine you’ll soon start gushing about Jeffrey Sachs instead of Albert Camus.
S: What?? No!! Sachs is an idiot. And undergrad econs was fun. This is different.
M: Well, videogames are fun too and less stressful.
S: I am totally not in the mood to have this conversation again. I need to study.
M: Fine. Run along. Channel your inner geek. I know you can do it.
S: *groans* Can you not mock me??!!!
Before I take off to solve more economics. The New Yorker has a really nice article on string theory and the problems physics is facing now. (Also, read Brian Greene people. He’s brilliant.) C and I were talking about physics in macro class this week. How math is the language of physics. How physicists are driven by a certain sense of ‘beauty’ and ‘elegance’. And as rudimentary as my physics is even I can see the beauty in E = mc2.
It may be my frustration of having spent most of the day working with clucky mathematical equations, but beauty in economics? I just don’t see it.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Economic Thoughts
You’d think that a Nobel Prize winning economist would have had some fabulous brilliant insight that had actually won him that Nobel Prize. Then you go for a lecture and hear stuff like sound institutions and governmental will are very important factors in determining economic growth. (Unsaid: Of course measuring these factors is very difficult so we just ignore them in our models.)
I mean seriously. I don’t need some Nobel Laureate to tell me that. Jeez. No wonder I’m getting fed up with economics.
Anyway, Ill be bitchy and state that the speaker was Michael Spence. Who as M says won the Nobel for stating that people in a market don’t have symmetrical information. In his words "Duh!!"
Also speaking was Paul Romer, whose New Growth Theory I applied to a specific country for my first ever economics paper. I told him that when I met him. And was questioned by my Associate Dean as to what I had said that caused Mr. Romer to grin so broadly. Oh well, he deserved to be flattered. I don’t analyze just anybody’s work. Heh.
I’m not usually so harsh on economics and economists. But a lot of what they say has become terribly redundant. Not to mention the fact that economics research is just pure math and in a conference, well, it’s very hard to present that. So many generalised, common sensical, dumbass statements tend to be made.
I should know about the math. My advanced macro class is driving me nuts. I don’t know what insanity possessed me to take the masters level class. Arghh. All these lagrangians and hamiltonians, perturbations and exploding equations. If I had put in so much effort studying math in my class 12 exams I would probably have topped the CBSE.
How was I to know economics would descend into this?
I mean seriously. I don’t need some Nobel Laureate to tell me that. Jeez. No wonder I’m getting fed up with economics.
Anyway, Ill be bitchy and state that the speaker was Michael Spence. Who as M says won the Nobel for stating that people in a market don’t have symmetrical information. In his words "Duh!!"
Also speaking was Paul Romer, whose New Growth Theory I applied to a specific country for my first ever economics paper. I told him that when I met him. And was questioned by my Associate Dean as to what I had said that caused Mr. Romer to grin so broadly. Oh well, he deserved to be flattered. I don’t analyze just anybody’s work. Heh.
I’m not usually so harsh on economics and economists. But a lot of what they say has become terribly redundant. Not to mention the fact that economics research is just pure math and in a conference, well, it’s very hard to present that. So many generalised, common sensical, dumbass statements tend to be made.
I should know about the math. My advanced macro class is driving me nuts. I don’t know what insanity possessed me to take the masters level class. Arghh. All these lagrangians and hamiltonians, perturbations and exploding equations. If I had put in so much effort studying math in my class 12 exams I would probably have topped the CBSE.
How was I to know economics would descend into this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
