Author： Harding Sandra
Publisher： Routledge Ltd
ISSN： 1466-4372
Source： Feminist Economics, Vol.5, Iss.3, 1999-11, pp. : 127-133
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
Tony Lawson makes a compelling case that it is only naive realism that feminist social scientists and philosophers need to avoid, not any and all realist arguments. However, he leaves mysterious, on the one hand, why so many feminists have preferred epistemological to ontological arguments and, on the other hand, why naive realism, which is indeed problematic, can appear to be a good scientific/epistemic strategy. The essay below tries to demystify these phenomena, notes a possible misleading aspect of his use of the term "epistemological relativism", and argues for a somewhat more limited value of the ontological argument he proposes for standpoint epistemologies.
Related content
Access to resources
Recommend
A Response to the Claim 'There is no Problem for Transcendental Realism Here'
Review of Political Economy, Vol. 13, Iss. 1, 2001-01 ,pp. :
Off the Mark: Response to Kaufman's Evolution of Strategic HRM
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Vol. 54, Iss. 3, 2015-05 ,pp. :
Cambridge Economics, Heterodoxy and Ontology: An Interview with Tony Lawson
By Dunn Stephen
Review of Political Economy, Vol. 21, Iss. 3, 2009-07 ,pp. :