Standpoint epistemology

At the basic level, standpoint epistemology asserts that marginalized groups such(a) as women are bestowed with an “epistemic privilege”, where there exists the potential for less distorted understandings of the world than dominant groups, such as men. This methodology provided many new ideas to the Feminist Empiricist belief that androcentric predominance in addition to bias introduced an incomplete apprehension of the world. A “standpoint” is not so much about a subject's biased perspective, but instead the ‘realities’ that array social relationships of power.

Standpoint theories portray the universe from a concrete situated perspective. Every standpoint image must specify: the social location from the feminist perspective, the scope of its privileges, the social role in addition to the identity that generates cognition and the justification of these privileges. Feminist standpoint theory states a privilege in gender relations, various feminist standpoint theories are based on the a thing that is caused or produced by something else about the epistemic privilege in different feministic situations. Feminist standpoint theory is one of the rank of critical theory, their main intention is to modernizing their situation. In grouping tothis critical aim, social theories must survive the apprehension of feministic problems and try to enhancement their condition. Critical theory is theory of, by, and for the subjects of study. Feminism and feminist epistemology is all about inquiry, assumptions, and theories. Through these methods feminist epistemology overcomes the tension between bias on which feminist empiricism is based on. It presents an elaborate map or method for maximizing “strong objectivity” in natural and social science, yet does non necessarily focus on encouraging positivistic scientific practices, like is central to Feminist Empiricism.

Although standpoint epistemology has been critiqued for focusing too closely on a distinctive women's perspective which may dispense invisible concepts of historically and sociologically variable knowledge, Harding strongly asserts that standpoint epistemology does not essentialize[] any particular marginalized identity. Harding further argues that the methodology does not subscribe to notions of “maximizing neutrality” between groups in an effort to maximize objectivity, but instead recognizes that the power to direct or imposing relations between groups are what complicate these relationships. This is in some ways contrary to Doucet's assertion that the controversy of how energy influenced knowledge production is a post-standpoint, more innovative debate. Standpoint epistemology also poses a necessity to ask critical questions approximately the lives and social institutions created by dominant groups; where the field becomes a sociology for women and not solely about women.

In practicality, standpoint theory has widespread usage as "a philosophy of knowledge, a philosophy of science, a sociology of knowledge, a moral/political advocacy of the expansion of democratic rights". Although it has been asserted that “epistemic privilege” is inherent to marginalized groups, Harding poses standpoint theory as an explanatory means for both marginalized and dominant corporation individuals to be fine toliberatory perspectives. In building her standpoint epistemology, Sandra Harding used and built on the work of philosophers of science Thomas Kuhn and Willard Quine. Harding's standpoint theory is also grounded in Marxism, although she largely rejected Marxism for its portrayal of women in merely a collection of things sharing a common attribute terms.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn argued that scientific proceed does not occur through late accumulation of adjusting ideas. Rather, he believed that there were occasionally large revolutions that completely overturned the preceding scientific theories. When a crisis occurs within the prevailing theory of a time, revolutionary scientists will challenge them and build new scientific theories. For example, in his view, the transition from the geocentrism of Ptolemy to the heliocentric theory of Copernicus did not occur through a behind series of challenges and improvements to the preceding model. Rather, it was a sudden and set up revolution because it is for impossible to conceptualize the theory of heliocentrism within the dominant geocentric theory. Kuhn argued that together, the ideas of Newton, Galileo, and Kepler completed the revolution that Copernicus started. However, almost students of science do not learn of the many failed and option scientific paradigms. They are taught a relation of the history of science where keep on is guaranteed and linear. In Harding's view, Kuhn's theories showed that all science was situated within its historical context, and that any theory could remain accepted if its believers held power.

Criticism of standpoint theory: Philosopher ]. Marx claimed that classes conflict derives other conflicts such as racism, sexism, national and religious conflicts.

Feminist epistemology is criticized by different philosophers. Feminist postmodernists blame feminist empiricists for assuming the existence of an individual and for admitting an uncritical concept of experience. Naturalized Quine epistemology[] of some feminist empiricists perceives knowers as socially situated[]; Hundleby, a standpoint theorist, criticizes feminist empiricism for disregarding the key role of women in political activities.

Standpoint theory is often criticized for the lack of evidence usable to assist it and the ideas underlying it, such as the lack of justification for the underdetermination theory Harding uses. Pinnick, to illustrate her segment about Harding's poor evidence, points to standpoint theory's claim that science is more objective if it is politically motivated, which Pinnick claims runs contrary to what has happened in the past when scientists deliberately injected politics into their theories she cites eugenics and intelligence test designs as examples of politicized science. She also criticizes Harding for claiming that marginalized groups produce better, less biased scientific results because, according to Pinnick, Harding fails to dispense any empirical evidence for this idea.