POPULARITY
2 episodes with helen longino
Ospite della settantatreesima puntata di Illuminismo psichedelico è Jessica Murano, PhD in storia della medicina nonché membro della SISSC (la Società Italiana per lo Studio degli Stati di Coscienza), che ha parlato con Federico di Vita di come si può implementare l'azione della ricerca scientifica attraverso un paradigma di matrice femminista, quello di Helen Longino. Il paradigma di Longino infatti mette in discussione il concetto di Oggettività scientifica, proponendo al suo posto quello di oggettività procedurale, sottolineando l'impossibilità di eliminare le tensioni tra scienza e contesto; teoria e pratica; metodo e prassi scientifica. I paradigmi individuati da Longino applicati alla terapia psichedelica al momento hanno consentito ai ricercatori dell'Imperial College di Londra di includere nella definizione dei risultati dei trial sulla psilocibina i concetti di set e setting, fino a oggi mai presi in considerazione nella definizione dei risultati scientifici.
143 – Neceser Epistemológico – Helen Longino Longino continua explicándolos las consecuencias del empirismo critico contextual o, cientificismo social profundo, para los amigos. PD: Hay una errata en el número de la imágen, pero tenemos que aprender a vivir con los errores. Puedes escucharlo desde la aplicación SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/embed/show/1uobRUSrFJp52FZdcsCOQe?si=68RLeyXWQaW3FLQw8VNwGQ Puedes escucharlo directamente desde IVOOX: https://ar.ivoox.com/es/podcast-educacion-para-jovenes-epistemologia-audio_sq_f1638689_1.html Puedes escucharlo directamente desde YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDaC646HXI5jCnkji4jBtMQ/featured?view_as=subscriber Puedes escucharlo directamente desde GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaXZvb3guY29tL2VkdWNhY2lvbi1wYXJhLWpvdmVuZXMtZXBpc3RlbW9sb2dpYS1hdWRpb19mZ19mMTYzODY4OV9maWx0cm9fMS54bWw&ep=14 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde APPLEPODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/educaci%C3%B3n-para-j%C3%B3venes-epistemolog%C3%ADa-por-audio/id1448671719 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde CASTBOX: https://castbox.fm/channel/Epistem%C3%B3logo-Ebrio-id1929217?country=us Tenemos Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/epistemologoebrio Tenemos Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/epistemologoebrio/ Tenemos Twitter: https://twitter.com/paravano69 ¡Siempre puedes compartirlo o a tu peor enemigo o a tu mejor amigo! SALUD Y BUENAS CIENCIAS #epistemología #filosofía #ciencia #podcast #epistemólogoebrio #neceser #neceserepistemológico
142 – Neceser Epistemológico – Helen Longino Con la coda de la primavera y la cola de los gatos, llegamos con esta magistral conferencia sobre la responsabilidad y la disidencia en la ciencia por parte de Helen Longino. PD: Hay una errata en el número de la imágen, pero tenemos que aprender a vivir con los errores. Puedes escucharlo desde la aplicación SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/embed/show/1uobRUSrFJp52FZdcsCOQe?si=68RLeyXWQaW3FLQw8VNwGQ Puedes escucharlo directamente desde IVOOX: https://ar.ivoox.com/es/podcast-educacion-para-jovenes-epistemologia-audio_sq_f1638689_1.html Puedes escucharlo directamente desde YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDaC646HXI5jCnkji4jBtMQ/featured?view_as=subscriber Puedes escucharlo directamente desde GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaXZvb3guY29tL2VkdWNhY2lvbi1wYXJhLWpvdmVuZXMtZXBpc3RlbW9sb2dpYS1hdWRpb19mZ19mMTYzODY4OV9maWx0cm9fMS54bWw&ep=14 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde APPLEPODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/educaci%C3%B3n-para-j%C3%B3venes-epistemolog%C3%ADa-por-audio/id1448671719 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde CASTBOX: https://castbox.fm/channel/Epistem%C3%B3logo-Ebrio-id1929217?country=us Tenemos Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/epistemologoebrio Tenemos Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/epistemologoebrio/ Tenemos Twitter: https://twitter.com/paravano69 ¡Siempre puedes compartirlo o a tu peor enemigo o a tu mejor amigo! SALUD Y BUENAS CIENCIAS #epistemología #filosofía #ciencia #podcast #epistemólogoebrio #neceser #neceserepistemológico
In this episode, I talk with Robin Zheng, Senior Lecturer at the University of Glasgow, about connections between social practices and knowing in premodern Indian philosophy and contemporary feminist philosophy. Further Resources: Robin Zheng's website: https://www.robin-zheng.me/ Helen Longino: https://philosophy.stanford.edu/people/helen-longino Miranda Fricker: https://www.mirandafricker.com/ Christy Dotson: https://lsa.umich.edu/philosophy/people/faculty/kldotson.html Debating: https://sutrasandstuff.wordpress.com/2020/11/23/debating/ Questions of King Milinda, Book II (Rhys Davids): https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3504.htm Music Credits: Brittle Rille by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3460-brittle-rille License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/malcolm-keating/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/malcolm-keating/support
In this episode, Dr. Tina Sikka, a Lecturer in Media and Cultural Studies at Newcastle University and author of Climate Technology, Gender, and Justice, joins us to read from Helen Longino‘s ‘Can There Be A Feminist Science’ (1987). Tina introduces us to Longino’s central question about what makes a science feminist, guides us through Longino’s rejection of […]
How does psychology's response to the replication crisis fit into a broader history of science? In this episode we discuss a paper by sociologists Jeremy Freese and David Peterson that takes on that question. Are "epistemic activists" in psychology redefining what it means to be objective in science? Does a focus on reforming incentives mean we view scientists as economic actors for whom motives and dispositions are irrelevant? Does the last decade's growth in meta-research mean that meta-analysis is the new arbiter of objectivity? Does a shift to a systems perspective on science have parallels in other systemic analyses of institutions? Plus: We answer a letter about whether raising new concerns when you're reviewing a revision is obligatory, a jerk move, or both. Links: Freese & Peterson (2018). The Emergence of Statistical Objectivity: Changing Ideas of Epistemic Vice and Virtue in Science. DOI, full text Twitter discussion about positionality statements in quant papers White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism, by Robin DiAngelo Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, by Helen Longino. The Black Goat is hosted by Sanjay Srivastava, Alexa Tullett, and Simine Vazire. Find us on the web at www.theblackgoatpodcast.com, on Twitter at @blackgoatpod, on Facebook at facebook.com/blackgoatpod/, and on instagram at @blackgoatpod. You can email us at letters@theblackgoatpodcast.com. You can subscribe to us on iTunes or Stitcher. Our theme music is Peak Beak by Doctor Turtle, available on freemusicarchive.org under a Creative Commons noncommercial attribution license. Our logo was created by Jude Weaver. This is episode 81. It was recorded on July 22, 2020.
Interview de Quentin Ruyant , docteur en philosophie des sciences. Le blog de l’auteur : http://philosophiedessciences.blogspot.com Liens cités dans l’épisode : “Empiricism all the way down”: a defense of the value-neutrality of science in response to Helen Longino’s contextual empiricism https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/posc.2006.14.2.189 FÉMINISME – Priscille Touraille, Hommes grands, femmes petites https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZfSPBF4Bs4 Priscille Touraille, Hommes grands, femmes […]
There is often resistance to the claim from feminist philosophy that knowledge is somehow "socially constructed", but what does that actually mean and is it really all that radical? Sometimes, our social situations or experiences dictate the kind of evidence we are likely to encounter and put us in a better position than others to know what's going on around us. Other times, these experiences can impact what we consider to be good evidence or what a community considers to be justified in the first place. Or maybe here's a simpler way to frame some of these ideas: when it comes to COVID-19 for example, who do you think knows best about what health care workers really need to do their jobs, CEOs or those on the front lines? Links and Resources * Natalie Alana Ashton (https://nataliealanaashton.weebly.com/) * Robin McKenna (https://robinmckenna.weebly.com/) * The paper (https://philpapers.org/archive/ASHSFE.pdf) * Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism by Paul Boghossian (https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199287185.001.0001/acprof-9780199287185) * Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/feminism-epistemology/) * Uses of value judgments in science: A general argument, with lessons from a case study of feminist research on divorce by Elizabeth Anderson (https://www.jstor.org/stable/3810929) * Nancy Hartsock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Hartsock) * Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry by Helen Longino (https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Science_as_Social_Knowledge.html?id=S8fIbD19BisC) * Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives by Sandra Harding (http://cscs.res.in/dataarchive/textfiles/textfile.2009-11-24.4430260926/file) Paper Quotes Our aim is not so much to defend these feminist epistemologies – although we think they can be defended – but rather to urge that those who defend the classical conception of knowledge have focused on the wrong target. The kind of social constructivism present in (some) feminist epistemologies is much more modest and plausible than the radical social constructivist view Boghossian considers and rejects as incoherent. So, it’s not accurate to say that feminist epistemologists allow social factors to trump truth. They don’t dogmatically assert that justication lines up with beliefs which complement feminist aims, but instead show that certain of these feminism-complementing beliefs t with the evidence as well as, or better than, other beliefs, and that these have other (epistemic) benets to boot. Special Guests: Natalie Alana Ashton and Robin Mckenna.
What is science? Who gets to do it? Who gets shut out? Why should we trust it? What counts as evidence? Who decides? Why do we care so much about it? Is science just another tool of oppression or is it a tool to discover truth? Episode 2 of our Foundations miniseries is all about science in broad strokes. Our hosts share what it is about science that drives them and, despite its abuses, how scientific literacy has the potential to bring us all together. Support this podcast on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/DowntheWormholepodcast More information at https://www.downthewormhole.com/ produced by Zack Jacksonmusic by Zack Jackson and Barton Willis --------- Notes: Uncovering gender bias in scientific conferences https://biaswatchneuro.com/ 50 years of the “Draw a Scientist Test” https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/what-we-learn-from-50-years-of-asking-children-to-draw-scientists/556025/ Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry by Helen Longino https://amzn.to/31B3FZh Ian’s pictures of the eclipse https://ianbinns.com/2019/08/13/sinai-and-synapses-solar-eclipse-and-a-new-podcast/
On Episode 55, Nick chats with Helen Longino, the Clarence Irving Lewis Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, about her early upbringing and bohemian mindset, learning how to bridge methods in analytic philosophy with history and contextual factors, her activity in anti-war and women's liberation movements in the late 1960s and 1970s, early feminist scholarship, the resistance she and others faced in establishing Women’s Studies programs, and her most influential works on the social dimensions of scientific knowledge.
More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/truth-and-relativism. Is there such a thing as absolute truth, independent of who is doing the thinking, and where? Or is truth relative to backgrounds, cultures, creeds, times, and places? Can it be true that what is right for me isn't right for you? John and Ken search for truth with Helen Longino, Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies at the University of Minnesota.
Where does the physical end and the metaphysical begin? This week's show is about scientists who use traditional methods to investigate untraditional questions. We start in Special Collections of the Stanford Libraries, with a brief history of para-psychology and spiritualism at Stanford, and continue with the story of three contemporary researchers who study psychic phenomena. Today's one-hour journey reveals some of the social aspects that come into play in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Host: Bonnie Swift Producer: Bonnie Swift Featured: Margaret Kimball, Robert Jahn, Brenda Dunne, Helen Longino and Dean Radin Music: Noah Burbank, Ambika, Jimi Hendrix, Thelonius Monk, and Frank Zappa and the Mothers Featuring: Margaret Kimball More info at:http://web.stanford.edu/group/storytelling/cgi-bin/joomla/index.php/shows/season-1/157-episode-114.html
What explains human behavior? It is standard to consider answers from the perspective of a dichotomy between nature and nurture, with most researchers today in agreement that it is both. For Helen Longino, Clarence Irving Lewis Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, the “both” answer misses the fact that the nature/nurture divide is itself problematic. In her groundbreaking book, Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality (University of Chicago Press) Longino looks closely at a variety of scientific approaches to the study of human aggression and sexuality to argue that there is no one right way to divide nature from nurture within the scientific approaches to the study of behavior, and that the nature/nurture dichotomy reinforces and reflects an undue emphasis on explanations that focus on the dispositions of individuals rather than those that look at patterns of frequency and distribution of behavior within populations. She reveals the distinct and incompatible ways these different approaches define the factors that explain behavior, how these different explanatory approaches are related, and how the bias towards particular types of explanation is reflected in the way the scientific findings are publicly disseminated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What explains human behavior? It is standard to consider answers from the perspective of a dichotomy between nature and nurture, with most researchers today in agreement that it is both. For Helen Longino, Clarence Irving Lewis Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, the “both” answer misses the fact that the nature/nurture divide is itself problematic. In her groundbreaking book, Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality (University of Chicago Press) Longino looks closely at a variety of scientific approaches to the study of human aggression and sexuality to argue that there is no one right way to divide nature from nurture within the scientific approaches to the study of behavior, and that the nature/nurture dichotomy reinforces and reflects an undue emphasis on explanations that focus on the dispositions of individuals rather than those that look at patterns of frequency and distribution of behavior within populations. She reveals the distinct and incompatible ways these different approaches define the factors that explain behavior, how these different explanatory approaches are related, and how the bias towards particular types of explanation is reflected in the way the scientific findings are publicly disseminated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What explains human behavior? It is standard to consider answers from the perspective of a dichotomy between nature and nurture, with most researchers today in agreement that it is both. For Helen Longino, Clarence Irving Lewis Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, the “both” answer misses the fact that the nature/nurture divide is itself problematic. In her groundbreaking book, Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality (University of Chicago Press) Longino looks closely at a variety of scientific approaches to the study of human aggression and sexuality to argue that there is no one right way to divide nature from nurture within the scientific approaches to the study of behavior, and that the nature/nurture dichotomy reinforces and reflects an undue emphasis on explanations that focus on the dispositions of individuals rather than those that look at patterns of frequency and distribution of behavior within populations. She reveals the distinct and incompatible ways these different approaches define the factors that explain behavior, how these different explanatory approaches are related, and how the bias towards particular types of explanation is reflected in the way the scientific findings are publicly disseminated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology
What explains human behavior? It is standard to consider answers from the perspective of a dichotomy between nature and nurture, with most researchers today in agreement that it is both. For Helen Longino, Clarence Irving Lewis Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, the “both” answer misses the fact that the nature/nurture divide is itself problematic. In her groundbreaking book, Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality (University of Chicago Press) Longino looks closely at a variety of scientific approaches to the study of human aggression and sexuality to argue that there is no one right way to divide nature from nurture within the scientific approaches to the study of behavior, and that the nature/nurture dichotomy reinforces and reflects an undue emphasis on explanations that focus on the dispositions of individuals rather than those that look at patterns of frequency and distribution of behavior within populations. She reveals the distinct and incompatible ways these different approaches define the factors that explain behavior, how these different explanatory approaches are related, and how the bias towards particular types of explanation is reflected in the way the scientific findings are publicly disseminated.
What explains human behavior? It is standard to consider answers from the perspective of a dichotomy between nature and nurture, with most researchers today in agreement that it is both. For Helen Longino, Clarence Irving Lewis Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, the “both” answer misses the fact that the nature/nurture divide is itself problematic. In her groundbreaking book, Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality (University of Chicago Press) Longino looks closely at a variety of scientific approaches to the study of human aggression and sexuality to argue that there is no one right way to divide nature from nurture within the scientific approaches to the study of behavior, and that the nature/nurture dichotomy reinforces and reflects an undue emphasis on explanations that focus on the dispositions of individuals rather than those that look at patterns of frequency and distribution of behavior within populations. She reveals the distinct and incompatible ways these different approaches define the factors that explain behavior, how these different explanatory approaches are related, and how the bias towards particular types of explanation is reflected in the way the scientific findings are publicly disseminated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What explains human behavior? It is standard to consider answers from the perspective of a dichotomy between nature and nurture, with most researchers today in agreement that it is both. For Helen Longino, Clarence Irving Lewis Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, the “both” answer misses the fact that the... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
What explains human behavior? It is standard to consider answers from the perspective of a dichotomy between nature and nurture, with most researchers today in agreement that it is both. For Helen Longino, Clarence Irving Lewis Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University, the “both” answer misses the fact that the nature/nurture divide is itself problematic. In her groundbreaking book, Studying Human Behavior: How Scientists Investigate Aggression and Sexuality (University of Chicago Press) Longino looks closely at a variety of scientific approaches to the study of human aggression and sexuality to argue that there is no one right way to divide nature from nurture within the scientific approaches to the study of behavior, and that the nature/nurture dichotomy reinforces and reflects an undue emphasis on explanations that focus on the dispositions of individuals rather than those that look at patterns of frequency and distribution of behavior within populations. She reveals the distinct and incompatible ways these different approaches define the factors that explain behavior, how these different explanatory approaches are related, and how the bias towards particular types of explanation is reflected in the way the scientific findings are publicly disseminated. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
