UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON

SPRING 2016

PHIL 560 A: Seminar in Philosophy of Science

Objectivity, in the ideal and in practice

Instructor: Professor Alison Wylie Office hours: Wednesdays, 3:00-5:00, Savery M396
Class meetings: Thursdays 3:30-5:20, Savery 408 or by appointment: aw26@uw.edu
Course website: https://canvas.uw.edu/courses/1043337

Seminar Description

Of all the epistemic ideals that have come in for critical reassessment in recent decades, objectivity is perhaps most sharply
contested. What counts as objectivity has been shown to have a history, to be contingent and changeable depending on context,
interest, and the specific types of epistemic failings it is meant to counteract, and sometimes to mask the operation of the very
interests researchers are meant to transcend in the name of objectivity. Some have urged that we give up talk of objectivity
altogether while others take a deflationary approach, disaggregating objectivity into a family of loosely related epistemic virtues.
Still others urge a pragmatic turn, focusing attention on procedural norms by which objectivity is appraised. One thing everyone
agrees on is that ideals of objectivity carry immense normative weight in scientific contexts as well as in public debate.

With a wealth of philosophical and historical research now in hand that calls into question the viability of conventional
conceptions of objectivity that equate it with transcendence of context and require that scientific inquiry be value-free, the aim of
this seminar is to take stock of this ideal and assess what is at issue in debates that turn on claims of objectivity. The anchoring
texts for the seminar present three different responses to critiques of aperspectival ideals of objectivity. In Objectivity (2007)
Lorraine Daston and Peter Galison present a rich social history of the conceptual palimpsest that has taken shape in the shifting
contexts that have defined what counts as scientific inquiry since the 18th century. And in Science, Truth and Democracy
(Kitcher 2001) and The Fate of Knowledge (Longino 2002), Philip Kitcher and Helen Longino develop closely argued
philosophical reassessments of the terms of debate given social/historical and contextualist critiques that have reframed
philosophical thinking about science since the 1970s.

Kitcher will be giving the 2016 Stice Lecture in the second week of the quarter, so we begin with his appraisal of the
philosophical landscape. We then turn to Daston and Galisons history of objectivity, and we close the quarter with discussion of
Longinos proceduralist account and a complementary set of readings that articulate arguments for thoroughly contextualist,
pragmatic accounts of objectivity: the claims for strong objectivity advanced by standpoint theorists, and for conceptualizing
objectivity in terms of trust.

Texts
Available at the bookstore:
Lorraine Daston & Peter Galison, Objectivity (Zone Books, 2007).
Philip Kitcher, Science Truth and Democracy (Oxford University Press 2001).
Helen E. Longino, The Fate of Knowledge (Princeton University Press 2002).
All other readings are available on Canvas.

Learning objectives
My central goals for this seminar are that you should come away with the following:
Content knowledge of a range of positions on objectivity that have been influential in philosophical and public debate
about the epistemic status of science;
Skills of conceptual analysis relevant for disembedding assumptions about ideals of objectivity that underpin claims
about the goals of scientific inquiry, the role of social values in science, and the credibility and authority of scientific
knowledge; in contexts of practice and public debate as well as philosophical and social/historical scholarship.
Insights about how these assumptions configure research practice and philosophical accounts ofscientific inquiry in
your areas of research interest or expertise.
Requirements

This is a reading-intensive seminar; the requirements emphasize close critical analysis of the texts assigned for the weekly
seminar meetings. In addition to reading responses and an in-class presentation you are required to write a thesis-drive term
paper in which you develop an analysis of ideals of objectivity as these figure in your primary area of research interest.

Seminar participation
Active, informed participation in seminar discussion is an essential component of the course.
10% of the final grade

Seminar presentations
Each week, from Week 4 through Week 9, presentation groups will be responsible for initiating seminar discussion. Plan on
giving an analytic (rather than descriptive) presentation on a closely specified set of issues raised by the assigned readings. This
is an opportunity to raise questions about puzzling concepts and the context of debate to which authors are responding, as well
as to assess the authors arguments. It is also an opportunity to appraise these concepts and arguments in light of examples of
research practice or debate drawn from your own areas of interest and expertise.
The presentation schedule will be set up in the second week of classes.
Each presentation group is required to pre-circulate a short handout outlining the focal issues and examples you will
discuss by 5:00 pm on the Wednesday before your presentation.
20% of the final grade

Reading Responses
Everyone is required to post at least five reading responses during the quarter. These should be one to two paragraphs long,
and should focus on a particular issue, concept, or argument that you find intriguing or problematic and in need of explication. As
with the seminar presentations, treat these reading responses as an opportunity to raise questions and introduce examples from
your areas of research interest that you would like to discuss in the seminar.
Everyone is required to post a response to set questions in the 2nd and 10th week.
Choose any three other weeks in which to post, except for the week of your in-class presentation.
Posts are due by 5:00 pm Wednesday before the seminar meeting when the reading on which you post will be
discussed.
Everyone is urged to read these posts; come to class prepared to discuss them. Online comments are welcome!
20% of the final grade

Term paper
Your final assignment is a thesis-driven essay in which you analyze and appraise one of the conceptions of objectivity
proposed or contested by the authors represented on the seminar reading list. Consider identifying a context-specific debate that
turns on claims about objectivity and addressing questions such as these: What concept(s) of objectivity are at issue? How do
they stand up to scrutiny informed by a selection of the assigned readings on objectivity? If the concept-in-use is plausible,
explain why; if not, what would be a more plausible norm of justification or basis for appraising credibility?
Your paper should be 12 to 15 pages long (3000-3750 words).
It is due at 5:00 pm on Thursday, June 9th
50% of the final grade

Course Policies
Please see the summary, appended to this syllabus, of policies relating to grading, incompletes and academic conduct relevant
to this course, as well as university-wide policies and resources for students.
 PHIL 560: SEMINAR IN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE
Spring 2016: Objectivity

SYLLABUS

D&G = Daston and Galison, Objectivity (2007)

Kitcher STD = Science, Truth and Democracy (2001)
Longino Fate = The Fate of Knowledge (2002)
Background: optional readings intended as resources for in-class presentations and term papers.

Week 1 | March 31: Introduction to the seminar

Week 2 | April 6-8: Philip Kitcher week!

April 6, 7:00-8:30 pm: Stice Lecture by Philip Kitcher, Progress in the Sciences and the Arts, Kane Hall 220.

April 7: Philip Kitcher visits the seminar

Kitcher STD: Part I, The Search for Truth; focus on chapters 3-6.
Background: Read at least one of the following reviews and/or search out a review not listed.
Simon, J. (2006) The Proper Ends of Science, Philosophy of Science 73.2: 194-214.
Bluhm, R. (2012) Book Review: Kitchers Science in a Democratic Society, Philosophy, Science & Law, Vol 12.
Strawson, G. (2002) Scientific Americans, New York Times, Book Reviews (January 20): 20.
Wolpert, L. (2002) Unpersuasive thoughts and unhelpful ideas, Science 295 (25 January): 633.
Required reading response: Everyone post a response to the first section of STD in which you pose a question for
discussion with Kitcher when he meets with the seminar.

April 8, 3:30-5:30: Philosophy Colloquium, Philip Kitcher, Pragmatism, Truth and Progress, Savery Hall 264.

Week 3 | April 14: Well-ordered science

Kitcher STD: Part II, The Claims of Democracy; focus on chapters 10-12 and 14.
Background: Kitcher, P. (2011) Well ordered Science in Science in a Democratic Society, pp. 105-137, New York:
Prometheus.

Week 4 | April 21: Research in an imperfect world

Anderson, E. (2006) The Epistemology of Democracy, Episteme 3.1-2: 8-22.
Brown, M. B. (2004) The Political Philosophy of Science Policy, Minerva 42: 77-95.
Background: Rehg, W. (2011) Evaluating Complex Collaborative Expertise: The Case of Climate Change,
Argumentation 25: 385-400.

Week 5 | April 28: Contextual and historical contingency

D&G: Prologue and chapters I-III; focus on Mechanical Objectivity, pp. 115-190.
Hacking, I. (1999) Why Ask What? in The Social Construction of What?, pp. 1-34.
Background: Daston, L. (1992) Objectivity and the Escape from Perspective, Social Studies of Science 22: 597- 618.

Week 6 | May 5: Trouser words

D & G: chapters IV-VII; focus on Trained Judgment and Representation to Presentation, pp. 309-415.
Hacking, I. (2015) Lets Not Talk about Objectivity, in Padovani, Richardson and Tsou (eds.), Objectivity in
Science, pp. 19-34, Dordrecht: Springer.
Background: Csiszar, A. (2015) Objectivities in Print, in Padovani, Richardson and Tsou (eds.), Objectivity in Science,
pp. 145-165, Dordrecht: Springer.
Week 7 | May 12: The rational-social dichotomy
Longino Fate: chapters 1-4; focus on Kitcher section in chapter 3, pp. 51-67; and Disassembling the Rational-
Social Dichotomy, pp. 124-144.
Background:
Douglas, H. (2000) Inductive Risk and Values in Science, Philosophy of Science 67: 559-579.
Intemann, K. (2005) Feminism, Underdetermination, Values in Science, Philosophy of Science 72: 1001-1012.
Elliott, K. C. and D. J. McKaughan (2009) How Values in Scientific Discovery and Pursuit Alter Theory Appraisal
Philosophy of Science 76: 598-611.

Week 8 | May 19: Procedural objectivity

Longino Fate: chapters 6-9; focus on Socializing Knowledge, pp. 124-145.
Background:
Review the exchange between Longino and Kitcher in Philosophy of Science (2002) 69: 549-577.

May 19, 7:00-8:30 pm: Katz Lecture, What Knowers Know Well: Why Feminism Matters to Archaeology, Kane Hall 210.

Week 9 | May 26: Strong objectivity

Harding, S. (1993) What Is Strong Objectivity?, in Alcoff and Potter (eds.), Feminist Epistemologies, pp. 49-82,
New York: Routledge.
Collins, P. H. (1991) Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought,
in Fonow and Cook (eds.) Beyond Methodology, pp. 35-58, Indianapolis IN: Indiana University Press.
Perspective, Feminist Studies 14.3: 575-599.
Wylie, A. (2015) A Plurality of Pluralisms: Collaborative Practice in Archaeology, in Padovani, Richardson and
Tsou (eds.), Objectivity in Science, pp. 189-210, Dordrecht: Springer.
Background:
Haraway, D. (1988) Situated Knowledges The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of
Partial
Lloyd, E. A. (1995) Objectivity and the Double Standard for Feminist Epistemologies, Synthese 104.3: 351-381.
Wylie, A. (2012) Standpoint Matters: Feminist Philosophy of Science, Pacific Division Presidential
Address, Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 86.2: 47-76.

Week 10 | June 2: Final thoughts

Scheman, N. (2001/2011) Epistemology Resuscitated: Objectivity as Trustworthiness, in Tuana and Morgen
(eds.), Engendering Rationalities, pp. 23-52, New York: SUNY Press.
Grasswick, H. (2014) Climate Change Science and Responsible Trust, Hypatia 29.3: 541-557.
Melo-Martn, I. and K. Intemann (2011) Feminist Resources for Biomedical Research: Lessons from HPV
Vaccines, Hypatia 26.1: 80-101.
Background:
Howes, M. (2015) Objectivity, Intellectual Virtues, and Community, in Padovani, Richardson and Tsou (eds.),
Objectivity in Science, pp. 173-188, Dordrecht: Springer.

Required reading response: Post a retrospective reading response in these questions: Should we stop talking about
objectivity? If yes, what are the alternatives? If no, how should we talk about it and/or how is it best conceptualized?

Term paper due: online by 5:00 pm, Tuesday, June 7