No subject

hardness, softness and being taken serious has a lot to do with gender. =
Literacy, as a woman's profession has been underfunded and we have =
historically been encouraged to do some of the work for free, as volunteers=
. Now, with the idea that we want the field to be taken more seriously, we =
need to de-feminize it by doing serious, hard, manly scientific research =
instead of soft, femenine, not serious research (I'll be renewing my =
membership to Gold's Gym).=20

Having presented an argument about gender and our field, let me explore =
the differences between hard and soft science. The historical implication =
is that hard research was the product of reason and soft research was the =
product of intuition, again corresponding to the male and female realms. =
Of course, hard, rational, scientific research relied on mathematics and =
statistics to demonstrate hypotheses, and since numbers do not lie and =
have a universal, objective character, then, so does the hard research =
that they represent. However, hard science is not about numbers, but about =
what the numbers represent. Ultimately, the numbers represent questions, =
answers to the questions, and observations by humans which are re-interpret=
ed into numbers. The question is, what guarantees that the re-interpretatio=
n of language into numbers is objective and rational instead of subjective =
and intuitive. The only possible answer that applies here is that the =
researcher has a direct line to god and through this direct line, he can =
be sure that his interpretation of the language into a number is the only =
correct one. Of course, we all know that this is not the case. Ultimately, =
the researcher's questions and interpretations are shaped by the paradigm =
that s/he belongs to and by the social-cultural forces that shape the =
meaning of what s/he hears. Scientific paradigms were not created by god, =
but by groups of humans contesting ideological spaces in a struggle for =
power. So, in essence, the hard scientist's research is the result of his =
intuition of what an observation means, or the intuition of a group of =
people as to how truth could be arrived at, and the ability of these =
people to hegemonize their idea into a dominant paradigm. In fact, most =
people forget that science does not prove anything but it does not =
provides sufficient evidence to dis-prove.=20

We are being asked to come up with serious scientific research and hard =
science to support knowledge, as if this would guarantee its truthfulness =
or its validity. In fact, it does neither. Tom comments that some of us =
have dwelled in philosophy of science but not in conducting scientific =
research. It is possible that philosophers of science understand the =
limitations of   hard science and do not feel that it is the way to prove =
everything. On the other hand, herd, oops..., I mean hard scientists,  who =
do not understand philosophy and the fact that they belong to a paradigm, =
believe that the only way to arrive to truth is through hard scientific =
research.=20

The question is, should we validate our field through hard scientific =
research, or argue that there are other ways to validate our work. =
Katherine argues that we should ask our teachers and students for their =
perceptions, something that we never do.  Should we strive to recognize =
the work of our teachers and students and validate their opinios, or shall =
we consider them invalid because they do not fall in the category of hard, =
scientific reasoning.  What do you all think?

Andres=20