Scientist :: essays research papers

Scientists and the products of their work ar far from neutral. Rather than embodying disinterest, scientists are inextricably attached to the existing distribution of interests and power. White, male scientists over the centuries catch attempted to use science as a medium for all their findings, which inevitably support their private beliefs. In my experience, scientists are extremely intelligent, but particularly one-sided. Hearing the discourses scientist and neutral in the same sentence disturbs me--after all, scientists have tried to prove an countless amount of times that blacks are innately less intelligent then whites, and that women are innately weaker and possess less natural ability in maths and science than men do . Ruth Hubbard, in her essay Science, Facts and Feminism, explains that, as scientists, our job is to generate facts that help people understand nature. Websters dictionary defines the word scientist as one who studies natural science. Scientists seek kn owledge from Mother Nature, which David Barash views as sexist, to understand many things including the certain roles genders play in society. Similar to these science critics, I believe trying to figure out and define roles based on our biological make-up is immoral. It causes conflicts and biases that account for the separation between genders.Hubbard argues that the ideology of womans nature that is invoked at these times would have us believe that a womans capacity to become pregnant leaves her always physically disable in comparison with men. This ideology, supported by male scientists, has affected the roles of women in society and the workplace. It hinders womens access to employment and influences some to believe that their place in society is at home (based on nature). Other scientists have also tried to prove that womens disproportionate contributions to childcare and homecare are biologically programmed because women have a greater biological investment in children then men do. My view on this assumption is that the cause of the disproportionate contributions is psychologically, rather than biologically, determined. Fathers might be more sensitive to their children than mothers, and vice versa, proving that scientists point about biological investment is not only obscure, but also invalid. I find no neutrality in that argument, nor in most of their cases.Scientists could be more neutral if they actually tried to provide conclusive evidence for some of their findings. Keller stated, The net result is that scientists are probably less reflective of the tacit assumption that guide their reasoning than any other intellectuals of the modern age.