Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-14T20:34:48.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on Ruth Ginzberg's Paper

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Neal Jahren
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ruth Ginzberg has proposed a model for a gynocentric science that might constitute a paradigm as described by Kuhn. The author argues that Ginzberg's model lacks certain essential features of paradigms as described by Kuhn. The differences may stem from more fundamental disagreements between them, including the possibility that some essential features of Ginzberg's gynocentric science place it outside the intended scope of Kuhn's analysis.

Type
Comment/Reply
Information
Hypatia , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 1990 , pp. 171 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ginzberg, Ruth. 1987. Uncovering gynocentric science. Hypatia 2 (3): 89–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox. 1983. Gender and science. In Discovering reality: Feminist perspectives on epistemology, metaphysics, methodology, and philosophy of science. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merril B., eds. Vol. 161. Boston: D. Reidel, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar