Talk:Criticism of science

851:

but I will contact him. Does anyone have any objection to moving this page away from anti-intellectualism and anti-science to a constructive criticism of Science? Please comment. I read the reference to divination and I agree it is a stretch (the rolling bones is not a good analogy to Scientific Method, IMHO). I'm not sure that the creator of this page intended that but will ask him. If he is not willing to move this page in the direction of a rational and objective discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of Science, then there is nothing I can do. I noticed that under Philosophy of Science there is a subheading "Critiques of the Scientific Method." This may be a better place to add what I have in mind, i.e., examination of philosophic underpinnings and assumptions of Science in a way NOT to be confused with Anti-Science or Anti-Intellectualism.

1694:

feminist authors about science or which contain significant stuff about feminist views on science. It will take me some time to wade through them all. But the same themes tend to crop up fairly often. My list above is entirely provisional and with some friendly collaboration it can easily be knocked into better shape; its not precious to me but just helps us to make a start. I presume people will want clarity and brevity for this section and hence the bullet points to start us off. It is by no means offered as a definitive final statement but just a few ideas for us to play with. On top of that we also need to post some responses to the feminist ideas and why some miainstream scientists (male) disagree or dismiss their points. This would be for balance. In any case, we can't even start to edit this until the protection is lifted.

1219:

where is the undue weight? There are dozens of sources on this topic; of course they mostly give 'a feminist perspective,' because that is what 'a feminist critique of science' must ipso fact BE! Do you object to a physicist's view of physics? I think not. There are many online sources, including Stanford encyclopedia and I have about 30 texts on the subject. If you are going to start nitpicking about which sources you accept as reliable, then this is going to become a very long and a very tedious job. Please go ahead and enlighten me, line by line, where the issues are. I shall be assuming you both know this subject well, and know what you are talking about. thankyou

2084:

and thus argues that the sexist and racist ideologies of Western society are embedded within Western science. Harding provides a critical examination of the various feminist approaches to science, and refines her epistemological standpoint. Nancy Tuana's collection of essays, which originally appeared in two special issues of Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, examines the relationship between feminism and science. These essays focus upon two themes: feminist theories of science, and case studies of gender biases in science. In addition, Tuana provides an excellent bibliography of feminism and science." (Arne Hessenbruch (Ed),

1663:

hiding behind a smokescreen of "wiki procedures" and what "we" do. It should be a requirement to actually study the subject before arrogantly choosing to edit an article. You demonstrate once again your lamentable knowledge of this topic, so why not back off and do us all a favour? Let people who know the subject edit the article rather than have to suffer so-called editors who simply go round deleting anything they do not like. That is not collaborative editing or following procedures, it is just causing problems for sincere editors who have valid contributions to make.

2340:"There is a strong pattern of gender segregation in this predominantly male field. Male researchers have focused almost exclusively on stereotypically male activities, concentrating on mammoth and bison kill sites, the remains of technologically sophisticated hunting tools, etc.Women in the field are not found in these core research areas; instead, they work on “domestic” sites, temporary blades, and flake tools associated with women, often focusing on the way their edges wear down.This work has been almost completely ignored." p.148 1198:

sentence is synthesis. Some of the references are primary and the others are from a feminist perspective. We need some good independent secondary sources. The whole section "Language in Science" is far to long and gives undue weight to this point. It is best to start again. As an admin, I could just remove the material and protect the article to prevent further edits, but I am hoping that discussion can start here in a sensible way that will lead to progress. --

266: 245: 1090:

but pro both. However, the natural strengths of science, that is simplification and excluding certain measurable facts or other information, that which gives it so much descriptive power can and does at times become a weakness. As a antidote for this weakness all I propose is to make people who read this article aware that there are certain inherent weaknesses, not to undermine science, but to make it stronger by describing the limits of science.--

217: 953:

both this situation and my interpretations. Even though I try to separate my biases from all things policy (and I don't particularly have any real feelings on this matter), I do not think it otherwise fair for me to be explaining these policies without such explanations being reviewed on the off chance I've unintentionally allowed any bias I may have to slip into my interpretations. I have left a non-biased message on both admins' pages

1986:

too focussed on one theme of feminist science studies... It's heavy on the demographic metrics, maybe some more info could be added on feminist challenges to theoretical frameworks currently taken as the standard in science. The feminist philosophy of science. Also, how feminist science studies have impacted specific fields, such as soft sciences, as well as hard sciences. (And I'd like an order of fries with that too please. ;-)

276: 2337:"If the standpoints are used to critique dominant accounts of nature and of the social world, they can reveal hidden androcentric, Eurocentric, or class-based assumptions. It is for this reason that Harding argues on behalf of a more inclusive, more democratic, science: the inclusion of women and men who have standpoints other than the dominant one(s) can help insure the strong objectivity of the sciences." p.141 683:

article itself are widely divorced from each other (for example, the final paragraph about the military industrial complex has little to do with the section about divination or ecophenomenology, aside from the fact that they're science related). I just compiled many perspectives that related to each other under the same section in the science article, and made it an article unto itself when it got too big.

2569:, technology and innovation. Major research issues include the measurement of impact, reference sets of articles to investigate the impact of journals and institutes, understanding of scientific citations, mapping scientific fields and the production of indicators for use in policy and management contexts. In practice there is a significant overlap between scientometrics and other scientific fields such as 2343:"When marginalized outsiders within offer their accounts both of themselves and of those in the “center” or dominant culture, and when these accounts are brought together with accounts of the marginalized and of themselves offered by those in the dominant culture, the resulting conflicts and convergences can help to maximize objectivity and to produce less partial and less distorted accounts." p.150 1012:

contribute to the wiki effort, by spreading and share a perspective on the philosophical and political criticisms of the sciences. And I've been able to shrug it off this far, but let it be known that I'm a little offended that my effort is being pigeonholed like this. Does this article need work? Yes. Does it need some more perspective? Yes. Does the lack of either make it anti-intellectual?

786:

believing against humans' rights/wants to understand their surroundings and the universe. Please do not confuse certain criticism of science (ie: debating scientific principles or conclusions) with the criticism that science even exists because humans should be kept in the dark ages of understanding. They are both criticism of science, but one most definitely falls into anti-intellectualism.

61: 363:

when merged, the 'antiscience' article should be moved into the "Criticisms" article because not all attitudes that are expressed are 100% anti science (even in the antiscience article itself) most are just fairly critical of science. If we merge into the criticism article were not confusing scientific criticism or philosophical reform with anti-scientific attitudes.

1351:" isn't explicitly a criticism of science but rather a bit vague. It's also a quote and hence the book is being used as a primary source, where are the secondary sources showing due weight? The section "Language in Science" gives undue weight to Martin. Bear in mind this section is being given very equal weight at the moment to the philosophical critiques section. 32: 119: 92: 529: 129: 902:

driving your motives. I am more than willing to entertain a (Knowledge) valid reason for changing this article, but you have not presented one. On that note, as your rationale is solely POV, per the guidelines, your vote on the matter can simply be discarded. What you suggest is a POV fork, which is not consistent with guidelines

1567:. Ok, that's not a scholarly example, but it's a mainstream example I'm using to make my point. Feminist critiques of scientific assumptions aren't so fringe anymore, and there should be adequate secondary sources to provide fodder for a brief explication in a summary article section. I've looked at Gbooks and found a few. 1985:

I haven't seen an encyclopedic overview of the topic like the one that Stanford has published online, but doing a G search under Books for terms like "feminism" and "science" will bring up a lot of anthologies with great introductions and other survey essays. Personally, I think the section is a tad

1952:

Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to type out all the titles of the texts I have but I will try to do that at some point as it will then give you a better picture not only of the broad field of 'feminist science' but also you can then begin to check out some of them yourself, for example

1847:

The book by Psillos & Curd is pretty good Pinnick's chapter in it is pretty sound I would say and fairly jargon free. All the above can be read fairly easily. As I said before, I am only part way checking through the books I have. I have about 15 others which have smaller entries on the topic and

1677:

with the existing content from the article. Peter morrell, I think there is a lot of overlap between your subjects. It might make sense to create a section on sociological issues for some of them (glass ceiling prevents advancement of female scientists; inequities in practitioners, male domination of

1218:

A good place to start 'in a sensible way,' is to be completely transparent: which specific sentences need tagging or revising and why? Take the current edit to pieces here and, line by line, let me see what you say is wrong with it and why. How does that sound? Where specifically is the synthesis and

901:

On a related note, you can always go create the article that you are suggesting. But, it is against policy to lobotomize this one into that article simply because you don't like the content. You've already admitted it's a valid connection. That leaves nothing other than your dislike of the connection

850:

Okay . . . given that, then I propose to edit the page to remove it from the realm of anti-intellectualism. I am not anti-intellectual, nor am I anti-science. However, criticism as in Criticism of Art can be a constructive thing. I'm not sure what the creator of this page had in mind when he made it,

552:

Though I am personally opposed to merging, I am not sure we have a clear consensus here. It seems we still have the exact opposite. I'd suggest instead, (at the very least) leaving this topic un-archived and not marked as resolved while a clear consensus forms. As for the tag itself, as it's designed

439:

I oppose the merger. The two articles explore and describe different things. A science supporter or enthusiast may criticize some scientific issues but still recognize the merits of science - it is a constructive criticism. Antiscience refers to people or ideologies that do not recognize any merit on

2083:

Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989, (neither of which I have) Hessenbruch says: Sandra Harding "is one of the philosophers who have initiated and developed the feminist critiques of science. Like Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Bloor, she sees scientific knowledge as the result of its social context,

1766:

The truth is that much of it is pretty opaque to me too! I agree that the section should start with simple considerations. I'm a little concerned, though, that it could end up looking like a lot of whining about unfairness unless treated carefully. I think the first paragraph of the Stanford article

1662:

And who is this we? a gentleman's science club? Or the royal we? If he had actually studied the subject he would realise that the list above is not mine but comes from reading the literature. These are the main points of the feminist critique of science, but once again he pushes his strong POV while

1169:

Physicist Lisa Randall, appointed to a task force at Harvard by then-president Lawrence Summers after his controversial discussion of why women may be underrepresented in science and engineering, said, "I just want to see a whole bunch more women enter the field so these issues don't have to come up

1110:

I do think the feminist stuff has a perfectly valid place in this article, which is why I have restored it. I don't want to get into an edit war, so why can't we just leave it in place for now and edit it to improve it rather than keep deleting and restoring it? Tags could be added to the text where

1089:

I would like to see the doubts that some have expressed turned around as to the anti-intellectual, anti-science label some seem to associate with this article. Perhaps we can exchange comments, emails or whatever to co-ordinate an effort. As I have said I am not anti-science/anti-intellectual at all

870:

Please do not insert your POV into trying to decide what content gets included based on your opinions. That's not permitted. Anti-intellectualism is greatly related to this article. Entire, large sects of various religions and non-religions fit within that category. We cannot pretend such is not the

726:

I took my own initiative to take down the lobbying group box at the top, since i have thoroughly explained myself on several occasions and no one has retorted the past few months. If anyone else has any objections, bring them up in the talk section before you make any motions to try to classify this

682:

I don't exactly get what this is supposed to mean. I'm a bit flattered that someone would mistake this as group work but all in all I did a lot of the research, compiling, and editing by myself. I am not a group, and I'm not necessarily advocating anything in particular. Some of the views within the

362:

article because they are both highly critical of the scientific method, scientism, reductionism, listing philosophical as well as political reasons. Both articles as far as content and source material go are almost entirely different, but I feel they compliment each other very well. I also feel that

2828:

I'm going to cite the most useful references I have found here because I'm not sure when I'll have the time to read them properly. The first describes a broad research effort by Ioannidis, although I think most of the subject areas still fall within medicine; the second is perhaps the best critical

2666:

This article is suffering from a serious bias. It presents a litany of critiques of science without any rebuttal. This one-sidedness is reinforced by dramatic quotes highlighted in boxes. This despite the lead, which says, "Criticism of science addresses and refines problems within science in order

2464:

This section makes general statements about scientific research that go well beyond what the sources say. The sources refer only to medical research (except for one that refers to psychology and one that refers to economics, which is not normally considered a branch of science). This raises a big

1006:

off of self criticism. The critiques in this article are more or less aimed at the philosophical and political foundations for Science rather then empirical data (indeed, many times has science philosophically criticized itself to come out as something new and different, otherwise people like Hume,

952:

Hi once again. :-) Since I am not uninvolved and am actively participating in this discussion, in the efforts of ensuring both fairness and that I am not inserting any bias I may have into my explanation of Knowledge Policies and Guidelines, I am asking two uninvolved admins to stop by here to view

819:

pretty much states that the views against science based on dismissing the intellectualism of it based on the reasons given. By both definition of intellectualism and the contrary definitions of the reasons to dismiss science for non-intellectual reasons, one comes up with anti(non) intellectualism.

422:

I'm for this, the pages go together really well and if they were refined a little bit when merged they would both be in 10 times a better condition then they are now. Part of the reason that either article is a little loose is because they're missing complementary material, or bad wording. This can

2427:

Well I don't follow what you mean there, sorry! Please clarify. Also, following the theme of dominance and domination, for example, I now have more citations on that theme, but I don't want to just keep dumping stuff here unless you are OK with that? It could turn into a sizeable mass of stuff. If

1646:

No. We don't decide what to include before looking at the sources, that wouldn't make sense. You've clearly decided what you think the issues are before even looking at the sources. This is evident as some of your complaints don't add up when viewed together like "inequities in practitioners, male

1249:

So why then have you deleted the whole section YET AGAIN? and then you speak of having 'clearly highlighted the issues already.' Your comments have been as clear as mud so far. What you have highlighted once again is your ownership of this article and your refusal to tolerate the very existence of

1162:

You are expected to discuss the issue here. You've added SYNTH material, that is material where the sources don't explicitly support the text, but you are combining sources. You've included undue/dubious material such as the claim that "women are passive and men are active are socially constructed

1011:

Virtually all of these sources (save a select few I had nothing to do with) I have in books on my bookshelves. There was no group effort to put this up, I am almost literally the only person who has added any content to this article, and I'm not doing it to be an anti-intellectual. I'm doing it to

2773:

should focus on criticisms that apply to all of science or to many different areas and should largely avoid getting into criticisms that are directed at only one field of science. For example, I believe that the Ioannidis citations are exclusively about medical research and so do not support any

2300:

In the next few days I will post here a range of short extracts from some of the above works, to illustrate the themes we have already identified, and any new ones, as well as any responses to them from mainstream philosophers of science, some of which we can then potentially use to embellish the

1755:

Yes, but these are way off the radar for most people and completely opaque. I don't see how we can possibly use them as they are as each one is going to require a detailed explanation before the reader can even get to grasp what it is saying. That is why I thought the key themes approach might be

1558:

There's been a long-standing requested article on Feminist science studies, it'd be nice to see this section remain in the article with some revisions. I'd like to see some discussion in it of instances where feminist scholars have exposed research bias directly based on issues of gender bias, or

1229:

I clearly highlighted the issues already. You need to start from good sources and work from there. You are combining multiple sources to advance a position that is not in the original sources (first paragraph); you are lumping in women who are not feminists under feminist critiques. You are using

1149:

A perfectly reasonable way forward has been proposed above, but you have deliberately chosen to ignore that and keep reverting. It thus seems very clear that this has nothing to do with procedures but that you dislike feminism and do not wish to see this apsect presented in this article. In which

989:

Durden contacted me through my page and has asked me about how I feel about the page when I created it (about two years ago now, funny how time flies), as if I was somehow inspired to make this out of some 'hate' for Science. This is simply untrue (as untrue as the statement that this article was

690:

I feel this category is being attached to this article as a pejorative, and through it, is suggesting that criticizing certain aspects of scientific method or philosophy is not an intellectual pursuit- or can not be pursued via the intellect. That The 'Anti-Intellectualism' article is part of the

1279:

I am perfectly calm thankyou. Why did you delete the section? What does that reveal about your motivation? Once it is restored it can be worked on. You don't really have any idea about this subject do you? And you talk about rational discussion. Are your deletions so rational? Please be serious.

1072:

I think a good idea for improving this article would be to include a history of the philosophy of science from descartes, to kant to hume to kuhn to feyerabend, etc, etc, to give a bigger perspective on how criticisms of science in the past have helped shape it to become what it is today. I will

785:

I respectfully disagree. Science is the intellectual pursuit of a greater understanding of various subject matter. There are those who are opposed to gaining such an understanding, which means one category that can be applied is anti-intellectualism, since their criticism is based on them simply

3110:

I think the article should show that the harder the science the more theoretical & abstract & therefore arbitrary. Whilst soft sciences produce hard to experiment hypotheses, many of the hard sciences produce infallible, & therefore unscientific, hypotheses, because of their extreme

1457:

I think dropping all the current text and starting off from the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy as a base would be a good idea. It could be done initially as a subsection of the philosophy section in the article lest it is given similar weight to all of the other philosophical critiques put

1197:

has said that there should be no such section. I think that there should be mention of feminist critiques, but I am not sufficiently with the literature to suggest how it should be written. However, I do not think that the section that is the subject of this edit war is the way to go. The first

707:

I have to agree with ProductofSociety here. He has explained the sources he used, and how he compiled this page. What is the problem. Anyone have any evidence that ProductofSociety is the proxy of some special interest group? If not take that "This article relies extensively on quotes that were

1693:

Yes, well unfortunately feminist works tend to be rather rambling and long-winded (an observation rather than a judgement) and so it's often hard to extract the simple points, and inevitably there are also bound to be some blurring of categories. I have 34 texts that are either specifically by

1125:

you are expected to discuss material you want to insert. Read it. secondly, if the sources are primary sources and biased as they clearly are, and the text is, then you are putting the cart before the horse by suggesting that they have weight in this article. You are merely asserting they have

686:

He also added it to the category of "Anti-Intellectualism". I find that a bit crass. While these views are not held in the mainstay of scientific philosophy, none of the writers/sources in question have ever labeled themselves 'anti-intellectual', and (for the most part) have not been labeled

553:

to attract attention to this, perhaps it should be reinstated. Also, perhaps those editors who indicated a level of ambivalence dependent on the ability to properly merge the articles can be requested to come back to see if other opinions here have swayed them to one side or the other. Best,

3188:

Honestly, it is common sense, because, maybe this is stupid to say, but einsteins mathematics may explain the world as it is but not give any reason for WHY, when, where, whither, thus without predictive power. theyre just pretty equations. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 22:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

2859:

It's important to remember, though, that a lot of the issues raised by Ioannidis are real and have been discussed elsewhere - including various forms of bias and reproducibility. Which is why I put those sections beside this material. Ideally, it should all be discussed in an organized way.

2331:"standpoint theorists used the notion of “ideology” to explain dominant accounts of relations of gender, race, and class, and to show how groups with different gender, class, and racial locations tend to produce different accounts of nature and social relations (Harding 1997: 384)." p.133-4 1045:

Perhaps the criticism sources being cited are pro-science, but there are no actual pro-science responses in the article to the criticisms, which means the article remains biased. I'd add some, but I remain without sufficient knowledge to give an accurate view of the pro-science responses.

1348:

Sandra Harding says that the "moral and political insights of the women's movement have inspired social scientists and biologists to raise critical questions about the ways traditional researchers have explained gender, sex and relations within and between the social and natural

2037:

Another good source with a whole 20 page chapter of relevance, is David Matthews, Science in Society, Palgrave, 2005. But Susan Haack's Defending Science, Prometheus, 2007, is in my view rather disappointing for what we are looking for. More on sources as time permits. thanks

2443:

I would say that we have enough references for now. I have no idea when I'll have time to read them. I don't know much about the subject; my main purpose in joining this discussion was to defuse the conflict and get things moving forward. I'll try to help when I can, though.

1111:

required. If the points are incorrect, or POV, or the sources are biased, then we need to improve them, and find better ones, not delete the whole section. Surely, this is a better path? Just a bunch of thoughts. Views welcome, it is a collaborative project. thanks

2809:

say that his work applies to other branches of science? If not, then other sources would be needed that say precisely that, or else a general statement about his work applying to science in general would be criticized by other editors for violating

378:

I do not have strong views, but I think a merge is likely to be difficult to do. Both articles need a lot of work, to make them more coherent and have a better flow. When that is done, it might be clearer whether merging is a good idea or not.

2788:

Actually, my impression so far is that Ioannidis is basically making a Bayesian analysis of scientific studies that involve statistics - so not only does it potentially apply to a lot of different fields, but even to metascientific analyses!

2769:. However, I'm not suggesting those sources for this article, since, as you know, feminist critiques of different areas of science form a large topic, and it would be undue emphasis to include all of that here. More generally, I think 403:

I have no problem taking all the time necessary to merge the articles the best i can. Even if the two articles need work, there of the same nature and I feel that merging them together may in fact do them both some good in terms of

2667:

to improve science as a whole and its role in society." There is no discussion of how these critiques actually lead to improvements in the scientific method, although some of them have. An overhaul of the article is needed.

1163:

attributes of gender which scientists have projected onto the events of fertilization and so obscuring the fact that eggs do play an active role". And you've included irrelevant material you plagiarised from another article (

2620:

Back to the original subject - I have found some pretty interesting references, some of which are highly critical of the work by Ioannidis. It has opened my eyes to a broader NPOV problem, which I will discuss separately.

1837:

5. Cassandra L Pinnick, The Feminist Approach to the Philosophy of Science, in Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd, The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science, London & New York: Routledge, 2008, pp.182-192

456:

I'd have to weigh in as apposed to a merger. I am not Anti-science at all, yet there are true and certain limits to the knowledge that science can discover, IMO. To criticize something is not to be against something.

1193:. I want to continue it here. Whether a user dislikes feminism should have no place here. Whether a section on feminist critiques of science should be in this article should be discussed. I do not think that 2290:

Some titles are incomplete but they can easily be found and made complete. All address the issue we are concerned with and checked through for suitable points or quotations, or simply for citation purposes.

2074:

I see no real point in trying to focus on 30+ texts! And it would be a very long job. I shall henceforth focus only on about 5 key texts. This little snippet is interesting: referring to Harding, Sandra G.,

1369:

as a guide. This is my first of two steps to deal with edit warring: protection. Hopefully, no other steps will be needed, as the purpose of protecting was so I didn't have to jump into blocking anyone.

2687:. This subject has an extensive literature, but all the section says is that some problems have been found. I don't even know what that last sentence is supposed to mean, but it is clearly editorializing. 687:

anti-intellectual by anyone else (the exception being Paul Feyerabend's and his misattributed title as an 'enemy of Science'- misattributed because he's a philosopher of science and a science advocate).

2507:

Have you seen critiques of the physical/chemical/mathematical sciences? I have the impression that the criticisms in this section cannot be sourced for those fields, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

1130:, while it is the secondary sources that help to dictate weight. A much better solution is to propose independent secondary sources, and then work on text around that. The very first sentence is a 477:

I believe that the two viewpoints address the issue from two different perspectives and are best left separated. By combining the two, I believe it would cloud the distinction between the two.

1365:

As an uninvolved admin, you know that I'm not going to get involved with the content. I wouldn't know how even if I wanted to, and I won't take sides. I just know that everyone needs to use

679:"This article relies extensively on quotes that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2011)" 1332:. How do you suggest I proceed if he ignores everything I saw each time, and simply attack me, whilst restoring the material each and every time? Why not restore the long term version? 2088:

London & Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2000, p.561) It gives us a clear indication of some of the issues in this topic. Maybe it can be used? More as time permits. thanks

3216: 1559:

gender inequality, or the like. There are scholarly examples of it at this point, medical research is a big one. A good one is the Dissociative Identity Disorder controversy, read

42: 3064:

Sure, it's just a question of lining up sources, and being sure that what the sources say really backs up the full statement in the text. Here's another pro-Ioannidis source:

2098:

What the heck are "former female scientists" (1st sentence of Feminist Critiques section)? Did they all get sex change operations? Did they renounce science and join a cult?

2154:, there is a paragraph on the Unabomber's views on science. Is this really worthy of inclusion? It looks to me like little more than the sort of rant you'd expect from him. 1150:

case, it is your own strong POV that is the problem here and not the text in question which seems to be a perfectly valid, reasonable and well-sourced couple of paragraphs.

1234:

than here. You are giving excessive due weight with "Language in Science" which should be removed. You should start from independent secondary sources and work from there.

3221: 2316:"science has been dominated by men, men who have been raised in sexist and androcentric societies and trained within sexist and androcentric scientific traditions." p.13 998:. Paul Feyerabend was an advocate of Science. Robert Anton Wilson was an advocate of science. Peter Kropotkin was an advocate of Science. Alan Watts advocates Science. 2428:

folks are willing to sift through it then fair enough I guess but it might become very laborious. How do you reckon we can we manage that task collaboratively? thanks

2714:

section I added a substantial amount of well-sourced material to provide balance. My impression is that something similar needs to be done in other sections as well.

2412:

Quite a list! I'm now thinking, by the way, that Feminist Critiques should remain a separate section, since its content extends beyond philosophy into social issues.

150:

on Knowledge. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the

2319:"simple dominant-subordinate conceptions of nature that naturalize social domination (as in older active-sperm-fertilizes-passive-egg models of fertilization)." p.54 1647:

domination of science" and "more males get published". It makes sense to start with the tertiary sources to get an overview of the actual issues and then work down.

3211: 2480:

I think that I have seen similar critiques for some other fields. It would be better to do a literature search. Of course, a more cautious wording would also help.

1636:

More can be added if required. This would make a reasonable start. The published responses to these views by male-dominated science can also be added for balance.

3126: 1230:

primary sources for the opinions of the feminists, rather than establishing they have some due weight in terms of criticism of science. Harding belongs more in

766:

This page is listed under Anti-Intellectualism, and this is not proper. It is pro-intellectual in that it helps understand the limits of scientific knowledge.

3185: 3206: 1943:

Yes that's all good. Sexist bias is vague but its a phrase they use very liberally in the texts. It would need to be clarified probably by using examples.

187: 177: 1073:

eventually take this up myself, possibly later this month if i have time, but anyone else is welcome to have a jumpstart at it or help out in some way. (

2553:

Okay. Another problem with the section is that criticisms of poorly designed studies and scientific misconduct don't really seem to be what the term

708:

previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2011)" notice down.

3231: 332: 322: 224: 102: 1844:

7. Karen Gordrick Haely, Objectivity in the Feminist Philosophy of Science, London & New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008

2000:

I think you'll soon be seeing a significant expansion of the section. If you get all you ask for, it will make the rest of the article look bad!

1598:

The section does not have to be long or full of waffle. Here are some suggestions each one of which can be individually referenced quite easily:

1392: 1315: 1443:

Since no one is saying that there should not be a section on feminist criticism of science, it makes sense to keep the section and modify it.

152: 1828:

2. Sue V Rosser, The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the Struggle to Succeed, New York & London: Routledge, 2004

3201: 1500:

Bit late here so it will be tomorrow before I get back to you; I need to read the stanford source and go over it carefully first as well.

2048:

Do you want me to post up here the titles of all the books I have access to? Just let me know, as I now have the full list ready. thanks

1053: 977: 936: 890: 839: 805: 659: 572: 515: 3122: 2757:

Thanks for pointing me to your page on the subject and the earlier discussion. Your sources are nice ones. For feminist critiques of

2727: 1964: 1953:

on google books. I think 'sexist bias' would be viewed as an aspect of scientific method, so maybe it would go under epistemology...?

1674: 1673:

Cool down, everyone! I think you should both avoid arguing about the section as a whole and focus on specific content. I have created

1385: 1308: 298: 3226: 3007: 2983: 2959: 2908: 1858:

That's a good list of sources! The first subject ("sexist bias in science") is vague - it could refer to any of the other subjects.

1432: 3164:

It's worth noting that the hard sciences also have predictions that have been verified to fantastic precision (see, for example,

142: 97: 578: 547: 372: 3144:

That's a point of view I haven't heard before. Do you have any sources to back it up? Keep in mind that Knowledge requires

1262:

Your comment does not address the concerns I raised above. I suggest you also calm down so we can discuss this rationally,

3186:

https://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/1440-19-xinhang-shen-challenge-to-the-special-theory-of-relativity.html

1328:

Dennis, I've highlighted valid issues, Bduke agreed they were valid issues, but Peter keeps inserting changes contrary to

289: 250: 72: 3024: 2730:? I created it during an earlier debate (see above), but wasn't willing to put in the time to read all that material. 3026:

Assessing the unreliability of the medical literature: A response to 'Why most published research findings are false'

2726:

Yes, feminist critiques is an exception; it's also better written than many of the other sections. Are you aware of

3139: 3118: 1704:

That's why I suggest editing the subpage instead. The contents of the Stanford article are much more philosophical:

1472:

While the article is protected, we could edit a draft on a subpage. It's easier to discuss text if you can see it!

1078: 1021: 732: 696: 409: 368: 2578: 445: 38: 3165: 2079:

Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, and Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1991, and Tuana, Nancy,

1486:

I agree that it should be a subsection of philosophy. The Stanford title implies it is not just epistemology.

2595:"the study of measuring and analysing ..." Poorly worded! This one is easily fixed, though - just substitute 1057: 3174: 3154: 2866: 2835: 2795: 2736: 2693: 2673: 2651: 2627: 2605: 2528: 2486: 2449: 2429: 2417: 2403: 2382:

Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (Science & Its Conceptual Foundations),

2355: 2302: 2292: 2159: 2131: 2089: 2064: 2049: 2039: 2023: 2005: 1972: 1954: 1944: 1934: 1863: 1849: 1772: 1757: 1745: 1695: 1683: 1664: 1637: 1586: 1548: 1519: 1491: 1477: 1448: 1281: 1251: 1220: 1190: 1151: 1112: 428: 1831:

3. Rene L. Arakawa, Ruth Hubbard's Feminist Critique of Science, ATC 62, May-June 1996 (see also Stanford)

1074: 1017: 728: 692: 405: 364: 1380: 1303: 774: 2389:

Is Science Multicultural?: Postcolonialisms, Feminisms, and Epistemologies (Race, Gender, & Science),

2281:

Abigail J Stewart, Jane Malley & Danielle Lataque-Manty (Eds), Transforming Science and Engineering

1095: 1036: 856: 752: 716: 462: 78: 1678:

science; publication bias - more males get published; male domination of conferences and peer review).

2438:

Earlier, IRWolfie had suggested making it a subsection of Philosophy, and that made sense at the time.

3114: 3083: 2850: 2819: 2779: 2770: 2719: 2711: 2684: 2586: 2513: 2470: 2151: 1250:

the feminist critique in it. Thanks for proving that! Now do a self revert to prove that I am wrong.

1049: 770: 592: 441: 355: 911:"Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, 60: 31: 2574: 1652: 1505: 1463: 1356: 1337: 1267: 1239: 1177: 1139: 906: 543: 482: 297:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

3170: 3150: 3059: 2862: 2831: 2791: 2752: 2732: 2705: 2689: 2669: 2647: 2623: 2601: 2548: 2524: 2502: 2482: 2445: 2413: 2155: 2127: 2060: 2019: 2001: 1991: 1968: 1930: 1859: 1768: 1741: 1733:

Trends in Feminist Epistemology: Interactions of Standpoint Theory, Postmodernism, and Empiricism

1679: 1582: 1572: 1544: 1515: 1487: 1473: 1444: 961: 920: 874: 823: 789: 643: 556: 499: 424: 1767:

does a great job of providing context. Do you know of any other good overviews of the subject?

3071: 3004: 2980: 2956: 2905: 2117: 2103: 1429: 1371: 1294: 1290:

I've full protected for 3 days, it is not an endorsement of the current version. Work it out.

905:. As for the consensus part, and why your vote would hold little to no weight, the article on 134: 2937: 2924:

Leek, Jeffrey T.; Jager, Leah R. (7 March 2017). "Is Most Published Research Really False?".

2637:

I bundled this section with the ones on bias and reproducibility, which were oddly placed in

2933: 1127: 1091: 1032: 852: 748: 712: 458: 1841:

6. Ullica Christina Olofsdotter Segerstrale, Beyond the Science Wars, New York: SUNY, 2000

1417: 587:. Having thought about this again after being asked to do so on my talk page, I agree with 3079: 2846: 2815: 2775: 2715: 2582: 2509: 2466: 1206: 1131: 917:- and your reasonings on the matter definitely do not fall within Knowledge policy. Best, 603: 387: 17: 868:"Because I don't like it associated with such, let's pretend such things aren't reality". 1848:

which might actually be clearer as well as more concise. I will check and let you know.

265: 244: 2558: 1648: 1501: 1459: 1352: 1333: 1263: 1235: 1194: 1173: 1135: 588: 539: 478: 281: 1581:

Did you happen to notice any more overviews of the subject like the Stanford article?

216: 3195: 2570: 1987: 1568: 1560: 1543:

Based on the Stanford reference, the views of Emily Martin seem to get undue weight.

1366: 1329: 1122: 2710:

I think you're correct in identifying a major NPOV problem in this article. In the

2811: 2366:

Here are some other books, which I don't have access to but which look very useful:

2113: 2099: 1564: 1231: 275: 2242:

Steve Fuller and J H Collier, Philosophy Rhetoric and the End of Knowledge, 2003

1009:

These criticisms were not meant to be read as ant-intellectual/science propaganda.

1172:"", Randall does not appear to be a feminist, nor is this a critique of science. 3145: 3066:

Freedman, David H. (October 4, 2010). "Lies, damned lies, and medical science".

2758: 2596: 913:

as viewed through the lens of Knowledge policy, not by a simple counted majority

359: 3179: 3159: 3130: 3087: 2871: 2854: 2840: 2823: 2800: 2783: 2741: 2698: 2678: 2656: 2632: 2610: 2590: 2533: 2517: 2491: 2474: 2453: 2432: 2421: 2406: 2358: 2305: 2295: 2163: 2135: 2121: 2107: 2092: 2068: 2052: 2042: 2027: 2009: 1995: 1976: 1957: 1947: 1938: 1867: 1852: 1825:

1. Alison Wylie, Feminist Perspectives on Science, Stanford Encyclopedia, 2010

1776: 1760: 1749: 1698: 1687: 1667: 1656: 1640: 1590: 1576: 1552: 1523: 1509: 1495: 1481: 1467: 1452: 1397: 1360: 1341: 1320: 1284: 1271: 1254: 1243: 1223: 1213: 1181: 1154: 1143: 1115: 1099: 1082: 1061: 1040: 1025: 983: 942: 896: 860: 845: 811: 778: 756: 736: 720: 700: 665: 610: 595:. However, both articles need work, to present the points in a cohesive way. -- 521: 486: 466: 449: 432: 413: 394: 1834:

4. Evelyn Fox Keller & Helen E Longino, Feminism & Science, OUP, 1996

1199: 596: 380: 271: 147: 124: 3074: 2269:

Jill M Bystydzienskii and S R Bird, Removing Barriers Women in Science, 2006

1002:

But advocates of any system are allowed their criticisms as well. Science is

2275:

Nat Academy of Engineering and Inst Of Med, Beyond Bias and Barriers, 2007

1414:

Here are two secondary sources. My impression is that there are many more.

2188:

Maureen McNeil, Feminist Cultural Studies of Science and Technology, 2007

2126:

They probably just changed jobs, but I agree it does sound a bit curious.

956: 691:'discrimination' portal on wikipedia doesn't help lessen my suspicion. ( 2645:. These are closely related subjects that should be considered together. 1730:

Epistemic Authority, Epistemic Injustice, and Epistemologies of Ignorance

1164: 2977:

Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings

2284:

Ronald J Burke and Mary C Mattis, Women and Minorities in Science, 2007

2245:

Steve Fuller, Social Epistemology Science, Technology and Society, 1991

1426:

The double standard : a feminist critique of the feminist social science

817: 2566: 2287:

Stephen J Ceci, Why Aren't More Women in Science Top Researchers. 2007

1756:

more accessible than all this obscure stuff. What do you think? thanks

990:

made by a 'lobbying group'). Many of the sources I sited are very much

294: 146:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to 2209:

Lynn H Nelson and Jack Nelson, Feminist Interpretation of Quine, 1003

1967:. For now, 'sexist bias' is tacked on to the introductory paragraphs. 996:

Many of the people I sourced in this article are advocates for Science

903: 2902:

Getting Risk Right: Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks

2239:

Steve Fuller, The Philosophy of Science and Technology Studies, 2005

2197:

Heidi E Grasswick, Feminist Epistemology Philosophy of Science, 2011

1783:

Well, here is my first stab at referencing the list I posted earlier.

2522:

I think I have, but it was some time ago. I'll see what I can find.

954: 118: 91: 2203:

M B P Hintikka, Discovering Reality Feminist Perspective, No Date

1458:

together, or even starting from the current Epistemology section.

676:

BatteryIncluded posted an alert at the top of the page that says:

2263:

Peggy A Pritchard, Success Strategies for Women in Science, 2005

871:

case because we do not like the linkages such facts build. Best,

2311:

Here is a first batch of quotes about dominance and domination.

2194:

K C Haely, Objectivity in Feminist Philosophy of Science, 2008

350:

Merging Criticism's of Science article with Antiscience article

2236:

Steve Fuller, Philosophy of Science and its Discontents, 1992

2206:

Jane Duran, Philosophy of Science and Feminist Theories, 1997

54: 26: 2077:

Whose Science? Whose Knowledge?: Thinking from Women's Lives,

1929:- and sexist bias in science (I don't know where to put it). 215: 2018:, by the way, and couldn't see what the feminist angle was. 1346:

As I've already done: the first paragraph is a synthesis, "

538:

Merge removed from page as per the consensus on this page.

349: 2465:

NPOV issue. Would anyone object to deleting this section?

2257:

Kellert, Longino & Waters, Scientific Pluralism, 2006

2200:

Angela Calabrese Barton, Feminist Science Education, 1998

2845:

Here's another reference critical of Ioannidis' claims: D

1800:

male depiction of menstruation and pregnancy as diseases

769:

It should be removed from the Anti-Intellectualism index.

2185:

Londa L Schiebinger, Has Feminism Changed Science, 1999

2176:

J A Kourany, Philosophy of Science After Feminism, 2010

1904:

male depiction of menstruation and pregnancy as diseases

1794:

inequities in practitioners, male domination of science

1791:

glass ceiling prevents advancement of female scientists

1614:

male depiction of menstruation and pregnancy as diseases

3001:

Human Subject Research for Engineers: A Practical Guide

2254:

E Fox Keller & Longino, Feminism and Science, 1996

1885:

inequities in practitioners, male domination of science

1882:

glass ceiling prevents advancement of female scientists

1608:

inequities in practitioners, male domination of science

1605:

glass ceiling prevents advancement of female scientists

1806:

projecting gender stereotypes onto observed phenomena

2248:

Steve Fuller, The New Sociological Imagination, 2006

1917:

projecting gender stereotypes onto observed phenomena

1620:

projecting gender stereotypes onto observed phenomena

2348:

Feminism and Philosophy of Science, an Introduction,

293:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2278:Lilli S Hornig, Equal Rites Unequal Outcomes, 2008 2179:E Potter, Feminism and Philosophy of Science, 2006 198: 2334:"most scientists are socially dominant men." p.140 2182:Elain V Howes, Connecting Girls and Science, 2002 1797:gender bias in describing reproductive physiology 2402:so maybe someone else can check them out. thanks 2272:Gender Differences at Critical Transitions, 2010 2215:Bonnie Spanier, Impartial Science Gender... 1995 1901:gender bias in describing reproductive physiology 1815:linear thinking vs lateral and branched thinking 1727:Feminist Critiques and Conceptions of Objectivity 1611:gender bias in describing reproductive physiology 743:Thank you ProductofSociety for your above action. 2774:general statements about all or most of science. 2683:For a particularly egregious example, check out 1920:linear thinking vs lateral and branched thinking 1629:linear thinking vs lateral and branched thinking 2926:Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application 2460:Problems with "Scientometric critiques" section 1721:Feminist Science Criticism and Feminist Science 1418:Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science 1167:). You've included off topic material such as " 2999:Winter, Joost C.F. de; Dodou, Dimitra (2017). 2224:Longino, Can There be a Feminist Science, Pdf 2221:Sue V Rosser, The Science Glass Ceiling, 2004 1891:male domination of conferences and peer review 1812:male domination of conferences and peer review 1626:male domination of conferences and peer review 1031:Thanks - I hope this clarifies this to all. -- 3217:Mid-importance philosophy of science articles 2230:William Rehg, Cogent Science in Context 2009 2218:Sue V Rosser, Women, Science and Myth...2008 1068:adding a history of the philosophy of science 8: 2599:. That term is used by some of the sources. 2251:Anne Fausto-Sterling, Myths of Gender, 1992 1809:publication bias - more males get published 1736:External Criticisms of Feminist Epistemology 3023:Goodman, Steven; Greenland, Sander (2007), 2975:Schmidt, Frank L.; Hunter, John E. (2014). 2396:Feminist Science Studies: A New Generation, 2266:Patricia Murphy, In Science’s Shadow, 2006 2227:Segerstrale, Beyond the Science Wars, 2000 1888:publication bias - more males get published 1623:publication bias - more males get published 994:. I'm going to repeat that one for effect. 440:science - it is a vilification of science. 3112: 2557:means. The lede of the Knowledge article 239: 195: 86: 3222:Philosophy of science task force articles 2938:10.1146/annurev-statistics-060116-054104 2904:. Columbia University Press. pp. 22–23. 2565:is the study of measuring and analysing 2212:Miriam Solomon, Social Empiricism, 2001 2086:Readers Guide to the History of Science, 1874:How about this grouping of the subjects: 1724:Feminist Defenses of Value-Laden Inquiry 2892: 2191:S Harding, Sciences from Below... 2008 1818:hard mechanistic thinking lacks holism 241: 88: 58: 3212:C-Class philosophy of science articles 2173:Fem Sci Books which I have access to: 1923:hard mechanistic thinking lacks holism 1632:hard mechanistic thinking lacks holism 156:about philosophy content on Knowledge. 2325:Philosophy of Science after Feminism, 2260:Kohlsdtedt And Longino, Osiris, 1997 2112:I removed the word 'former' for now. 1514:It will be a challenge to summarize! 1420:(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 7: 2641:, and placed them in a new section, 287:This article is within the scope of 140:This article is within the scope of 2233:J R Brown, Who Rules Science, 2001 2059:Sure! Preferably in a new section. 1963:I added your list and citations to 1803:lack of objectivity and neutrality 77:It is of interest to the following 3207:Mid-importance Philosophy articles 2728:Talk:Criticism of science/Feminist 2014:I had a quick look at articles on 1965:Talk:Criticism of science/Feminist 1914:lack of objectivity and neutrality 1675:Talk:Criticism of science/Feminist 1617:lack of objectivity and neutrality 1189:There has been some discussion at 762:Listing under Anti-Intellectualism 25: 2953:Principles of Scientific Methods 2354:Hopefully these will be useful. 727:article as something it is not.( 527: 274: 264: 243: 162:Knowledge:WikiProject Philosophy 127: 117: 90: 59: 30: 3232:Mid-importance science articles 1007:Popper and Kuhn don't matter). 327:This article has been rated as 182:This article has been rated as 165:Template:WikiProject Philosophy 41:on 9 March 2010. The result of 37:This article was nominated for 3106:Hard science as the basic flaw 1: 2454:18:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 2433:17:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 2422:17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 2407:08:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 2359:06:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 2306:05:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC) 2296:17:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 2164:01:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 2136:19:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2122:19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2108:19:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC) 2093:08:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC) 2069:17:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 2053:15:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 2043:02:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 2028:01:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 2010:00:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC) 1996:22:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1977:19:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1958:19:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1948:18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1939:18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1898:Gender-related health issues 1868:18:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1853:18:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1777:18:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1761:17:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1750:17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1699:17:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1688:16:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1668:12:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1657:11:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1641:07:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1591:02:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1577:02:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1553:23:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1524:00:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC) 1510:23:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1496:23:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1482:23:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1468:23:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1453:23:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1398:23:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1361:22:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1342:22:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1321:13:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1285:13:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1272:12:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1255:11:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1244:10:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1224:00:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1214:21:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC) 1182:17:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC) 1155:03:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC) 1100:20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 757:19:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC) 307:Knowledge:WikiProject Science 301:and see a list of open tasks. 2767:The Woman That Never Evolved 1879:Inequality in the workplace 1144:11:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC) 1116:06:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC) 310:Template:WikiProject Science 3202:C-Class Philosophy articles 2900:Kabat, Geoffrey C. (2016). 2829:assessement of their work. 2384:Univ of Chicago Press, 2003 2375:The Science Studies Reader, 1083:17:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 450:18:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC) 3248: 2169:feminism and science texts 1712:Feminist Standpoint Theory 1062:21:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC) 1041:20:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 866:Why? You seem to be saying 737:16:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC) 333:project's importance scale 188:project's importance scale 18:Talk:Criticisms of Science 3180:20:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC) 3160:20:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC) 3131:05:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC) 2765:and Sarah Blaffer Hrdy's 2761:see also Donna Haraway's 2579:science of science policy 1424:Eichler, Margrit (1980). 1026:03:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC) 721:19:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 701:03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC) 467:19:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 433:16:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC) 326: 259: 223: 194: 181: 112: 85: 3227:C-Class science articles 3140:Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 3119:Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 3088:13:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 2872:06:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 2855:05:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 2841:04:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 2824:01:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 2801:00:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC) 2784:23:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC) 2742:21:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC) 2699:17:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC) 2679:16:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC) 2657:22:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC) 2633:16:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC) 2611:16:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC) 2591:22:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 2534:20:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 2518:18:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 2492:18:48, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 2475:17:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 2391:Univ Indiana Press, 1998 2346:(from Elizabeth Potter, 2323:(from Janet A. Kourany, 2301:growing article. thanks 1000:I Am a Science Advocate. 984:23:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 943:23:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 897:23:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 861:20:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC) 846:20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 812:20:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 779:19:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 666:00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 634:0 undecided at this time 611:08:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 579:00:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 548:00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC) 522:23:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 487:22:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC) 414:17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC) 395:05:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC) 373:22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC) 2639:Philosophical critiques 2573:, information systems, 2081:Feminism & Science, 1788:sexist bias in science 1191:User talk:Peter morrell 199:Associated task forces: 1715:Feminist Postmodernism 1602:sexist bias in science 1428:. London: Croom Helm. 220: 143:WikiProject Philosophy 67:This article is rated 2979:. SAGE Publications. 2380:Peter Godfrey-Smith, 225:Philosophy of science 219: 2951:Chang, Mark (2016). 2771:Criticism of science 356:Criticism of Science 354:I want to merge the 2575:information science 1718:Feminist Empiricism 290:WikiProject Science 168:Philosophy articles 2712:feminist critiques 2394:Maralee Mayberry, 2150:In the section on 221: 153:general discussion 73:content assessment 3133: 3117:comment added by 1396: 1388: 1383: 1319: 1311: 1306: 1106:feminist critique 1052:comment added by 992:Science Advocates 981: 972: 969: 965: 940: 931: 928: 924: 894: 885: 882: 878: 843: 834: 831: 827: 809: 800: 797: 793: 663: 654: 651: 647: 576: 567: 564: 560: 519: 510: 507: 503: 423:be easily fixed. 358:article with the 347: 346: 343: 342: 339: 338: 238: 237: 234: 233: 230: 229: 135:Philosophy portal 53: 52: 16:(Redirected from 3239: 3178: 3158: 3143: 3078: 3063: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3033: 3020: 3014: 3013: 2996: 2990: 2989: 2972: 2966: 2965: 2948: 2942: 2941: 2921: 2915: 2914: 2897: 2870: 2839: 2799: 2756: 2740: 2709: 2697: 2677: 2655: 2631: 2609: 2561:is as follows: " 2552: 2532: 2506: 2490: 2387:Sandra Harding, 2373:Mario Biagioli, 1709:Situated Knowers 1438: 1390: 1386: 1381: 1313: 1309: 1304: 1211: 1204: 1075:ProductofSociety 1064: 1018:ProductofSociety 982: 974: 967: 963: 960: 941: 933: 926: 922: 919: 895: 887: 880: 876: 873: 844: 836: 829: 825: 822: 810: 802: 795: 791: 788: 729:ProductofSociety 693:ProductofSociety 664: 656: 649: 645: 642: 608: 601: 577: 569: 562: 558: 555: 534: 531: 530: 520: 512: 505: 501: 498: 406:ProductofSociety 392: 385: 365:ProductofSociety 315: 314: 313:science articles 311: 308: 305: 284: 279: 278: 268: 261: 260: 255: 247: 240: 206: 196: 170: 169: 166: 163: 160: 137: 132: 131: 130: 121: 114: 113: 108: 105: 94: 87: 70: 64: 63: 55: 34: 27: 21: 3247: 3246: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3192: 3191: 3169: 3149: 3137: 3108: 3065: 3057: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3031: 3029: 3022: 3021: 3017: 3010: 2998: 2997: 2993: 2986: 2974: 2973: 2969: 2962: 2950: 2949: 2945: 2923: 2922: 2918: 2911: 2899: 2898: 2894: 2861: 2830: 2790: 2763:Primate Visions 2750: 2731: 2703: 2688: 2685:Reproducibility 2668: 2664: 2646: 2622: 2600: 2546: 2523: 2500: 2481: 2462: 2398:Routledge, 2001 2377:Routledge, 1999 2171: 2148: 1435: 1423: 1207: 1200: 1108: 1070: 1047: 980: 959: 939: 918: 893: 872: 842: 821: 808: 787: 764: 674: 672:Advocacy Group? 662: 641: 621: 604: 597: 593:Unobjectionable 575: 554: 532: 528: 518: 497: 496:per Tiggerjay. 442:Unobjectionable 388: 381: 352: 312: 309: 306: 303: 302: 280: 273: 253: 204: 167: 164: 161: 158: 157: 133: 128: 126: 106: 100: 71:on Knowledge's 68: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 3245: 3243: 3235: 3234: 3229: 3224: 3219: 3214: 3209: 3204: 3194: 3193: 3183: 3182: 3162: 3107: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3039: 3038: 3015: 3008: 2991: 2984: 2967: 2960: 2943: 2932:(1): 109–122. 2916: 2909: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2803: 2745: 2744: 2663: 2660: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2563:Scientometrics 2559:Scientometrics 2555:scientometrics 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2495: 2494: 2461: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2440: 2439: 2425: 2424: 2400: 2399: 2392: 2385: 2378: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2352: 2351: 2344: 2341: 2338: 2335: 2332: 2321: 2320: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2170: 2167: 2147: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2072: 2071: 2056: 2055: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2012: 1980: 1979: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1921: 1918: 1915: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1876: 1875: 1871: 1870: 1820: 1819: 1816: 1813: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1795: 1792: 1789: 1785: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1753: 1752: 1738: 1737: 1734: 1731: 1728: 1725: 1722: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1691: 1690: 1660: 1659: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1624: 1621: 1618: 1615: 1612: 1609: 1606: 1603: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1484: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1433: 1421: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1344: 1292: 1291: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1247: 1246: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1147: 1146: 1107: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1069: 1066: 988: 976: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 935: 899: 889: 848: 838: 804: 763: 760: 745: 744: 710: 709: 673: 670: 669: 668: 658: 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 632: 629: 620: 615: 614: 613: 571: 525: 524: 514: 490: 489: 471: 470: 453: 452: 436: 435: 419: 418: 417: 416: 398: 397: 351: 348: 345: 344: 341: 340: 337: 336: 329:Mid-importance 325: 319: 318: 316: 299:the discussion 286: 285: 282:Science portal 269: 257: 256: 254:Mid‑importance 248: 236: 235: 232: 231: 228: 227: 222: 212: 211: 209: 207: 201: 200: 192: 191: 184:Mid-importance 180: 174: 173: 171: 139: 138: 122: 110: 109: 107:Mid‑importance 95: 83: 82: 76: 65: 51: 50: 43:the discussion 35: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3244: 3233: 3230: 3228: 3225: 3223: 3220: 3218: 3215: 3213: 3210: 3208: 3205: 3203: 3200: 3199: 3197: 3190: 3187: 3181: 3176: 3172: 3171:RockMagnetist 3167: 3163: 3161: 3156: 3152: 3151:RockMagnetist 3147: 3146:verifiability 3141: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3105: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3076: 3073: 3069: 3061: 3060:RockMagnetist 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3028: 3027: 3019: 3016: 3011: 3009:9783319569642 3006: 3002: 2995: 2992: 2987: 2985:9781483324517 2982: 2978: 2971: 2968: 2963: 2961:9781482238105 2958: 2955:. CRC Press. 2954: 2947: 2944: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2920: 2917: 2912: 2910:9780231542852 2907: 2903: 2896: 2893: 2889: 2873: 2868: 2864: 2863:RockMagnetist 2858: 2857: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2837: 2833: 2832:RockMagnetist 2827: 2826: 2825: 2821: 2817: 2813: 2808: 2804: 2802: 2797: 2793: 2792:RockMagnetist 2787: 2786: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2754: 2753:RockMagnetist 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2743: 2738: 2734: 2733:RockMagnetist 2729: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2707: 2706:RockMagnetist 2701: 2700: 2695: 2691: 2690:RockMagnetist 2686: 2681: 2680: 2675: 2671: 2670:RockMagnetist 2661: 2659: 2658: 2653: 2649: 2648:RockMagnetist 2644: 2640: 2635: 2634: 2629: 2625: 2624:RockMagnetist 2612: 2607: 2603: 2602:RockMagnetist 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2571:bibliometrics 2568: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2550: 2549:RockMagnetist 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2535: 2530: 2526: 2525:RockMagnetist 2521: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2504: 2503:RockMagnetist 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2493: 2488: 2484: 2483:RockMagnetist 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2446:RockMagnetist 2442: 2441: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2431: 2430:Peter morrell 2423: 2419: 2415: 2414:RockMagnetist 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2405: 2404:Peter morrell 2397: 2393: 2390: 2386: 2383: 2379: 2376: 2372: 2371: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2356:Peter morrell 2349: 2345: 2342: 2339: 2336: 2333: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2326: 2318: 2315: 2314: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2304: 2303:Peter morrell 2298: 2297: 2294: 2293:Peter morrell 2288: 2285: 2282: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2258: 2255: 2252: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2240: 2237: 2234: 2231: 2228: 2225: 2222: 2219: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2207: 2204: 2201: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2189: 2186: 2183: 2180: 2177: 2174: 2168: 2166: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2156:RockMagnetist 2153: 2145: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2128:RockMagnetist 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2091: 2090:Peter morrell 2087: 2082: 2078: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2061:RockMagnetist 2058: 2057: 2054: 2051: 2050:Peter morrell 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2041: 2040:Peter morrell 2029: 2025: 2021: 2020:RockMagnetist 2017: 2016:Sybil Exposed 2013: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2002:RockMagnetist 1999: 1998: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1969:RockMagnetist 1966: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1956: 1955:Peter morrell 1950: 1949: 1946: 1945:Peter morrell 1941: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1931:RockMagnetist 1922: 1919: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1911:Epistemology 1910: 1909: 1903: 1900: 1899: 1897: 1896: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1880: 1878: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1860:RockMagnetist 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1851: 1850:Peter morrell 1845: 1842: 1839: 1835: 1832: 1829: 1826: 1823: 1817: 1814: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1802: 1799: 1796: 1793: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1769:RockMagnetist 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1759: 1758:Peter morrell 1751: 1747: 1743: 1742:RockMagnetist 1740: 1739: 1735: 1732: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1711: 1708: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1697: 1696:Peter morrell 1689: 1685: 1681: 1680:RockMagnetist 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1666: 1665:Peter morrell 1658: 1654: 1650: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1639: 1638:Peter morrell 1631: 1628: 1625: 1622: 1619: 1616: 1613: 1610: 1607: 1604: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1583:RockMagnetist 1580: 1579: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1563:'s expose on 1562: 1561:Debbie Nathan 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1545:RockMagnetist 1525: 1521: 1517: 1516:RockMagnetist 1513: 1512: 1511: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1488:RockMagnetist 1485: 1483: 1479: 1475: 1474:RockMagnetist 1471: 1470: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1445:RockMagnetist 1442: 1436: 1434:9780856645365 1431: 1427: 1422: 1419: 1416: 1415: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1389: 1384: 1378: 1377: 1374: 1368: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1345: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1318: 1317: 1312: 1307: 1301: 1300: 1297: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1282:Peter morrell 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1252:Peter morrell 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1222: 1221:Peter morrell 1216: 1215: 1212: 1210: 1205: 1203: 1196: 1192: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1171: 1166: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1153: 1152:Peter morrell 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1114: 1113:Peter morrell 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1067: 1065: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1054:108.203.58.98 1051: 1043: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1029: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1010: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 986: 985: 979: 971: 957: 955: 944: 938: 930: 916: 914: 908: 904: 900: 898: 892: 884: 869: 865: 864: 862: 858: 854: 849: 847: 841: 833: 818: 815: 814: 813: 807: 799: 784: 783: 782: 780: 776: 772: 767: 761: 759: 758: 754: 750: 742: 741: 740: 738: 734: 730: 724: 722: 718: 714: 706: 705: 704: 702: 698: 694: 688: 684: 680: 677: 671: 667: 661: 653: 640: 633: 630: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 619: 616: 612: 609: 607: 602: 600: 594: 590: 586: 583: 582: 581: 580: 574: 566: 550: 549: 545: 541: 537: 523: 517: 509: 495: 492: 491: 488: 484: 480: 476: 473: 472: 468: 464: 460: 455: 454: 451: 447: 443: 438: 437: 434: 430: 426: 425:Murderd2death 421: 420: 415: 411: 407: 402: 401: 400: 399: 396: 393: 391: 386: 384: 377: 376: 375: 374: 370: 366: 361: 357: 334: 330: 324: 321: 320: 317: 300: 296: 292: 291: 283: 277: 272: 270: 267: 263: 262: 258: 252: 249: 246: 242: 226: 218: 214: 213: 210: 208: 203: 202: 197: 193: 189: 185: 179: 176: 175: 172: 155: 154: 149: 145: 144: 136: 125: 123: 120: 116: 115: 111: 104: 99: 96: 93: 89: 84: 80: 74: 66: 62: 57: 56: 48: 44: 40: 36: 33: 29: 28: 19: 3184: 3113:— Preceding 3111:abstraction. 3109: 3068:The Atlantic 3067: 3030:, retrieved 3025: 3018: 3003:. Springer. 3000: 2994: 2976: 2970: 2952: 2946: 2929: 2925: 2919: 2901: 2895: 2887: 2806: 2766: 2762: 2702: 2682: 2665: 2642: 2638: 2636: 2619: 2562: 2554: 2463: 2426: 2401: 2395: 2388: 2381: 2374: 2353: 2347: 2324: 2322: 2299: 2289: 2286: 2283: 2280: 2277: 2274: 2271: 2268: 2265: 2262: 2259: 2256: 2253: 2250: 2247: 2244: 2241: 2238: 2235: 2232: 2229: 2226: 2223: 2220: 2217: 2214: 2211: 2208: 2205: 2202: 2199: 2196: 2193: 2190: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2178: 2175: 2172: 2149: 2085: 2080: 2076: 2073: 2036: 2015: 1951: 1942: 1928: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1836: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1824: 1821: 1754: 1692: 1661: 1635: 1597: 1565:Sybil (book) 1542: 1425: 1391: 1375: 1372: 1347: 1314: 1298: 1295: 1293: 1278: 1248: 1232:Science wars 1217: 1209:(Discussion) 1208: 1201: 1188: 1168: 1148: 1109: 1071: 1048:— Preceding 1044: 1030: 1013: 1008: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 987: 951: 912: 910: 867: 863:TDurden1937 816:This section 768: 765: 746: 725: 723:TDurden1937 711: 689: 685: 681: 678: 675: 617: 606:(Discussion) 605: 598: 584: 551: 535: 526: 493: 474: 390:(Discussion) 389: 382: 353: 328: 288: 183: 151: 141: 79:WikiProjects 46: 2759:primatology 2643:Methodology 2597:metascience 2327:OUP, 2010) 1092:TDurden1937 1033:TDurden1937 853:TDurden1937 781:TDurden527 749:TDurden1937 713:TDurden1937 469:TDurden1937 459:TDurden1937 360:Antiscience 3196:Categories 3080:NightHeron 2888:References 2847:NightHeron 2816:NightHeron 2776:NightHeron 2716:NightHeron 2583:NightHeron 2510:NightHeron 2467:NightHeron 2350:OUP, 2006) 2146:Unabomber? 771:TDurden527 628:2 supports 159:Philosophy 148:philosophy 98:Philosophy 3166:this blog 3075:1072-7825 2805:But does 1649:IRWolfie- 1502:IRWolfie- 1460:IRWolfie- 1353:IRWolfie- 1334:IRWolfie- 1264:IRWolfie- 1236:IRWolfie- 1195:IRWolfie- 1174:IRWolfie- 1136:IRWolfie- 1128:WP:WEIGHT 907:consensus 631:5 opposes 589:Tiggerjay 540:Tiggerjay 479:Tiggerjay 3127:contribs 3115:unsigned 3032:27 April 2152:Politics 1988:OttawaAC 1822:Sources 1569:OttawaAC 1393:Join WER 1316:Join WER 1165:Feminism 1132:WP:SYNTH 1050:unsigned 958:. Best, 618:Summary: 404:quality. 39:deletion 2567:science 2508:Thanks. 2114:Kaldari 2100:Kaldari 1349:worlds. 1170:anymore 909:states: 331:on the 304:Science 295:Science 251:Science 186:on the 103:Science 69:C-class 1373:Dennis 1367:WP:BRD 1330:WP:BRD 1296:Dennis 1123:WP:BRD 585:Oppose 494:Oppose 475:Oppose 75:scale. 2812:WP:OR 1376:Brown 1299:Brown 1202:Bduke 1004:built 964:OBERT 923:OBERT 877:OBERT 826:OBERT 792:OBERT 646:OBERT 599:Bduke 559:OBERT 502:OBERT 383:Bduke 3175:talk 3155:talk 3123:talk 3084:talk 3072:ISSN 3034:2018 3005:ISBN 2981:ISBN 2957:ISBN 2906:ISBN 2867:talk 2851:talk 2836:talk 2820:talk 2796:talk 2780:talk 2737:talk 2720:talk 2694:talk 2674:talk 2662:NPOV 2652:talk 2628:talk 2606:talk 2587:talk 2577:and 2529:talk 2514:talk 2487:talk 2471:talk 2450:talk 2418:talk 2160:talk 2132:talk 2118:talk 2104:talk 2065:talk 2024:talk 2006:talk 1992:talk 1973:talk 1935:talk 1864:talk 1773:talk 1746:talk 1684:talk 1653:talk 1587:talk 1573:talk 1549:talk 1520:talk 1506:talk 1492:talk 1478:talk 1464:talk 1449:talk 1430:ISBN 1357:talk 1338:talk 1268:talk 1240:talk 1178:talk 1140:talk 1121:Per 1096:talk 1079:talk 1058:talk 1037:talk 1022:talk 968:FROM 927:FROM 881:FROM 857:talk 830:FROM 796:FROM 775:talk 753:talk 733:talk 717:talk 697:talk 650:FROM 591:and 563:FROM 544:talk 536:Done 506:FROM 483:talk 463:talk 446:talk 429:talk 410:talk 369:talk 47:keep 45:was 3168:). 2934:doi 1014:No. 915:." 323:Mid 178:Mid 3198:: 3148:. 3129:) 3125:• 3086:) 3070:. 2928:. 2853:) 2822:) 2807:he 2782:) 2722:) 2589:) 2581:." 2516:) 2473:) 2452:) 2420:) 2162:) 2134:) 2120:) 2106:) 2067:) 2026:) 2008:) 1994:) 1975:) 1937:) 1866:) 1775:) 1748:) 1686:) 1655:) 1589:) 1575:) 1551:) 1522:) 1508:) 1494:) 1480:) 1466:) 1451:) 1382:2¢ 1379:- 1359:) 1340:) 1305:2¢ 1302:- 1270:) 1242:) 1180:) 1142:) 1134:. 1098:) 1085:) 1081:) 1060:) 1039:) 1028:) 1024:) 978:CN 970:LI 937:CN 929:LI 891:CN 883:LI 859:) 840:CN 832:LI 806:CN 798:LI 777:) 755:) 747:-- 739:) 735:) 719:) 703:) 699:) 660:CN 652:LI 573:CN 565:LI 546:) 516:CN 508:LI 485:) 465:) 448:) 431:) 412:) 379:-- 371:) 205:/ 101:: 3177:) 3173:( 3157:) 3153:( 3142:: 3138:@ 3121:( 3082:( 3077:. 3062:: 3058:@ 3012:. 2988:. 2964:. 2940:. 2936:: 2930:4 2913:. 2869:) 2865:( 2849:( 2838:) 2834:( 2818:( 2814:. 2798:) 2794:( 2778:( 2755:: 2751:@ 2739:) 2735:( 2718:( 2708:: 2704:@ 2696:) 2692:( 2676:) 2672:( 2654:) 2650:( 2630:) 2626:( 2608:) 2604:( 2585:( 2551:: 2547:@ 2531:) 2527:( 2512:( 2505:: 2501:@ 2489:) 2485:( 2469:( 2448:( 2416:( 2158:( 2130:( 2116:( 2102:( 2063:( 2022:( 2004:( 1990:( 1971:( 1933:( 1862:( 1771:( 1744:( 1682:( 1651:( 1585:( 1571:( 1547:( 1518:( 1504:( 1490:( 1476:( 1462:( 1447:( 1437:. 1387:© 1355:( 1336:( 1310:© 1266:( 1238:( 1176:( 1138:( 1094:( 1077:( 1056:( 1035:( 1020:( 1016:( 975:/ 973:| 966:M 962:R 934:/ 932:| 925:M 921:R 888:/ 886:| 879:M 875:R 855:( 837:/ 835:| 828:M 824:R 803:/ 801:| 794:M 790:R 773:( 751:( 731:( 715:( 695:( 657:/ 655:| 648:M 644:R 570:/ 568:| 561:M 557:R 542:( 533:Y 513:/ 511:| 504:M 500:R 481:( 461:( 444:( 427:( 408:( 367:( 335:. 190:. 81:: 49:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index