אינדקס
לוח שנה
Latest images
שאלות נפוצות
חיפוש
רשימת חברים
קבוצות משתמשים
הרשם
התחבר
Lil Sean- מספר הודעות : 100
Join date : 15.09.22
אייזיק ניוטון אנס שוביניסט
Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:15 pm
אייזיק ניוטון אנס שוביניסט?!
- Lil Sean
- מספר הודעות : 100
Join date : 15.09.22
Re: אייזיק ניוטון אנס שוביניסט
Thu Sep 22, 2022 1:15 pm
ובכן.. עצרו.נה רגע קודם אתן.ם ממהרות.ים לדחות את הדברים על הסף כמס שפתיים או אולי להרעיף.נה עלי הר תוכחות כהרף עין, חכונ.ה. 
נשמתן.ם? נהדר.ת. 
תקראו.נה (*ראו אוזהרתן.ם, נצרכת הבנת אנגלית ברמה סבירה-* 
):
ראשית, אפתח ואצטט מאמר מאת דוקינס (במידה ואמצא, אצרף בזאת קישור);
"The feminist ‘philosopher’ Luce Irigaray is another who is given whole chapter" treatment by Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton’s Principia (a ‘rape manual’) Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a ‘sexed equation’. Why? Because ‘it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us’ (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an in-word). Just as typical of the school of thought under examination is Irigaray’s thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. ‘Masculine physics’ privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray’s thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:
“The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. . . From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders."
שמעתן.ם?? לא זו אף זו; הרי מאמר נוסף של הוגה פמיניסטית אמריקאית ידועה לא פחות, שמה סנדרה הרדינג:
"One phenomenon feminist historians have focused on is the rape and torture" metaphors in the writings of Sir Francis Bacon and others (e.g. Machiavelli) enthusiastic about the new scientific method.
…But when it comes to regarding nature as a machine, they have quite a different analysis: here, we are told, the metaphor provides the interpretations of Newton’s mathematical laws: it directs inquirers to fruitful ways to apply his theory and suggests the appropriate methods of inquiry and the kind of metaphysics the new theory supports. But if we are to believe that mechanistic metaphors were a fundamental component of the explanations the new science provided, why should we believe that the gender metaphors were not? A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretations of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton’s laws as “Newton’s rape manual” as it is to call them “Newton’s mechanics?
[למקור, ע"ע: Sandra Harding, 1986, The Science Question in Feminism; feminist epistimology; בנוסף ראו.נה המאמר המצורף לעיל להרחבה]
אז.. באחרית דבר: איזיק נוטון היה אנס?? ו'חוקי נוטון' פרי עבודתו כאמור אינם אלא קובץ הדרכה לאנס המתלמד? וE=mc^2 היא/הוא/הם למעשה משוואה סקסיסטי.ת ומיזוגני.ת, או שמא אוטואנטישמי.ת? לא כך? מה דעתכן.ם?
שתפו!
נשמתן.ם? נהדר.ת. תקראו.נה (*ראו אוזהרתן.ם, נצרכת הבנת אנגלית ברמה סבירה-* ):ראשית, אפתח ואצטט מאמר מאת דוקינס (במידה ואמצא, אצרף בזאת קישור);
"The feminist ‘philosopher’ Luce Irigaray is another who is given whole chapter" treatment by Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton’s Principia (a ‘rape manual’) Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a ‘sexed equation’. Why? Because ‘it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us’ (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an in-word). Just as typical of the school of thought under examination is Irigaray’s thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. ‘Masculine physics’ privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray’s thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:
“The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids. . . From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders."
שמעתן.ם?? לא זו אף זו; הרי מאמר נוסף של הוגה פמיניסטית אמריקאית ידועה לא פחות, שמה סנדרה הרדינג:
"One phenomenon feminist historians have focused on is the rape and torture" metaphors in the writings of Sir Francis Bacon and others (e.g. Machiavelli) enthusiastic about the new scientific method.
…But when it comes to regarding nature as a machine, they have quite a different analysis: here, we are told, the metaphor provides the interpretations of Newton’s mathematical laws: it directs inquirers to fruitful ways to apply his theory and suggests the appropriate methods of inquiry and the kind of metaphysics the new theory supports. But if we are to believe that mechanistic metaphors were a fundamental component of the explanations the new science provided, why should we believe that the gender metaphors were not? A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretations of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton’s laws as “Newton’s rape manual” as it is to call them “Newton’s mechanics?
[למקור, ע"ע: Sandra Harding, 1986, The Science Question in Feminism; feminist epistimology; בנוסף ראו.נה המאמר המצורף לעיל להרחבה]
אז.. באחרית דבר: איזיק נוטון היה אנס?? ו'חוקי נוטון' פרי עבודתו כאמור אינם אלא קובץ הדרכה לאנס המתלמד? וE=mc^2 היא/הוא/הם למעשה משוואה סקסיסטי.ת ומיזוגני.ת, או שמא אוטואנטישמי.ת? לא כך? מה דעתכן.ם?
שתפו!
Permissions in this forum:
אתה לא יכול להגיב לנושאים בפורום זה