Nicolás Díaz

RESUMEN Este artículo problematiza la forma en la que el feminismo ha interpretado al escepticismo como una amenaza para su proyecto epistemológico, ético y político, y plantea que, a pesar de dicha interpretación, el escepticismo es inherente a la filosofía feminista y un aliado útil para su proyecto. El problema ha estado en cómo el feminismo ha reducido su comprensión del escepticismo a una versión cartesiana extrema y ha pasado por alto otras corrientes de la tradición —como la de David Hume— que podrían ser fructíferas para promover una actitud crítica y emancipatoria. Muestra así como una alianza entre una comprensión moderada del escepticismo y el feminismo puede brindar las herramientas necesarias para cuestionar formas de dominación patriarcal y poner en marcha investigaciones que combatan la opresión de género. ABSTRACT This article problematizes feminism's current interpretation of skepticism as a threat to its epistemological, ethical, and political project, and argues that, despite this common view, skepticism is inherent to feminist philosophy and the latter can benefit from it. The problem lies in feminism's narrow understanding of skepticism that identifies it with a form of extreme Cartesianism, and leaves aside other skeptical variants, such as David Hume's moderate skepticism, which can be useful in promoting a critical and emancipatory stance, akin to feminism. The article demonstrates, then, how an alliance between feminism and this moderate kind of skepticism can contribute to question forms of patriarchal domination and propose lines of research that aim at combatting gender oppression.

This study examines the conflation of terms such as “knowledge” and “understanding” in peer-reviewed literature, and tests the hypothesis that little current research clearly distinguishes between importantly distinct epistemic states. Two sets of data are presented from papers published in the journal Public Understanding of Science. In the first set, the digital text analysis tool, Voyant, is used to analyze all papers published in 2014 for the use of epistemic success terms. In the second set of data, all papers published in Public Understanding of Science from 2010–2015 are systematically analyzed to identify instances in which epistemic states are empirically measured. The results indicate that epistemic success terms are inconsistently defined, and that measurement of understanding, in particular, is rarely achieved in public understanding of science studies. We suggest that more diligent attention to measuring understanding, as opposed to mere knowledge, will increase efficacy of scientific outreach and communication efforts.