Date:         Tue, 24 Jun 97 16:25:05 EDT
From: Meredith <MMREDL0@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Intelligent discussion and idea-swapping"
To: socgrad@CSF.COLORADO.EDU
In-Reply-To:  <v02130505afd5e3039f4b@[128.197.9.195]>
Message-Id:   <970624.164817.EDT.MMREDL0@ukcc.uky.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
re: Michael's comments on comments on Tom, etc....

I agree that Tom just wants to be convinced, but I was trying to make the point
that given how narrowly he has defined what is entailed in "legitimate" evidenc
e, he is bound to be disappointed.  The structure of empiricism is only ONe
of the philosphies of science, and, to researchers like myself, hardly the
most convincing.  While gathering qualitative data in household interviews
over the past two years here in KY, I'm not sure I would be able to make a
case for gender inequality by the standards Tom has set for "evidence".  How-
ever, by employing other approaches I feel that gender--in this case, women's--
inequality is very real, and emerges from the constant small incidents and
interactions which directly or indirectly undermine the validity of women's
methods, feelings and ways of being in their lives.  The overall structure
of these effects are not reducible to "push" or "pull" factors, or any other
"factor" at all, or not without eliminating both the richness and subtlety
of the data.  It's the richness and subtlety I value, not the ability to
empirically "prove" a=b.  My comments regarding your judgementalism, Tom,
were based on the fact that you were only allowing one approach, and those
who challenged the legitimacy of YOUR approach were accused by you of ille-
gitimately interpreting your argument.  Well, actually, you stated that Ivy
willfully misinterpreted your argument, which goes beyond questions of
legitimacy and into questions of intent--a truly theological argument.

The challenge I, and I meant it certainly in a direct way, was and am making
to Tom is in the parameters of "evidence" which he is demanding be shown,
and in his stance of accepting only that perspective--which he makes clear.
It appears to me that this conversation has been defensive on both sides,
due to the assumption and framing which he is employing.....

And come on, a little ruckus is good for the soul.  YOu know, this does bring
in the prestige line as well, I suppose.  Whose concept of "evidence" is
determined to be legitimate is not exempt from questions of value...

Just some thoughts....Meredith Redlin UKy