In the traditional methodology of science, neutral objectivity is an important part of science because it should be able to prove that science is universal and beyond society. That is, science is in a throne which is not tainted by society. Neutral objectivity is science’s weapon for claiming this situation.

However, in the Longino’s argument, neutral objectivity is not existence because processes of producing science are processes of interactions between scientific knowledge and society. For instance, peer review is a way to make scientific articles interacting with society. Usually, recommendations from peer review contain values of consensus of contemporary scientific community. They decide what science is worthy to be published. The values of the scientific community will go inside science which claims it possesses objectivity. Hence, objectivity has certain values and positions which are relative to society and social elements. Longino recommends that contextualist analysis is a good method to approach other objectivity (maybe, it is a better one). Evidence which science uses does not come from where is empty. Evidence has its own social context connecting with certain social values. Scientist shall not avoid the social contexts of evidence for claiming an universal science which is not existed. Scientists must face and reveal the contexts of evidence for a better understanding of science which the evidence want to prove.

In my opinion, I think the viewpoint of Longino is similar to situated knowledge Donna Haraway mentions. They both are not satisfied with neutral objectivity which science announces. Meanwhile, they recommend scientists must to realize the social contexts which they make science. I believe it is an important warming because science is a practice interweaving with society, values, and context.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License