Of course it was hyperbole, but Wekker's opinion of objectivity in science is something I completely unhyperbolically oppose. In "White Innocence" she literally states that she rejects the "untenable positivist" position according to which it should not matter who the person behind the scientist is and that someone's work should be duplicable. I do not have a PhD, but I have a decent scientific background and I find this to be an incredibly dangerous argument to make, potentially undermining any and all scientific findings; this truly plays into the hands of those who question universities and research in general (be prepared for those who think scientific findings on vaccines are "just based on the scientist's personal background"!). Perhaps this makes one a "decently well known anthropologist" in Lolberlin and on various other U.S. campuses, and I am prepared to take anyone's argument seriously regardless of their position, but according to me it makes her an activist more than a scientist.
SMH dude, rejecting positivism does not mean anti-realism or anti-materialism... If you are to take positivism seriously, that means that Saturn's rings did not exist before Galileo saw them!
Like the majority of the Western canon of philosophy is not positivist or empiricist, does this mean you don't read any of them?
Remember: we're talking about
social sciences here...
