Exactly. On the subject of 'hard' and 'soft' sciences, I think there are two important points. Firstly, in biology and and human sciences, there are obviously aspects of some kinds of research, to do with sex and gender, that can have political interpretations in as far as they relate to the positions of men and women in society. This simply does not apply to the 'hard' (i.e. physical) sciences - how can you possibly have a 'feminist' (or 'masculinist') interpretation of research on molecular dynamics, or galaxy formation, or particle interactions?
Secondly, on the point about men dominating physics, engineering etc. and women dominating biology, psychology etc. - has anyone considered the possibility that, on average, men's and women's brains work a bit differently? Or am I going to be hanged from the rafters for voicing such a glaringly politically incorrect opinion?
Finally, to turtle's point about cultural bias: in the hard sciences, which is the kind of science I know, the doctrine of the scientific method reigns supreme, in which results are obtained in ways that are as objective as can possibly be. It doesn't matter what a person's background is when they do a piece of research; either they do it rigorously and properly, in which case their research is worth something, or they don't, in which case it isn't. That's all there is to it - in a sense, science is the most fair and culturally neutral academic discipline you can practise (with the possible exception of mathematics, of course). And if you want to say that merely using the scientific method is a form of cultural bias - well, if you're not using it, you're not doing science.
First: no one said anything about "feminist" or "masculinist" readings of science, least of all Irigaray. Irigaray is, ultimately, always going to be providing a feminist reading in her work, because that is her field, she was one of the first academic feminists, and on top of that, it will be a psychoanalytical reading. Maybe you should READ some psychoanalysis, some Freud and Lacan, and eventually Irigaray before you try to ASSUME you know what their jargon means. Being someone who HAS read it, I can tell you that you're way off in your interpretation of what you're projecting onto them--most of the things you seem to think they believe are just not the case.
That would be the scientific approach, wouldn't it? Go look for the FACTS before you form judgments of a set of opinions or (in this case) a highly abstract, often metaphorical interpretation of phenomena that are clearly not subject to the sorts of measurements that math or science uses to assess the world? I'm very sure that neither Lacan nor Irigaray would deny that they are espousing UNSCIENTIFIC viewpoints that are highly abstract and not easily made analogous to "commonsensical" approaches to human interaction and the human psyche.
Second: Irigaray's point was not about men dominating the sciences, exactly. She is referring much more abstractly to an idea that (originated in the work of men, mind you) that all language and public discourse is inflected with the privilege of those who built Western culture (while women were excluded from participation in culture and politics), a sort of privilege that was solely imparted to males only because they were male. It is a theoretical principle, somewhat (I'm using an analogy here) like those very elegant principles in physics that describe a very distinct but abstract set of phenomena, that later gets called "phallogocentrism" by Derrida and others.
In order to understand, it is NECESSARY to read her words directly. Philosophy is a discipline where the devil's in the details; it is comprised of the exact words of its texts. In the same way you can't meet science with philosophical objections alone, you can't meet philosophy with scientific objections and ignore criticizing it on its own terms, by using philosophy itself.
I will find your criticism of Irigaray or "post-modernism" or any other theory/philosophy valid when you come back to me having read it, and understanding it, think PAST or THROUGH it and come up with objections that deal directly with the actual content of the texts.
P.S. I work at an institution that has 8 Nobel laureates on its faculty. These people more than most understand how important it is to bear in mind--and in fact, stress this to laypeople constantly who are looking for biological reasons to go back to old gender stereotypes and norms--that what is remarkable is not that male and female brains are very different in many ways; what is remarkable is how SIMILAR men in women are in aptitude, ability, and performance in every field and by every standard of measurement at our disposal men and women are DESPITE those biological "brain" differences.
. Thus cultural background (gender, race or otherwise) definitely comes into play.
