and then there’s this specific logical pluralist angle which is fine enough but i dislike the framing as “deeper indeterminacy of science” when compared to other relativistic schemes. like sure “stem from” is doing a lot of heavy lifting, but it almost seems to imply those couldn’t be fallouts

which ig is a silly concern to have, i’m just not a fan of the science angle and how strict they try to make the pluralism appear, but maybe that’s just my bad read.

maybe i’m just lacking imagination but i have very concrete ideas in mind about how contexts could influence scientific projects but im struggling to see that in the case of logical contexts. like sure we talk about gender and the law of excluded middle and ig that’s fine but

idk it’s just shrugcore and also absurd. i’m also tempted to think it’s a little bit skissue on the part of feminist philosophers for having like bad ideas and being frustrated when they don’t pan out

and like yea, logicbros bad and you have to let the material shape the direction you go, duh. idk i was never really into philosophy of logic so ig i just don’t really care and ill keep on using logic how i need

which is the other small worrying thing with how easy to slip into motivated reasoning this seems