Actually “What’s a strong woman?…
Mateo D

The problem lies in constructing a valid measure for ‘strong.’ Does it mean physical strength, strength of character, is that strength unique to women, etc.? In order to measure ‘strong woman' there would need to be a theoretical foundation established for creating such an index. Even granting that one gave a working defintion, the results would be specific to that definition and wouldn’t actually answer the problem. It would provide a wide range of data to engage in interpretation, but it wouldn’t be able to explain the phenomenon of ‘strong woman.’ Measurement tools are only as good as their assumptions. How does one construct those assumptions? It requires engaging in an intellectual framework which can navigate competing value laden claims.

I agree that science tends to be more specific in its inquiries. But the assumption is that enough time in the specifics will answer all the questions about being human. But those inquiries have built in values — we have to be able to evaluate the values and intellectual systems which stand behind scientific inquiry. And we have to be able to discuss questions like is it better to live in a constitutional republic or parliamentary democracy? Scientific inquiry cannot really answer that question other than by relying on opinion data. So it’s not really an evaluation of which is better, merely which is more popular. The human experience is broader than scientific inquiry; we need an intellectual path for understanding that experience which exists beyond scientific inquiry. Again, this isn’t intended to discount science — far from it. It’s to recognize the intellectual limitations of scientific inquiry and to delineate critical thinking as a path to knowledge that’s essential for understanding the human condition.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.