逻辑和性别?大学哲学课程中的逻辑证据

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG Pub Date : 2023-09-15 DOI:10.3196/004433023837586022
Tim Kraft
{"title":"逻辑和性别?大学哲学课程中的逻辑证据","authors":"Tim Kraft","doi":"10.3196/004433023837586022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the underrepresentation of women in academic philosophy is well-known and hard to overlook, philosophers started to pay more attention to the actual data on and potential explanations of the underrepresentation of women in philosophy only in the last decade and predominately in anglophone countries. The data I present in this paper deal with introductory logic courses at German universities (gender of textbook authors, gender of logic course instructors, student grades by gender at one university). Two results are particularly noteworthy: For one, logic teaching in Germany is currently predominantly male and even more male than philosophy teaching as a whole. For another, there is no evidence for any differences between grades of female and male students. The student grade data, however, illustrate how statistical phenomena like Simpson's paradox can explain how male students can appear to achieve better grades than female students even if there is no underlying difference: When correcting for students’ major (philosophy vs. STEM), logic grades of male and female students are remarkably similar. Although the scope of the data presented here is limited, they allow to add further details to an emerging map of the profession. I close with some suggestions for avoiding stereotyping logic as “male”.","PeriodicalId":43672,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Logik und Geschlecht? Empirische Daten zu Logikeinführungen im Philosophiestudium an deutschen Universitäten1\",\"authors\":\"Tim Kraft\",\"doi\":\"10.3196/004433023837586022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Although the underrepresentation of women in academic philosophy is well-known and hard to overlook, philosophers started to pay more attention to the actual data on and potential explanations of the underrepresentation of women in philosophy only in the last decade and predominately in anglophone countries. The data I present in this paper deal with introductory logic courses at German universities (gender of textbook authors, gender of logic course instructors, student grades by gender at one university). Two results are particularly noteworthy: For one, logic teaching in Germany is currently predominantly male and even more male than philosophy teaching as a whole. For another, there is no evidence for any differences between grades of female and male students. The student grade data, however, illustrate how statistical phenomena like Simpson's paradox can explain how male students can appear to achieve better grades than female students even if there is no underlying difference: When correcting for students’ major (philosophy vs. STEM), logic grades of male and female students are remarkably similar. Although the scope of the data presented here is limited, they allow to add further details to an emerging map of the profession. I close with some suggestions for avoiding stereotyping logic as “male”.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3196/004433023837586022\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3196/004433023837586022","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管女性在学术哲学领域的代表性不足是众所周知且难以忽视的,但哲学家们直到最近十年才开始更多地关注女性在哲学领域代表性不足的实际数据和潜在解释,而且主要是在英语国家。我在本文中提出的数据涉及德国大学的逻辑入门课程(教科书作者的性别,逻辑课程讲师的性别,一所大学的性别学生成绩)。有两个结果特别值得注意:首先,德国的逻辑教学目前以男性为主,甚至比哲学教学整体上更男性化。另一方面,没有证据表明男女学生的成绩有任何差异。然而,学生成绩数据表明,像辛普森悖论这样的统计现象可以解释,即使没有根本的差异,男学生的成绩也会比女学生好:在纠正学生的专业(哲学vs. STEM)时,男女学生的逻辑成绩非常相似。虽然这里提供的数据范围有限,但它们可以为该专业的新兴地图添加进一步的细节。最后,我提出了一些避免“男性”刻板印象的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Logik und Geschlecht? Empirische Daten zu Logikeinführungen im Philosophiestudium an deutschen Universitäten1
Although the underrepresentation of women in academic philosophy is well-known and hard to overlook, philosophers started to pay more attention to the actual data on and potential explanations of the underrepresentation of women in philosophy only in the last decade and predominately in anglophone countries. The data I present in this paper deal with introductory logic courses at German universities (gender of textbook authors, gender of logic course instructors, student grades by gender at one university). Two results are particularly noteworthy: For one, logic teaching in Germany is currently predominantly male and even more male than philosophy teaching as a whole. For another, there is no evidence for any differences between grades of female and male students. The student grade data, however, illustrate how statistical phenomena like Simpson's paradox can explain how male students can appear to achieve better grades than female students even if there is no underlying difference: When correcting for students’ major (philosophy vs. STEM), logic grades of male and female students are remarkably similar. Although the scope of the data presented here is limited, they allow to add further details to an emerging map of the profession. I close with some suggestions for avoiding stereotyping logic as “male”.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Mit diesem Doppelheft beginnt die Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung ihren 50. Jahrgang. Ihre Gründung im Frühjahr 1946 verdankt sie einem glücklichen Zusammenwirken. Die Initiative eines Münchner Philosophen aus Bulgarien verbindet sich mit dem Sachverstand namhafter Professoren, die damals noch aus ganz Deutschland, nicht nur dem Westen kommen. Ob er sie "nur" als Autoren oder zusätzlich für den Beirat der Redaktion gewinnt - von Anfang an versichert sich Georgi Schischkoff der Mitarbeit fast aller großen Namen der Zeit. Zunächst sind es etwa der Philosoph und Pädagoge Friedrich Bollnow, der Platon-Forscher Ernst Hoffmann, der Philosoph und Psychologe Philipp Lersch und die Philosophen Walter Bröcker und Wilhelm Weischedel.
期刊最新文献
Ebenen des philosophischen Textverstehens und ihre lesestrategische Bedeutung Die Autorinnen und Autoren dieses Heftes Schopenhauer über Seinsgründe Logik und Geschlecht? Empirische Daten zu Logikeinführungen im Philosophiestudium an deutschen Universitäten1 Replik zu den Kommentaren
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1