Is it just my imagination or is everybody who ventured an opinion there a guy?
Anyhow If I had to pick just one concept, I'd probably go with either standpoint epistemology or situated knowledges. Oppression theory, intersectionality, and gender theory would all be high on my list too. For those who have read the whole article, did anybody mention any of these?
None of the specific theories you mentioned were on the first page of that list (there are many more pages than the first).
The page seems to be working at a much higher level of abstraction than your suggested contributions. Most of the suggestions on the page focus on scientific methodology (falsifiability, probability distributions), not specific theories (gravitation) or particular schools of political advocacy (Oppression Theory).
thanks for checking. i downloaded the whole document using the trick from elsewhere in the thread and didn't see any of these topics.
> The page seems to be working at a much higher level of abstraction than your suggested contributions.
i'm not sure i see it that way. standpoint epistemology is in the same category as falsifiability: a model for knowledge. oppression theory provides a social science model for power vectors. intersectionality applies to graph theory as well as social sciences. if anything i think the abstraction level is higher.
You might be right about standpoint epistemiology, I can't say I understand it well enough to comment.
But intersectionality is merely the hypothesis that the dimensionality of experiencing oppression is O(a^n) rather than
merely O(n). I.e., discrimination(black woman) != discrimination(black) `simple operation` discrimination(woman). Similarly, as you note, oppression theory is a hypothesis + moral conclusions narrowly restricted to a particular type of social science.
Probability and the concept of "Garbage In, Garbage Out" are useful to all fields. The CAP theorem, the schrodinger equation and oppression theory are pretty narrow in their scope.
You've misdescribed intersectionality [which isn't only about discrimination] and oppression theory [which doesn't necessarily have any morality embedded, and is very broad in its applicability]. How much do you do know about any of the topics you're being so dismissive of?
If somebody without any apparent background in your areas of expertise numerical wave propagation and exponential asymptotics described them incorrectly and said that they weren't as important as other areas, how would you react?
I don't know a lot about them (learned a little bit in college), and I admit I had to brush up on wikipedia before commenting. You'll note that I explicitly described my (former) field ("the Schrodinger equation") as being narrow in scope relative to the concept of probability. I didn't even bother mentioning exponential asymptotics since it's so obscure that most people need not even know it exists. It's a neat mathematical tool, useful for a few purposes. That's all.
Look, you use probability and the concept of GIGO everywhere - computing, sociology, physics, business, etc. Most people will never have any need for exponential asymptotics, oppression theory or the mechanics of securities markets.
i use oppression theory, intersectionality, and standpoint epistemology as much as i use probability and GIGO. your mileage may vary.
good diagram but i'm not sure why its relevant. i don't have a PhD in any of these things, i just find them very useful transformative techniques that most people don't know about -- or don't understand well enough to apply in practice.
Anyhow If I had to pick just one concept, I'd probably go with either standpoint epistemology or situated knowledges. Oppression theory, intersectionality, and gender theory would all be high on my list too. For those who have read the whole article, did anybody mention any of these?