Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!
Thoughts on readings.
![lwacker's picture lwacker's picture](https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/files/pictures/picture-468.jpg)
"Most striking is McFadden's admission that his primary theory relies on evidence that is largely circumstantial" (2008, 309). Bonnie Spanier and Jessica Horowitz
This reminded me a lot of the discussion we had in class about the Biology textbook chapters and the validity of the text based on the author's status at a University and the fact that Kaye had picked the text. Although we seem to have full-diclosure here I am left feeling unamused that such serious research would be conducted from a loose evidentiary base.
"After acknowledging the possibility that there may, in fact, be no common underlying cause for all the different observations, McFadden reminds the reader that until the answer is found "science dictates that one tries to find the simplest possible explanation for as many facts as possible, and the prenatal-androgen-exposure explanation appears to do the job' (2008, 318). Bonnie Spanier and Jessica Horowitz
Again, this is extremely unsettling to me, as an individual I prefer the rational and logic. However, this sounds like more of a wild goose chase to me. Is it really prudent to conduct research simply searchng for the simplest possible explanation? As we have learned, when is it ever simle when it comes to something as complex, individualized and intimate as someone's sexuality and gender?
"In this book, I ask readers to follow the same journey I have taken, looking closely at the measures and methods in order to understand gaps and fundamental contradictions in the data." Jordan-Young, Brainstorm.
It was refreshing to finally move on to Brainstorm. Although at times similarly frustrating I found the author's section, "Some Notes on the Aims of This Book" to be refreshing.
Comments
Occam's razor
Your posting that highlighted Spanier and Horowitz's claim that "science dictates that one tries to find the simplest possible explanation for as many facts as possible, and the prenatal-androgen-exposure explanation appears to do the job" encouraged me to read more about the concept known as "Occam's razor," I found the entry on Wikipedia to be informative:
"The principle is often inaccurately summarized as "the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one." This summary is misleading, as in practice the principle is actually focused on shifting the burden of proof in discussions.[1] That is, the razor is a principle that suggests we should tend towards simpler theories until we can trade some simplicity for increased explanatory power. Contrary to the popular summary, the simplest available theory is sometimes a less accurate explanation. Philosophers also add that the exact meaning of "simplest" can be nuanced in the first place.[2]
As we've been discussing in class, understanding issues of gender and sexuality needs "increased explanatory power" and I would argue that such power (potential) derives from multidisciplinary approaches.