Objectivity and orgasm: the perils of imprecise definitions

Lloyd (The case of the female orgasm: bias in the science of evolution, Harvard University Press, Harvard, 2005) analyzes every proposed evolutionary explanation of female orgasm and argues that all but one suffers from serious evidential errors. Lloyd attributes these errors to two main biases: androcentrism and adaptationism. This paper begins by arguing that the explanation Lloyd favors-the by-product account-is guilty of the androcentrism which supposedly implicates the other explanations of female orgasm with numerous evidential discrepancies. This suggests that there is another error afflicting orgasm research in addition to the biases Lloyd identities. I attempt to diagnose and characterize this additional error. In short, I think the error is using an imprecise definition of the trait in question. Further, Lloyd takes her analysis to support Longino's (Science as social knowledge: values and objectivity in scientific inquiry, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990) contextual empiricist model of scientific objectivity. I consider what implications this analysis has for contextual empiricism. Finally, I argue that theorizing about female orgasm should be done from a conceptual engineering approach.

Automated summary

Lloyd critiques the evidential errors in proposed evolutionary explanations of female orgasm, attributing them to biases of androcentrism and adaptationism. In addition to these biases, there may be an error stemming from the use of imprecise trait definitions in orgasm research. Lloyd's analysis supports Longino's contextual empiricist model of scientific objectivity and suggests a conceptual engineering approach to theorizing about female orgasm.