The Case For Strategic Realism: A Response To Lawson
回应劳森的观点，认为女性主义学者只需避免朴素实在论，而非所有实在论；并探讨为何许多女性主义者偏好认识论而非本体论论证，以及朴素实在论为何看似合理。
Tony Lawson makes a compelling case that it is only naive realism that feminist social scientists and philosophers need to avoid, not any and all realist arguments. However, he leaves mysterious, on the one hand, why so many feminists have preferred epistemological to ontological arguments and, on the other hand, why naive realism, which is indeed problematic, can appear to be a good scientific/epistemic strategy. The essay below tries to demystify these phenomena, notes a possible misleading aspect of his use of the term "epistemological relativism", and argues for a somewhat more limited value of the ontological argument he proposes for standpoint epistemologies.