I think part of it might be that the other humanities are full of girls. Most of my classes are an equal split between the two. But it is the guys who usually talk more and seem to know what is going on.

The most shocking experience I had was walking into the philosophy library where all the undergrad hang out. There were five guys in there, and one looked up and said ‘what are you doing here?’

After a moment they realized what they had said, and made a bit of an apology. But that was when I realized that philosophy really is male dominated. It is something that bothers me about feminism. There is philosophy and then a weird divide between it and feminist philosophy. Feminist phil should be a subset of ethics as far as I can tell. But it seems like there are the Real philosophers who are the men and then there are the feminist philosophers. I think there is fault for this on both sides. Because the feminist philosophers will accuse other women in philosophy of buying into a patriarchial structure. It’s weird.

That comment, however, reminds me of a very amusing one I got in my medieval philosophy class. Instead of telling me I was wrong the teacher yelled, ‘Heretic! and informed me that in this context I would be burned at the stake and instead of being hung until dead.’ I kinda adored my teacher for that.

As someone who didn’t go into philosophy of science, but did get my PhD. in the History of Science (actually, the history of technology…), I can tell you that what you said sounds a hell of a lot more like where a real philosopher would start. Obviously, the “scientist who thinks they are a philosopher” didn’t get that you cannot just assume the world, sensory data, etc in such endeavors.

In any case, as a Historian, let me tell you how much we hate philosophers of science. Or at least, let me tell you what frustrates the ever-living-fuck out of me when it comes to many philosophers of science–say like Feyerabend.

Mainly, it’s the fact that they like to talk about what science is in a way that entirely doesn’t have anything to do with how science is actually done, embodied, or exists in the actual world. I’ve read more than enough philosophy of science to come across countless examples of them saying “Science needs X and Y to exist.” And then some person points out, “Well, famous Scientist W–when he discovered fundamental theory Q didn’t do anything like Y, and only partially does X, but in a totally different way than you’ve described leading to a very different practice and result.”

And Philosopher comes back and says “Well, that’s just bunk. Science is this way, and those historical details aren’t important anyway.”

So.. this is a roundabout way of saying–Good, I’m glad your not in philosophy. Perhaps the overall reason is that women have a tendency to care more about stuff that is ACTUALLY IMPORTANT rather than just engaging in abstract mental masturbation that no one else really gives a damn about–whereas some men have no such qualms..