I spent about 20 minutes reading parts of it. I'd classify it as "history of science" (a perfectly valid subject).
Bottom line is she's highly
No. She is in no way "highly credentialised in biology". She has
taught at universities but "Women's Studies and the History of
Science", and "History of Consciousness [...] and Feminist
Studies". (From [1])
The content of her Yale PhD is not in biology, in the way this term
is usually understood (DNA, proteins, signalling chains, PCR, bench
work, taxonomy of animals, ... i.e. studying the physical structure,
chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms,
development and evolution of living organisms).
Since the scientific credibility of subjects like "Feminist Studies"
is controversial (unlike biology) claiming high credentials where
there are none, makes me think of
HN guidelines [7]: when discussing highly controversial subjects like, discussions about scientific credentials, should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less.
list some highly credentialed
social scientists you respect,
I don't see why this is relevant for Haraway, not every great scientist has a
great dissertation or written their dissertation in the field they
later became famous for. The "bottom line" is that Haraway has no
substantial credentials in biology, and certainly she has not done research in biology in the sense the term is usually understood. Anyway, to take up your challenge, I'm fairly
familiar with the following highly credentialed social scientists:
Karl Marx (PhD in philosophy on ancient Greek philosophy, I have been
unable to locate it, if you have a link to the text, I'd be grateful), Max Weber (PhD in law about commercial law in
Italy [2, 3]), Talcott Parsons (PhD is [4]), Émile Durkheim (PhD is on
the division of labour [5]) and Niklas Luhmann (PhD about automation
in administrations [6]). How is all this relevant regarding Donna Haraway?
The content of her Yale PhD is not in biology, in the way this term is usually understood (DNA, proteins, signalling chains, PCR, bench work, taxonomy of animals, ... i.e. studying the physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution of living organisms).
Since the scientific credibility of subjects like "Feminist Studies" is controversial (unlike biology) claiming high credentials where there are none, makes me think of HN guidelines [7]: when discussing highly controversial subjects like, discussions about scientific credentials, should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less.
I don't see why this is relevant for Haraway, not every great scientist has a great dissertation or written their dissertation in the field they later became famous for. The "bottom line" is that Haraway has no substantial credentials in biology, and certainly she has not done research in biology in the sense the term is usually understood. Anyway, to take up your challenge, I'm fairly familiar with the following highly credentialed social scientists: Karl Marx (PhD in philosophy on ancient Greek philosophy, I have been unable to locate it, if you have a link to the text, I'd be grateful), Max Weber (PhD in law about commercial law in Italy [2, 3]), Talcott Parsons (PhD is [4]), Émile Durkheim (PhD is on the division of labour [5]) and Niklas Luhmann (PhD about automation in administrations [6]). How is all this relevant regarding Donna Haraway?[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Haraway
[2] http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/research/weber1.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zur_Geschichte_der_Handelsgese...
[4] https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820700?seq=1#page_scan_tab_con...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Division_of_Labour_in_Soci...
[6] https://www.amazon.de/Recht-Automation-%C3%B6ffentlichen-Ver...
[7] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html