Against nobody’s science: feminist precisions for other possible knowledge

At the heart of contemporary epistemic disputes lies a problem-driven by feminist and antiracist critiques-that still burns us: what do we call legitimate knowledge?We call science of no one both the tradition that proclaims a neutral objectivity, stripped of body, history, and affection, and those positions that dilute epistemic responsibility under the slogan of "anything goes."This science of no one evades the question of the situated subject: one disguises itself as universal, the other renounces any possibility of criteria.Both require us to review the assumptions on which the authority of knowledge has been built and to rethink how and from where we investigate.We maintain that, when we embrace the feminist epistemological turn in all its radicality, doing science from the case is not only possible but necessary.This turn, both conceptual and methodological, calls us to investigate from previously unimaginable spaces that redefine the subject, objectivity, and science as practices committed to responsibility and localization.From a perspective that ranges from Sandra Harding to Lorena Cabnal and Dahlia de la Cerda, we argue that experience, the body, and territory shape the method of what epistemologists call successor science, for solid and situated knowledge.Thus, we maintain that methodologies that start from the singular-such as life history, testimonial chronicles, and feminist archives-are emerging as the most politically urgent and epistemologically honest research methods, capable of confronting the fiction of nobody's science.