Scientific theories must be testable. But if both results are believed to “prove” one right …
Suppose I told you that something really crazy happened last night. Specifically, at midnight last night, everything in the universe “shrank to one-half its original dimensions.” If you were to get a yardstick, you’d see that the size of certain nearby objects has changed in the manner claimed. If so, then that would prove me right. But, if the yardstick appeared to show that the size was the same as before, then it’s because the yardstick also “shrank” as well. Thus, my hypothesis has still not been disproved – in fact, it gets “proved” either way! If you test something scientifically, then this has to be “valid” science, after all. To get a “valid” scientific hypothesis, all you have to do is to test that hypothesis, right? I mean, that’s “all” that’s required for something to be scientific.
… then it’s still not science, because there has to be some possible result that could prove it wrong
The problem with this argument is that testability alone is not sufficient. The hypothesis also has to be falsifiable. That is, you have to be able to conceive of a scenario where your hypothesis could be proven false – that is, where it could be “falsified.” If you believe that either of two opposite results would “prove” your own point of view, then you’re still not doing science. Your hypothesis may still be testable, but the test is unscientific, because its advocates cannot conceive of a result that disproves the hypothesis by their own standards. If you’re trying to determine which of two movies is “inherently better,” this kind of thing doesn’t have to be scientific. Subjective claims like this are allowed to be unscientific – not to be confused with being anti-scientific, which means something else. The problems come when theories that are not scientific are claiming to be such, like the earlier claim about the universe shrinking. This is a different kind of claim from one movie being “inherently better” than the other. The shrinking-universe hypothesis claims to be objective, and thus crosses the line into the territory of pseudoscience. The shrinking-universe hypothesis is much more deserving of censure than those theories that never claimed to be “scientific” in the first place. When you claim to be “scientific,” you need to be able to back up this claim.
“If you believe you’re not a racist, then you are a racist. But if you believe you are, then you are.”
This brings us to some modern examples of unscientific theories. Perhaps I should first undertake to define critical race theory, before getting into the problems with it. As Wikipedia understands it, “Critical race theory (CRT) is an conceptual framework developed to understand the relationships between social conceptions of race and ethnicity, social and political laws, and mass media.[source] CRT also considers racism to be systemic in various laws and rules, not based only on individuals' prejudices.[sources] The word critical in the name is an academic reference to critical theory, not criticizing or blaming individuals.[sources]” (Source: Their page on “Critical race theory”) These theories are non-falsifiable, in the same way as the earlier claims about a shrinking universe. “If a white person believes that they’re not a racist, then they are a racist. If a white person believes that they are a racist, then they’re still a racist.” This kind of hypothesis is not falsifiable. According to the hypothesis, either result would “prove” the claim of racism on the white person’s part. Thus, this kind of claim is unscientific. And, to the extent that it claims to be scientific (and it does), it is pseudoscience that deserves to be censured. In the same way, if a white person insults a minority, then they’re often assumed on that basis to be a “racist.” But, if they compliment a minority in certain situations, then they’re perceived to be saying something like “you’re really good for a minority person.” Thus, this compliment would sometimes be perceived to be “racist” as well. (HR training at one of my workplaces preached this hypothesis, and so did Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War.”) Apparently, either an insult or a compliment would prove one to be a “racist,” if directed at a minority. Thus, this kind of hypothesis is likewise non-falsifiable, and is thus a particularly blatant example of pseudoscience. Many arguments from critical race theory would seem to fall into this category. By some standards, critical race theory actually seems to be more of a hypothesis than a “theory” anyway – although time does not permit me to develop that distinction here.
First Nations Canadian elders in their traditional clothing – Canada Day, 2022
How both criticizing and adopting a foreign custom can be taken to be disrespectful
Likewise, if a white person were to criticize a traditional Native American style of clothing, the white person would probably be considered to be a “racist” on this account. But, if a white person were to wear this Native American clothing because they like it so much, many would probably consider it to be “cultural appropriation,” and thus “racially insensitive” on that basis. Thus, this kind of hypothesis is likewise non-falsifiable, and is thus another blatant example of pseudoscience. Incidentally, it seems possible that “cultural appropriation” is among the fakest kinds of racism ever concocted by the left-wing mind, which is really saying something. Apparently, if a Gringo learns Spanish, then they must be engaging in “cultural appropriation” of Hispanic ways of speech, making them “racist” against Hispanics. But, if a Gringo were to express contempt for the Spanish language, then they would be taken as equally “racist.” It is hard even to dignify some of these claims as “arguments,” because they seem to lack any kind of logic or internal consistency. They are just a bundle of nonsense, repackaged for their gullible listeners as “enlightened” ways of thinking, which have received the stamp of approval from the “elites” in academia.
If whites are just going to be “racist” anyway, then why do we need ethnic studies classes?
We are likewise told that white people “need to take classes in ethnic studies,” because these classes will make them more “sensitive” towards minorities. But we are also told that they are going to be “racist” no matter what, just by virtue of being born white. If so, then why should they be required to take these ethnic studies classes? That is, if they’re just going to be “racist” anyway, no matter what they do, then these classes would serve no real purpose, other than to provide jobs for those who want to make money from teaching them. These arguments are full of contradictions, and yet they are enforced by an unofficial witch-hunt against racists both real and imagined. We constantly hear stories in the media about people who are fired from their jobs, or “canceled” from the air, because they said something that was “racially insensitive.” Sometimes, the “racially insensitive” comment was made thirty years ago, but is still taken to merit a lifetime of ostracism toward the “offending party,” even if it was just found out yesterday. If there is merit in “forgiving and forgetting,” it is a merit that has long since been discarded by the advocates of cancel culture. Apparently, the most “enlightened” thing to do is to hold a permanent grudge, and to never allow people to repent or reform themselves. (Although people in prison should be allowed to “reform” themselves, since that is the “true objective” of imprisonment.) Even the actions of someone’s ancestors can be taken to “condemn” them, and some older historical documents (like the Constitution) can be “condemned” for being written by slaveholders. Apparently, the Constitution itself needs to be “discarded,” because it once held clauses like the Slave Importation Clause and the Three-Fifths Clause – not to mention the Fugitive Slave Clause. It has to meet “modern standards” that were impossible for that generation ever to foresee. Even in death, one apparently can never be forgiven for violating modern standards.
Conclusion: Modern standards of evidence for proving “racism” are just witch-hunting
This is why I believe that the anti-racism witch hunt has gotten out of control. The standards of evidence have gotten so low (not to mention self-contradictory) that it is hard to think of a more apt or appropriate description than “witch-hunting.” Reasonable and consistent standards would not yield the kind of so-called “evidence” that these witch-hunters seek. Thus, they have to lower their standards of evidence to the point that virtually anything that anyone has ever said would automatically support their point of view. For this reason, and the other reasons listed above, I believe that critical race theory is unscientific. I don’t expect that this problem will go away anytime soon, but I do hope that there will be a widespread backlash against it. I hope that people will begin to see through the web of fallacies and inconsistencies, of faulty definitions and even faultier evidence, and see critical race theory for what it really is: pseudoscientific nonsense. When that day comes, the people who preach these contradictory doctrines may finally be held accountable, and those falsely accused of racism may finally be exonerated by more reasonable standards of evidence. Perhaps then, people will again be “innocent until proven guilty,” and not presumed to be “racist” until proven otherwise. This day may not come in my lifetime, if ever. But, if it does, it will be among the worst blows ever dealt to real and actual racism, and among the greatest progress ever made towards a truly color-blind society – a goal explicitly rejected, incidentally, by critical race theory.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment