The point is that this is how the world works, so there's no use pointing it out and pretending that because its 'wrong' — AmadeusD

quoted this exchange:

There simply are no sound criteria for considering one race to be, tout court, inferior to another. — Janus

Specifically I want to explore the question of whether this claim is empirically or logically falsifiable. — Leontiskos

What could falsify our claim? — Leontiskos

Now I have no idea what, "this is how the world works" is supposed to mean. The claim was literally, "A blow with a baseball bat could falsify the claim in question." That looks to be entirely wrong, irrational, and unphilosophical, not to mention having nothing to do with "how the world works." The world does not work via baseball-bat falsification.

Presumably what is happening here is that yet another person does not know how to justify their belief about racism, and in this case they are resorting to threats of physical violence to enforce their position within society. "I don't know how to reason for my belief about racism, but if someone contradicts me I will hit them with a baseball bat and that should take care of things. 'That's how the world works'."

Now I have no idea what, "this is how the world works" is supposed to mean. The claim was literally, "A blow with a baseball bat could falsify the claim in question." That looks to be entirely wrong, irrational, and unphilosophical, not to mention having nothing to do with "how the world works." The world does not work via baseball-bat falsification.
Presumably what is happening here is that yet another person does not know how to justify their belief about racism, and in this case they are resorting to threats of physical violence to enforce their position within society. "I don't know how to reason for my belief about racism, but if someone contradicts me I will hit them with a baseball bat and that should take care of things. 'That's how the world works'." — Leontiskos

You're not looking at the bigger picture. Arguments that are in line with what secular academia considers "critical thinking" have a very limited scope of application outside of philosophy classes (and even there, the professor is by default right, no matter what).

In the real world, if you ask a racist to justify their racist beliefs, you will likely be met with some kind of argument from power or an assassination of your character.

Secondly, people with racist beliefs probably didn't come to hold those beliefs via deliberation, argumentation, or scientific enquiry. So they cannot justify them in a way you in particular expect them to. More importantly, they do not care to justify them to you, which you seem to be quite unaware of.
People who are into racism do not care about being philosophical, at least not with just anyone who comes along. Many people who are into philosophy don't seem to understand that.




And shame on you for suggesting I was a racist.

(I think) The point is that this is how the world works, so there's no use pointing it out and pretending that because its 'wrong', we don't reason that way. — AmadeusD

Not so much that there's no use in pointing it out. It's a waste of time, for sure. But more importantly, it can be quite dangerous to point it out. Because people will retaliate. With a show of hands, indicate you want to walk in the footsteps of Socrates ...

The claim was literally, "A blow with a baseball bat could falsify the claim in question." — Leontiskos

This is not really at all how it came across. It's hard to explain why, because your position is totally reasonable. But the way it read to me (i.e I am not even trying to say this is what baker meant - I could just be wrong) is that

The world does not work via baseball-bat falsification. — Leontiskos

It does. Whether that is a logical position is (not true) irrelevant. That is hte entire point. In the world, this distinction means absolutely fucking nothing. It's a total waste of time and butters no bread for anyone trying to understand these impulses. People do use violence as a 'valid retort' to various positions. They think its justified. They think it's logical.

No one is suggesting there is logic in that. What's being suggested is you are being sanguine to the point of irrelevancy. Ignorance of how the world actually works (i.e how people actually reason) isn't fixed by inserting a (totally reasonable, and valid) position on the logic of those impulses.

And shame on you for suggesting I was a racist. — baker

Your recent posts provide a great deal of evidence for the thesis that your reading comprehension is very poor. But what's wrong with being a racist? On your view the only problem with being a racist is that you might be hit with a baseball bat. You don't seem to have anything more than that.

The world does not work via baseball-bat falsification. — Leontiskos

It does. — AmadeusD

How so? Give an argument.

People do use violence as a 'valid retort' to various positions. — AmadeusD

People respond with violence, yes. What does this have to do with anything? What does this have to do with falsifiability?

What's being suggested is you are being sanguine to the point of irrelevancy. — AmadeusD

About what? Name it. Stop being intentionally ambiguous.

They think it's logical. — AmadeusD

"Someone thinks an illogical thing is logical," therefore...?

You're simply engaged in the fallacy of equivocation. "In the real world if you deny X then you will get hit with a baseball bat, therefore X is falsifiable." That's an invalid argument. We're talking about falsifiability, not the ability to coercively enforce a belief.

Ignorance of how the world actually works (i.e how people actually reason) isn't fixed by inserting a (totally reasonable, and valid) position on the logic of those impulses. — AmadeusD

I think your reading comprehension is struggling as well.

This is the claim in question:

There simply are no sound criteria for considering one race to be, tout court, inferior to another. — Janus

That is an anti-racist claim, and we are asking whether it is falsifiable. It seems that you and @baker have missed the whole point. I am asking whether @Janus' anti-racist claim is falsifiable, given that Janus has said that falsifiability is the key to rationality and claim-making.

Apparently because I have asked Janus whether his claim is falsifiable I am some sort of "sanguine" fool appealing to "irrelevant" canons of logic. Not sure how that's supposed to work.

That is an anti-racist claim, and we are asking whether it is falsifiable. It seems that you and baker have missed the whole point. I am asking whether @Janus' anti-racist claim is falsifiable, given that Janus has said that falsifiability is the key to rationality and claim-making. — Leontiskos

It's not that anti-racist claims are falsifiable. The anti-racist claim is made on the basis of the unverifiability, the complete lack of supportability ("there are no sound criteria...") of the racist claim.

It's not that anti-racist claims are falsifiable. — Janus

Good, that's the closest you've come to admitting that your claim is not falsifiable.

The anti-racist claim is made on the basis of the unverifiability, and further, the complete unsupportability, of the racist claim. — Janus

So consider two charges:

"Your position is unverifiable."
"Your position is unsupportable."

We could simply ask whether such charges need to be falsifiable or not. Earlier you said that rational claims* must be falsifiable. If these charges are supposed to be rational, then apparently they must be falsifiable. Indeed, in general we would say that such charges do need to be falsifiable, and that the unfalsifiability of your anti-racist claim is in fact a problem.


* Or else publicly rational claims. I forget the exact wording.

So consider two charges:

"Your position is unverifiable."
"Your position is unsupportable." — Leontiskos

My position is merely a rejection of an unverifiable, unsupportable position. It is obviously neither empirically nor logically falsifiable because we here are in the realm of values, not of facts or deductive logic. Values are subjective, that is they cannot be rationally universalized.
Think of the claim that red is a superior colour to green. I reject that because it is unsupportable, If I say there are no sound criteria for considering red to be superior to green, is that claim falsifiable?

Think of the claim that red is a superior colour to green. I reject that because it is unsupportable, If I say there are no sound criteria for considering red to be superior to green, is that claim falsifiable? — Janus

Why is it unsupportable? You simply ask the claimant what they mean by "superior" and go from there.

-

Regarding the original claim:

There simply are no sound criteria for considering one race to be, tout court, inferior to another. — Janus

Or the simpler claim:

"No race is, tout court, inferior to another." — Leontiskos

...I would say that we can make such claims in a falsifiable manner or an unfalsifiable manner. The fact that @Janus cannot give any way to falsify his claim even in principle is proof that he is giving the claim in an unfalsifiable manner.

But we could give the same claim in a falsifiable manner. We could say, "Well, 'tout court inferior' means something here, and part of what it means is that if one race is substantially intellectually inferior to other races then it is 'tout court inferior'."

At that point we would have to decide on at least one condition by which "substantially intellectually inferior" could be assessed, perhaps via some sort of IQ testing along with statistical thresholds that would count as "substantial." At the end we would be able to say, "Okay racist, so if you can demonstrate that some race is intellectually inferior according to the agreed criteria, then your position will be vindicated."

Or for another example, we might argue that it is not permissible to enslave any race. This could be claimed in an unfalsifiable manner or a falsifiable manner. If we wanted to make the claim in a falsifiable (and therefore rational) manner, we might agree that we are permitted to enslave beasts, such as oxen and horses and cattle. Thus if there is some race which is equivalent to a beast, such as an ox, then that race can be permissibly enslaved. We would be able to provide the racist with a falsifiable case, "Okay racist, so if you can demonstrate that this race has no greater dignity than an ox, then you will have proved that it is permissible to enslave them."

That's how you oppose racism in a substantive way, without unfalsifiable claims. You have to make "tout court inferior" mean something. The alternative to your approach is one where we are provided substantive reasons to oppose racism beyond mere taboo. We learn, for example, that the reason we are not permitted to enslave X race is because X race has a greater dignity than the things we are permitted to enslave. Metaphysical knowledge about the race in question provides the grounds by which certain actions are inappropriate, such as slavery. This is usually done with the syllogism, <It is impermissible to treat humans in such-and-such a way; X race is human; Therefore...>. But the falsifiability applies here as well, for the racist will often deny that X race is human and therefore we must have a substantive understanding of what makes something human in the way that confers dignity.

Why is it unsupportable? You simply ask the claimant what they mean by "superior" and go from there. — Leontiskos

Any support they come up with will necessarily be merely subjective, while it purports to be a universally valid claim. That's waht I mean by unsupportable.

Thus if there is some race which is equivalent to a beast, such as an ox, then that race can be permissibly enslaved. We would be able to provide the racist with a falsifiable case, "Okay racist, so if you can demonstrate that this race has no greater dignity than an ox, then you will have proved that it is permissible to enslave them." — Leontiskos

Such a race would obviously not be human. And you are assuming that it is permissible to enslave oxen. What could enslaving a race that itself has no concept of, or sense of, being enslaved even mean? Do we enslave oxen, or merely employ them?

Any support they come up with will necessarily be merely subjective, while it purports to be a universally valid claim. — Janus

If you are making a claim that says, "no, not tout court inferior," and the racist is making a claim that says, "yes, tout court inferior," and you say that "tout court inferior" is as subjective as the color claim, then both of you are making merely subjective claims, and neither one of you has any rational basis for enforcing your claim. That's the problem with your approach. The racist will just start enslaving people and you will object with a "merely subjective," "metaphysical," unfalsifiable claim. The bottom line is the fact that you have no rational argument against racism. You don't know why racism is wrong, because you don't have any substantive reason to believe that races are equal. You ironically reject all of the rational premises that caused us to reject racism in the first place.

Such a race would obviously not be human. — Janus

See my last paragraph, where I talk about the argument you give here.

On your reasoning if we found an alien species, how would we know how to treat it? Whether to grant it rights? Whether to eat it? Whether to treat it as a beast of burden? Understanding why we treat different animals differently will help one understand the rational grounds for or against racism. And yes, the vegan will be at an inherent disadvantage when trying to understand why racism is wrong - or why human slavery is worse than the domestication of animals.

If you are making a claim that says, "no, not tout court inferior," and the racist is making a claim that says, "yes, tout court inferior," and you say that "tout court inferior" is as subjective as the color claim, then both of you are making merely subjective claims, and neither one of you has any rational basis for enforcing your claim. — Leontiskos

Not true. "Tout court inferior" is a mere subjective claim masquerading as an objective claim. "Not tout court inferior" is not a subjective claim but a refutation of the masquerade.

On your reasoning if we found an alien species, how would we know how to treat it? — Leontiskos

I don't agree with enslaving any species.

"Not tout court inferior" is not a subjective claim but a refutation of the masquerade. — Janus

So someone can't objectively identify when X is present because to do so is impossible, but you are able to objectively identify when X is absent? Again, this makes no sense. Is it the unfalsifiable sophistry coming up again.

I don't agree with enslaving any species. — Janus

And you have no reasoning whatsoever which would allow you to oppose such enslavement. If no proposition about whether a species is enslavable is true or false, then there is no rational reason to enslave, but there is equally no rational reason not to enslave.

Your whole approach is, "When you say racism is permissible you must be engaged in otiose subjectivizing, but when I say racism is impermissible I am not engaged in otiose subjectivizing." That's a neat magic trick, along with all of the odd rationalizations about why your "subjectivizing" counts more than theirs. It's "might makes right" with an extra layer of disguise.

So someone can't objectively identify when X is present because to do so is impossible, but you are able to objectively identify when X is absent? Again, this makes no sense. Is it the unfalsifiable sophistry coming up again. — Leontiskos

If they can't show X is present their claim is vacuous. I don't have to show X is absent.

The sophistry is yours.

I don't have to show X is absent. — Janus

And you of course say that you don't have to defend claims like this one. You've been begging the question for pages.

Why would I have to show X is absent if the claim relies on X, but does not demonstrate it's presence?

The problem is that you don't think you are required to give a falsifiable reason for why the claim fails to demonstrate the presence of X. You are resorting to unfalsifiable dismissals. Even if you want to say, "Nothing in all of existence could demonstrate the presence of X," you would still have to explain why your claim is supposed to be true and how it could be falsified (i.e. how it is a meaningful claim).

How so? Give an argument. — Leontiskos

I don't think you're adequately understanding what is being said. You want me to make a logical argument. It is unavailable and not what is being posited. I'll make it clearer, if i can:

The way the world works is not logical. You want it to be. It isn't. The way people reason is not with truth trees. That you want this to be hte case (or at least, that you want to discuss the world in that context) is your problem in this exchange; not mine and Baker's. No one is suggesting a baseball bat is a logical tool. I've tried to make this explicitly clear.

People do use violence as a 'valid retort' to various positions. They think its justified. They think it's logical. — AmadeusD

If you are still going to go on about "valid logical argumentation" or some such, you are clearly not engaging the correct conversation. This disposes with much the rest of your reply.

So, going back to the question you've posed, with the bold above in play:

Policing. Policing is almost entirely
Police: Accusation
Person 1: argument as to why, logically, such and such couldn't have occurred (or whatever).
Police: to bad *baseball bat*

There's an example that plays out daily, in almost all parts of the world but Antarctica. Probably a better example (and timely) is violent protests. Eventually, those engaging think its 'logical and valid' to take a bat to someone for being in the wrong place, or thinking the wrong thing or whatever. This makes it sufficiently clear that discussing the real world on the terms you are is a waste of time and doesn't come close to discussing the real world. It isn't laden with truth trees and P1,P2, C thinking. Its laden with "I have no argument; baseball bat".

It will be literally impossible to have a conversation with you if all you want to do is talk about how you want the world to be. It is the way it is, and the discussion (this exact one, not the thread) is about that.

About what? Name it. Stop being intentionally ambiguous. — Leontiskos

I have very sufficiently laid this out: People are not logical. You want them to be. That is sanguine to hte point of irrelevancy for the discussion. Bleat if you'd like.

You're simply engaged in the fallacy of equivocation. "In the real world if you deny X then you will get hit with a baseball bat, therefore X is falsifiable." That's an invalid argument. We're talking about falsifiability, not the ability to coercively enforce a belief. — Leontiskos

Luckily for me, and extremely unfortunately for you, that was never said or implied. That should be sufficiently clear. I literally said:

No one is suggesting there is logic in that. — AmadeusD

You seem to want me to defend shit I've not come close to saying. Too bad brother.

That is an anti-racist claim, and we are asking whether it is falsifiable. It seems that you and baker have missed the whole point. — Leontiskos

The irony drips like a three week old corpse. I shall take my leave.

The problem is that you don't think you are required to give a falsifiable reason for why the claim fails to demonstrate the presence of X. — Leontiskos

Give me an example of a racist claim that does demonstrate X (X being clear evidence, or even a compelling argument, that some race is tout court, inferior to some other) if you think there are such.

If someone gives an argument purporting to demonstrate that some race is inferior I will give reasons for rejecting it if I assess that it does fail to demonstrate what it claims to. I haven't even come across any argument which is not in the form of 'this race is, according to IQ tests, generally less intelligent than that race". Intelligence seems to be the one ubiquitous criterion in these kinds of arguments. Firstly, even if that was true that some race was IQ inferior, it doesn't make them tout court inferior, just IQ inferior. Do you think those people who have the highest IQs are necessarily the best people? Do you think IQ id even an adequate measure of intelligence? What about creativity or emotional intelligence or memory? What about the ability for sustained attention?

Do you know of arguments that take any other form? How would you go about demonstrating general inferiority, as opposed to say inferiority in sport, academic achievement or some such, all of which could in any case be down to standards of training, funding etc.?

Are we to assume that you think some races are all-in-all inferior? If so, why not present your argument for our perusal. If not, then why go on about it?

Firstly, even if that was true that some race was IQ inferior, it doesn't make them tout court inferior, just IQ inferior. — Janus

Again, this is not a principled response if you refuse to tell your interlocutor what would entail tout court inferiority. And this is what you refuse to do. You have set up an impossible, unfalsifiable standard. Among other things, this means that your counterclaim is sheer nonsense, namely the claim that, "No race is tout court inferior to any other race" (because you don't know what "tout court inferior" means, despite the fact that you coined the term).

Are we to assume that you think some races are all-in-all inferior? — Janus

I gave my position and you effectively ignored it, claiming that you are opposed to enslaving animals rather than addressing the substantive issue. If there is nothing about race X that requires us to treat them in a certain way, then they need not be treated in a certain way. I think there is something about race X which requires us to treat them in a certain way; you don't. That's the difference between us. I have a reason to oppose racism; you don't. Your only response is to effectively shift the burden of proof onto the racist. You effectively say, "I don't have to give you a reason why they can't be treated as animals. You have to give me a reason why they can be treated as animals! You must answer to me, I need not answer to you!" That's an effective tactic in a culture that opposes slavery, but it is not inherently rational, and therefore will be wholly ineffective in a culture that favors slavery. It is a form of begging the question.

If not, then why go on about it? — Janus

I am demonstrating the way that your opposition to slavery has reached the stage of mere emotivism. You have absolutely no rational account for why slavery is wrong, and you nevertheless hold that it is wrong. It is like a car running on fumes.

Firstly, even if that was true that some race was IQ inferior, it doesn't make them tout court inferior, just IQ inferior.
— Janus

Again, this is not a principled response if you refuse to tell your interlocutor what would entail tout court inferiority. — Leontiskos

Rubbish! If someone wants to claim that tout court inferiority is a thing, then it's up to them to provide a criterial account.

That's an effective tactic in a culture that opposes slavery, but it is not inherently rational, and therefore will be wholly ineffective in a culture that favors slavery. It is a form of begging the question. — Leontiskos

No positive reason in the form of an objective attribute can be given as to why a race should be treated or should not be treated as slaves. The reason not to treat animals or humans in ways that makes them miserable is simply compassion. If someone lacks compassion your arguments will not convince them.

Even if someone could prove tout court inferiority that still would not justify treating them in ways that make them miserable.

I am demonstrating the way that your opposition to slavery has reached the stage of mere emotivism. You have absolutely no rational account for why slavery is wrong, and you nevertheless hold that it is wrong. It is like a car running on fumes. — Leontiskos

You haven't demonstrated any such thing. You claim you have a purely rational (i.e. nothing to do with emotion) account that shows slavery is wrong. Present it then or stop your posturing.

If you claim that intellectual inferiority constitutes or supports a judgement of tout court inferiority you are simply showing your bias. There is nothing in intellectual inferiority, even if it could be definitively proven, that entails tout court inferiority. If you think there is then you don't understand deductive validity.

If someone wants to claim that tout court inferiority is a thing, then it's up to them to provide a criterial account. — Janus

Like I said, you're the one who coined the term, initially in <this post> and then more definitively in <this post>. If "tout court inferior" doesn't mean anything, then why coin the term?

No positive reason in the form of an objective attribute can be given as to why a race should be treated or should not be treated as slaves. — Janus

This is a great example of attempting to shift the burden of proof. "You haven't been able to provide a reason for your position, therefore it fails. I don't have to provide a reason against it."

The reason not to treat animals or humans in ways that makes them miserable is simply compassion. — Janus

Okay, and this is a new argument that you have not previously given. <Racism lacks compassion; we should be compassionate; therefore we should not be racists>.

That's at least an argument, but it's worth understanding that some of the "racialism" that was pointed up earlier in the thread is compassion-based. An easy example is affirmative action, which is compassion-based racism. Similarly, the case of Charles Murray—at least to my understanding—is a case where someone is arguing that certain races are inferior in certain areas and therefore should be compensated accordingly by the social system. This too is compassion-based racism (and part of the question in these cases is whether such a thing should be called racism).

Even if someone could prove tout court inferiority that still would not justify treating them in ways that make them miserable. — Janus

Okay, so does your criterion of "tout court inferiority" matter at all, then?

You haven't demonstrated any such thing. You claim you have a purely rational (i.e. nothing to do with emotion) account that shows slavery is wrong. Present it then or stop your posturing. — Janus

.

The reason we cannot treat any race as sub-human is because each race is human. This is an a posteriori claim, not an a priori claim. The reason we treat "oxen and horses and cattle," as sub-human is because they are sub-human. Apparently you are some sort of vegan or vegetarian to whom this makes no sense, but that doesn't mean that I haven't provided an argument against racism. If someone cannot empirically understand the relevant difference between a human being and an ox then they will struggle with such an argument. But most people don't have trouble with that distinction.

Like I said, you're the one who coined the term, initially in <this post> and then more definitively in <this post>. If "tout court inferior" doesn't mean anything, then why coin the term? — Leontiskos

People or animals can only be determined to be inferior to other people or animals in precisely measurable ways. My argument was always only that if someone claims slavery is admissible on account of the inferiority of the enslaved, then it would up to them to demonstrate how overall inferiority could possibly be established. And even if, per impossibile, they were able to show that, the burden would still be on them to prove that overall inferiority could justify enslavement. It simply aint going to fly.

If someone says "Fuck you, I'm going to enslave or mistreat someone or some animal", then no rational argument will have any effect on them.

↪I already did. — Leontiskos

No, you didn't.

I won't reply to the rest of your straw-drivel.

It simply aint going to fly. — Janus

Yes, disproving an unfalsifiable claim does not generally fly. So your unfalsifiable claim is secure. It will not be disproved. When you make "overall inferiority" into a square circle you guarantee that no one will be able to show that anything is (or isn't, by the way) "overall inferior," but you do so at the cost of rational coherence.

Overall inferiority is not a square circle it is an unsupportable claim in my view. If you think it is a potentially supportable claim you should at least be able to give some kind of outline of what a demonstration of overall inferiority would look like.

- I did. It looks like an ox. Now challenge yourself in the same way you just challenged me.

An ox is most likely bigger and stronger than you, possibly better-natured and better looking and kinder to its kin, so it is not overall inferior. Superiority and inferiority only have meaning where there is precisely determinable measure—how could it be otherwise?

- I can see that you will just continue to offer the challenge, "If you can't show that it is tout court inferior...," each time refusing to say what the hell it would mean for something to be "tout court inferior." It's like saying, "I will graciously acknowledge that if you can falsify X then your claim will be valid. Also, I have devised X in such a way that it is unfalsifiable by its very definition. So good luck with that!" I can see that you have no argument beyond an unfalsifiable condition and a mere shifting of the burden of proof.

I think we're done, no?

"If you can't show that it is tout court inferior...," each time refusing to say what the hell it would mean for something to be "tout court inferior." — Leontiskos

I'm not claiming "tout court" or overall inferiority looks like anything and that's the point—if someone claims that slavery is justified when the enslaved are inferior in all ways then their claim would seem to be incoherent.

And even if they more modestly claimed that some measurable kind of inferiority justified slavery, I can't see how any argument for that could stand up to scrutiny either.

I'm happy to be done—you resurrected this argument after 19 days, and I thought we were done then.