English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

This is a piggy back onto a question that was asked by another user. Apparently, a number of people feel that irrefutable facts CAN be racist. I'm interested in knowing how this can be. In my mind, irrefutable facts are irrefutable facts that are what they are. The only place that racism could possibly enter into the picture is in the delivery of aforementioned facts which does not make the facts themselves racist nor does it negate them. Certainly, it's not enough to know a fact without researching the underlying reasons why but that wasn't part of the question. Any thoughts on this?

Thanks.

2007-10-19 00:16:40 · 12 answers · asked by I'm back...and this still sucks. 6 in Society & Culture Other - Society & Culture

I said they are IRREFUTABLE facts. What I'm talking about are facts where there is no wiggle room.

Irrefutable fact:
Bob Marley is dead.

Refutable fact:
The sky is blue.

2007-10-19 00:24:54 · update #1

Not talking about anything specific. I was just surprised that I got a negative response when I said that irrefutable facts cannot be racist. The delivery of said facts, certainly, but the not the facts themselves. Just wanted insight that's all.

2007-10-19 00:27:32 · update #2

Certainly, the good Dr's facts are refutable and I have refuted them in other questions.

2007-10-19 00:29:12 · update #3

12 answers

Many refuse to listen to anything other than what they want to believe. Thus the old saying "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

2007-10-19 00:26:47 · answer #1 · answered by Stella B 3 · 0 0

It all depends on how you look at it, what the fact is, what your evidence is, and what you are attributing as the cause. For example, with the Dr. Watson debate. It could truly be an irrefutable fact that white kids have consistently scored better than black kids on intelligence tests (I don't really want to look up a bunch of test results right now, so this may or may not be true, but for the sake of this argument we'll go with Dr. Watson and say it is true). So if it's true, then that is an irrefutable fact. BUT, if you do as Dr. Watson and attribute that to a genetic inferiority in intelligence, that is definitely racist! You have to take your "facts" and do a lot of research about what is actually behind them.

Correlations are the most dangerous type of statistic in science, because you can make a correlation between anything. There could be a strong correlation between number of hot dogs bought in a day and the number of car wrecks - does that mean one caused the other? No.
http://noppa5.pc.helsinki.fi/koe/corr/misint.html

Also, no matter what the "fact," someone will always disagree. For example (these are funny:-):

FACT: The earth is round
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

FACT: The sun is at the center of our universe
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?_r=1&ex=1184990400&en=2fb126c3132f89ae&ei=5070&oref=slogin
"One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century."

I know these aren't anything close to racist, but I'm just trying to explain that "facts" are relative within a person's mind. Racism only enters into it when a person already has those prejudices and use them to explain a fact or phenomenon.

2007-10-19 02:48:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I answered that question (if we're talking about the same one)
I don't know if you have heard of Dr. Watson's recent speech (now being cancelled everywhere thankgod) but I said that his *fact* is not irrefutable - in my opinion many factors contribute to intelligence, apart from dna. This is why I do not believe his facts were irrefutable. So in my opinion he has made racist comments based on his research (which I do not find irrefutable). I suppose if someone came up with facts that I found irrefutable it would be a different story...

2007-10-19 00:22:47 · answer #3 · answered by 地獄 6 · 1 0

Bob Marley is not dead. His body no longer functions but his spirit lives on in his music. Each time someone new hears his music, he lives again.

Okay - I don't agree with that, but from this perspective, your irrefutable fact is worthy of debate, at least.

The problem is probably with the fact you used. Human behavior and adaptation is tremendously variable, and culturally variable, but what we see as "race" is the result of a very few of our genes. In the biological sense, the only race is human, and any other distinction is just argumentative.

Without knowing the circumstances of the accusation of racism, this is the best I can do to provide insight.

Let me know if it helped.

2007-10-19 12:25:08 · answer #4 · answered by Arby 5 · 0 0

I really am interested in this question, but I was hoping you would provide a few examples.

I want to edit later...want to think about this.

I want to say I agree with you, but I'm not sure where you're coming from. I understand what you mean by "refutable" vs. "irrefutable" facts, but the (very) general nature of the question is off-putting. This is because it would seem as if you've been presented with examples and developed your philosophy on the subject...or we're just toying with semantics on a non-specific, vacuum-sealed topic.

2007-10-19 03:16:10 · answer #5 · answered by Matics101 6 · 1 0

The "facts"are often not facts.
In the 60's some researchers "found" that Afro Americans were not as intelligent as other Americans. This was proclaimed as a fact. UNTIL other research found that the intelligence tests were culturally biased. They wrote other tests and gave them to A'A's and the rest. Guess who proved to be best? The A'A's.

"Facts" were culturally biased ie they were racist. Hitler did the same to "prove" the Jews were "less than human"

These facts are not irrefutable. They just are waiting for better research to come arround.

2007-10-19 00:22:38 · answer #6 · answered by jemhasb 7 · 1 0

I agree with your basic claim: the fact itself cannot be racist.

As you and other posters have mentioned, it's not enough to just have a fact without looking at the underlying circumstances surrounding that fact but a fact that is irrefutable is fact and cannot be argued.

2007-10-19 03:51:55 · answer #7 · answered by rachel m 4 · 0 0

Good Luck, I am still waiting for someone to come up with a Rush LIe. Our news in the USSA is the same as the USSR's Tass News Agency was. And now we have the same law that can send us citizens to the insane asylum, like the USSR. Which they still do..

2016-05-23 16:36:06 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0 0

I agree with you.
I asked a very similar question.
Few agreed with me.
It depends on the fact apparently.

2007-10-19 00:21:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Some people can't face the truth, and hate having it thrown in their face. The race card is the easiest cop-out.

2007-10-19 00:54:09 · answer #10 · answered by rlstaehle 6 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers