Main Page Contact Register Log In

Here I mean that racist is someone that thinks that race is an essential component for arranging the relationships of people. Like how someone might be a specisist if they think that humans are totally worlds apart from apes for example.

But the case isn't that one is free to pick the paradigm that they most like out of the maximally accurate ones. The structure of the cases will make one more preferable (not always so much so that the choice is super important but it in general can't be assumed to be exactly even).

I think there is also a duty to seek out the relevant factors. It isn't so that one sticks with their default paradigm until someone from outside gives reason to belive otherwise (althought many times the social situation is constructed into orthodoxy-challenger structures). Arbitrarily stopping the search when things seem to flatter your own opinion is not epistemologically sound. You are kinda obliged to also search for that data that deconstructs your worldview.

Sometimes when the stakes are high it is important to use correct concepts. However some people love certain theorethical constructs so much that they will hammer them into situations regardless whether they fit or not. The colorists "swat everything" policy can't be shown to be false or contain falsehoods but we will still insist that we implement discriminatory swatting. Their precommitment to an ontology should not lead to people dying. If they are not committed to the ontology then the case for using an alternative ontology can be argued for. But from the colorist beliefs discriminatory swatting seems to results in 75 deaths that is more than 50 deaths for the option he vouches for while everybody else expects 25 deaths.

It may seem that "yellow-blacks should be swatted" and that "hoverflys should not be swatted" are in conflict and can't be consistent with each other. However because of differences in the semantics they are not simple negations of each other. However someone that emphasises coloring might look up the coloring of hoverflys and then refer to statements proven about that coloring. Thus they migth come to support the swatting of hoverflys. The fact that hoverflies are not poisonous tends to not register. This is why words that mean emphasising on one aspect of a thing have a bad ring to them. Facts about that thing (and they can indeed be facts) are applied even when they don't fit. Even when they do fit it is largely by accident. If you claim that the next weeks lottery numbers are something and you just happen to be correct you didn't know those numbers. This is why being overly confident on something that turns out to be correct can be an error.

That is why using racistic reasoning to come to true beliefs about race can be bad. They are believing the right thing for the wrong reasons. They are using a different method of arriving at the answer than why the statement is true. If the same method produces 9 falsehoods and 1 true statement its reliability is still only 1/10 even in the true case. This is especially so if the times when it produces correct statements can not be detected out of the false ones. In a way a truth that can not be known to be a truth can't really be believed.

They are believing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

This does not explain to me why correct thoughts should be suppressed. Even if someone happens to believe the right things for the wrong reasons, why should we avoid the same thoughts?
Though I understand that emotionally it feels tempting to maximally distance ourselves from people we consider to be evil (“colorists”/”racists”/…).
racist is someone that thinks that race is an essential component for arranging the relationships of people.

This is slightly vague. Is someone who believes that there is a difference in average characteristics (such as criminality) of different ethnicities a racist?
Replies (1)