What, exactly, is CRT?

[Bomb#20]

It is refreshing, in a conversation so often dominated by obfuscation and dogwhistling these days, to encounter someone who just openly admits to believing in the pseudoscience of biological race.

Not satisfied to try to settle a question of natural science by reducing it to namecalling other posters, Politesse goes on to try to settle it by namecalling the entire practice of studying that question scientifically.

If biological race were really a pseudoscience then why would Politesse have so much trouble pointing out what potential observations it would take to falsify the proposition he claims is falsifiable?

That's how scientific progress goes.

Indeed. And where race is concerned, you're welcome to join the 21st century along with the rest of us at any time.

That does not qualify as pointing out what potential observations it would take to falsify the proposition he claims is falsifiable. That qualifies as repeating his earlier attempt to settle a scientific question by insulting the scientists he disagrees with.

But of course waiting for Politesse to stop playing the rhetorical games he plays to get out of meeting his burden-of-proof is waiting for Lucy to stop pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. So I might as well just go ahead and prove biological race isn't pseudoscience.

Saying race is a social construct and biological race is a pseudoscience implies that races are a figment of human imagination, a phenomenon of our minds rather than of the statistics of the human gene pool. It implies the anthropologists who identified infraspecific taxa such as "Caucasoid", "Negroid" and "Mongoloid" were fooling themselves -- that they were projecting their own mental models into the data rather than observing natural patterns in it. If that were the case, then it would follow that if you take raw gene frequency data from ethnic groups all over the world, use a mathematical formula such as fixation index to calculate a table of genetic distances from one ethnic group to another, and hand the table to a most parsimonious tree algorithm, then it will either fail to discover any consistent tree structure in the genetic distance table, or else discover new infraspecific taxa that bear little or no resemblance to the ones anthropologists were reporting just before their research was shut down by changes in academic fashion.

But in fact geneticists have performed exactly that experiment using modern DNA sequencing technology, and the tree algorithms rediscovered the Caucasoids, the Negroids, and a pretty close approximation to the Mongoloids. So how the bejesus did that happen, if we are to presume that 1960s-era physical anthropologists were pseudoscientists, imposing, as it were, their own mythical constellations onto random star fields? Did the F_st formula read their minds?

Indeed. And where race is concerned, you're welcome to join the 21st century along with the rest of us at any time.

So to Politesse, and to every other self-deceiving left-winger who can't tell the difference between fashion change and scientific discovery:

Stop trying to settle scientific questions with political ideology.​

 

[Jarhyn]

That's how scientific progress goes.

Indeed. And where race is concerned, you're welcome to join the 21st century along with the rest of us at any time.

That does not qualify as pointing out what potential observations it would take to falsify the proposition he claims is falsifiable. That qualifies as repeating his earlier attempt to settle a scientific question by insulting the scientists he disagrees with.

But of course waiting for Politesse to stop playing the rhetorical games he plays to get out of meeting his burden-of-proof is waiting for Lucy to stop pulling the football away from Charlie Brown. So I might as well just go ahead and prove biological race isn't pseudoscience.

Saying race is a social construct and biological race is a pseudoscience implies that races are a figment of human imagination, a phenomenon of our minds rather than of the statistics of the human gene pool. It implies the anthropologists who identified infraspecific taxa such as "Caucasoid", "Negroid" and "Mongoloid" were fooling themselves -- that they were projecting their own mental models into the data rather than observing natural patterns in it. If that were the case, then it would follow that if you take raw gene frequency data from ethnic groups all over the world, use a mathematical formula such as fixation index to calculate a table of genetic distances from one ethnic group to another, and hand the table to a most parsimonious tree algorithm, then it will either fail to discover any consistent tree structure in the genetic distance table, or else discover new infraspecific taxa that bear little or no resemblance to the ones anthropologists were reporting just before their research was shut down by changes in academic fashion.

But in fact geneticists have performed exactly that experiment using modern DNA sequencing technology, and the tree algorithms rediscovered the Caucasoids, the Negroids, and a pretty close approximation to the Mongoloids. So how the bejesus did that happen, if we are to presume that 1960s-era physical anthropologists were pseudoscientists, imposing, as it were, their own mythical constellations onto random star fields? Did the F_st formula read their minds?

Indeed. And where race is concerned, you're welcome to join the 21st century along with the rest of us at any time.

So to Politesse, and to every other self-deceiving left-winger who can't tell the difference between fashion change and scientific discovery:

Stop trying to settle scientific questions with political ideology.​

What observations, Bomb, would it take to disprove the theory of the internal combustion engine?

What observations would it take to disprove the theory of evolution?

Because CRT is more a set of observations, described.

You would need to prove that red lining didn't happen, that financial bias racism didn't happen, but the thing is, it's all been documented.

In fact, we have current examples of individuals targeting policy for the sake of perpetuating racial imbalances.

And we have lots of admissions that past policy was racially motivated, intended to cause the effect we see today.

At any rate, it's interesting that some people want to treat a theory on sociology like they would treat a theory of biology.

At any rate, if I knew how to falsify it, I would do so, and get myself some papers published.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

CRT, for those who know what it is, teaches children that systemic racism in the past is still here today. That's all it does. That's all it does, except for what all the Mommy's say it does.

Taking as a given a point of contention.

Many of us do not believe that what we are seeing now is systemic racism, but rather the effects of past racism. Can't find the racists to blame for the situation, simple, say it's the system as a whole. Never mind whether you're actually looking at racism or socioeconomic effects.

Therefore there is nothing wrong or unsafe or dangerous with allowing children to understand and discuss the subject and allowing teachers to present it as such.

So why are right wingers so opposed to the exercise?

So why are the left wingers so opposed to the exercise of teaching Christianity in school?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I would like to point out that the issue is more that CRT is not falsifiable for the same reasons the theory of evolution is not: all the evidence is in.

You could disprove it, but the dusproofs are unattainable, in the same way disproof of evolution is: DNA has been directly observed, it's chemistry has been observed mutating, mutations are directly observed to produce results.

I.e., you don't understand the word "falsifiable". Here ya go:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Your issue is that you don't see how or why my utterances answer your question, despite the fact they do.

When you have watched the machine function and described that function, it's beyond falsifiability.

CRT describes a machine that keeps black people poor, while providing outlets to white people from that same poverty. All the parts are described and understood.

Falsify it? Falsify the theory of the ICE while you are at it ..

Thereby showing you don't understand about falsification.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So why are the left wingers so opposed to the exercise of teaching Christianity in school?

Depends on what you mean.
Teaching that faiths exist, Xianity is one of them? Happens all the time. Can't teach the Crusades or the Pilgrims without it.

Teaching that it's true, Truth, or of superior historicity to evolutionary theory, just a teensy bit unconstitutional. All wingers should be opposed to tgat.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So why are the left wingers so opposed to the exercise of teaching Christianity in school?

Depends on what you mean.
Teaching that faiths exist, Xianity is one of them? Happens all the time. Can't teach the Crusades or the Pilgrims without it.

Teaching that it's true, Truth, or of superior historicity to evolutionary theory, just a teensy bit unconstitutional. All wingers should be opposed to tgat.

Right. We could teach that all the Nazis, Fascists and Stalinists were baptized christians. Teach away.

Are persons opposed to discussing CRT all racists? No. But probably most.

 

[Jarhyn]

Your issue is that you don't see how or why my utterances answer your question, despite the fact they do.

When you have watched the machine function and described that function, it's beyond falsifiability.

CRT describes a machine that keeps black people poor, while providing outlets to white people from that same poverty. All the parts are described and understood.

Falsify it? Falsify the theory of the ICE while you are at it ..

Thereby showing you don't understand about falsification.

Showing that you are coming at the problem wrong and asking for stupid shit.

As I have asked, how would YOU go falsifying the theory of the Internal Combustion Engine?

I could falsify CRT in all kinds of ways that are not possible to implement, but that's where we are at aren't we? You lot asking for absurdities that you can point to same as I'm asking for an absurdity. I'm asking you in essence to say "pour gasoline in an engine, provide power to the spark plugs, and have everything constructed exactly as any other engine, and turn it on, see the gasoline ignite and the pistons not be pushed.

CRT is built on the assembly of observations, of "strong theories" not in question.

To falsify it you would have to demonstrate that heritable wealth and it's absence in family structures does not act as a detriment to success. You can point to individuals succeeding in spite of that, usually with outside influence and sacrifice explicitly to combat those factors, but they are the exception that proves the rule, that shows that there is an obstacle there that takes outsized work to bypass.

As I said, show me how I would go about disproving the ICE and then we can talk.

We hear all the time from various creationists here that "evolution is an unfalsifiable theory". My point is not that it is or isn't. Merely that it's not unfalsifiable. It's merely that falsification is unattainable because we tried and failed numerous times.

As it is, we don't actually have an operational "theory of gravity" at all, yet. But none of us argue that gravity is a thing.

CRT is based on looking at reality and describing the things that happened, without malice or agenda.

You look at 10 cases in law and see "these five did the same actions as these five. The first five had access to X. The second five did not. The first 5 went home. The second 5 went to prison to be raped slaves. The first 5 were white. The second 5 were black. The children of the first 5 will have access to more X. The children of the second 5 will not. All the same factors that led to each group doing as they had carry on to the second group.

Even assuming 0 animus in this scenario, it's fucked up. Nobody earned any of what they got in relation to what anyone else got. This is statistically what we see.

CRT says this is because one group has been denied access to a resource. It identifies the reality of X.

In other words, CRT is only disproved in the situation where the racist proves he is right and there is a biological intrinsic quality that places most black people as less capable of doing good work than white people. It is either intrinsic or extrinsic, and intrinsics are often generated from extrinsics anyway.

But the 20'th century had gobs of research, as well as the early 21'st that disproved any such intrinsic quality in showing between group variation is less than within group variation

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So why are the left wingers so opposed to the exercise of teaching Christianity in school?

Depends on what you mean.
Teaching that faiths exist, Xianity is one of them? Happens all the time. Can't teach the Crusades or the Pilgrims without it.

Teaching that it's true, Truth, or of superior historicity to evolutionary theory, just a teensy bit unconstitutional. All wingers should be opposed to tgat.

CRT is basically a religion--it's core tenant that is taken on faith is that racism is the cause of the social differences we see. You don't get to teach your religion and exclude others. The important aspect is the faith part, the lack of a deity does not matter. (For example, Buddhism has no deity. The Buddha is a perfection to which adherents aspire, but not divine.)

 

[Elixir]

CRT is basically a religion--it's core tenant that is taken on faith is that racism is the cause of the social differences we see.

No, it is a STUDY of how the current state of social stratification has emerged from a continuation of fully institutionalized social designations based on race, which were foundational to the establishment of the Union of States.
You can deny that slavery ever existed, you can assert that "good Christians" - especially the revered Founders - were never slave owners, but you cannot call CRT a religion. It doesn't assert ANYTHING "on faith". It's a university level law course, not a junior high school philosophy exercise.

"One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" is an article faith, reinforced by sheer repetition from grade one in public schools, and devoid of objective factual support.
Why aren't you railing against it?

 

[Bomb#20]

Stop trying to settle scientific questions with political ideology.​

What observations, Bomb, would it take to disprove the theory of the internal combustion engine?

You seem to be using "theory" in a funny sense. ICEs are engineering, not science.

What observations would it take to disprove the theory of evolution?

Well, the classic answer is Haldane's: "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian."

Because CRT is more a set of observations, described.

You would need to prove that red lining didn't happen, that financial bias racism didn't happen, but the thing is, it's all been documented. <yada yada>

What CRT is depends on who you ask. Your description seems to be different from Politesse's. He laid out a list of ten allegedly scientific contentions, so I falsified contention number one. Does that refute CRT as a whole? Hard to say -- it depends on how contention number one relates to contentions two through nine. I repeatedly invited Politesse to clarify that point, and got crickets for my efforts. So where do we go from here? If you're volunteering to take up the case for CRT where Politesse left off, feel free to explain what the heck the alleged nonexistence of biological races was supposed to have to do with the rest of CRT. Contrariwise, if you want to discuss your own case for CRT without regard to Politesse's list, feel free to post your own list. What scientific claims do you think CRT makes and what conclusions do you think follow from them?

At any rate, it's interesting that some people want to treat a theory on sociology like they would treat a theory of biology.

If sociology is a science then it's appropriate to judge its theories by the same standards every other science has to meet. If sociology isn't a science then what's the case for having the government make taxpayers pay to promulgate sociology theories to the public? Are they outdoor art?

 

[Elixir]

If sociology is a science then it's appropriate to judge its theories by the same standards every other science has to meet.

I think CRT is more sociological history than science. Less science than say, engineering, which is basically applied science. That doesn't invalidate CRT of course, though I think the name is ... a misnomer, a mistake, since it is hardly "theory" in the strict sense. It's more like a study, an examination. Calling it a theory opens the door to criticisms that, while correct, throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[Politesse]

CRT is basically a religion--it's core tenant that is taken on faith is that racism is the cause of the social differences we see.

I've pointed out several times that this directly contradicts the core CRT concept of intersectionality. Not only is this not a tenant, it's an anti-tenant.

 

[laughing dog]

Therefore there is nothing wrong or unsafe or dangerous with allowing children to understand and discuss the subject and allowing teachers to present it as such.

So why are right wingers so opposed to the exercise?

So why are the left wingers so opposed to the exercise of teaching Christianity in school?

Any rational human being who understands that there is separation between church and state opposes the exercise of teaching that a religion is true in a public school. The particular religion is irrelevant and so is the political leaning of the rational human being.

 

[Bomb#20]

CRT is basically a religion--it's core tenant that is taken on faith is that racism is the cause of the social differences we see.

You can deny that slavery ever existed, you can assert that "good Christians" - especially the revered Founders - were never slave owners, but you cannot call CRT a religion.

That's a weird statement. What do you mean by it? Of course he can call CRT a religion; we still have free speech here, for the time being. You clearly don't mean he can't call it that and be right, or you wouldn't have offered denying slavery existed and denying Founders were slave owners as examples of things he can say.

It doesn't assert ANYTHING "on faith".

That depends on who we're relying on for a list of things it asserts -- some CRT advocates' versions of CRT obviously assert things on faith. So assuming you aren't asking the rest of us to just take on faith your assertion that CRT doesn't assert anything on faith, what, in your view, is the definitive list of things it asserts?

It's a university level law course, not a junior high school philosophy exercise.

It started out as a university level law course. Now, according to Wikipedia, "In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and applied in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies. "

"One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" is an article faith, reinforced by sheer repetition from grade one in public schools, and devoid of objective factual support.
Why aren't you railing against it?

Whom would he be railing against it to? Railing is for controversial matters. There's nobody here advocating the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So why are the left wingers so opposed to the exercise of teaching Christianity in school?

Depends on what you mean.
Teaching that faiths exist, Xianity is one of them? Happens all the time. Can't teach the Crusades or the Pilgrims without it.

Teaching that it's true, Truth, or of superior historicity to evolutionary theory, just a teensy bit unconstitutional. All wingers should be opposed to tgat.

CRT is basically a religion--it's core tenant that is taken on faith is that racism is the cause of the social differences we see.

Ignoring the mislabeling, that is what you consider a religion?

You don't get to teach your religion and exclude others.

So you are saying that your belief that a lot of the issues blacks face being "cultural" is also a religion?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That's a weird statement. What do you mean by it? Of course he can call CRT a religion; we still have free speech here, for the time being. You clearly don't mean he can't call it that and be right, or you wouldn't have offered denying slavery existed and denying Founders were slave owners as examples of things he can say.

In its broadest applied sense even democracy is a religion, so stating that CRT is religious in no way distinguishes it from other human undertakings. But is CRT being pursued as something of supreme importance? It obviously is not and therefore defining it as being religious fails.

 

[Elixir]

That's a weird statement. What do you mean by it? Of course he can call CRT a religion; we still have free speech here, for the time being. You clearly don't mean he can't call it that and be right, or you wouldn't have offered denying slavery existed and denying Founders were slave owners as examples of things he can say.

Oh fer crissakes - don't be such a pedant. Of course I meant "and be correct", and "slavery never existed" etc are just other examples of things you can say and be incorrect. But you knew that...

It doesn't assert ANYTHING "on faith".

That depends on who we're relying on for a list of things it asserts -- some CRT advocates' versions of CRT obviously assert things on faith.

Example(s)?

It's a university level law course, not a junior high school philosophy exercise.

It started out as a university level law course. Now, according to Wikipedia, "In addition to law, critical race theory is taught and applied in the fields of education, political science, women's studies, ethnic studies, communication, sociology, and American studies."

At what level? Nursery school? Kindergarten? grades 1-10? (Those levels are where I learned the "Pledge of Allegiance")
It is still what it is. By next week some group or group might define it as "teaching kindergarten children that white people are scary".
I'm not going for it.

"One nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" is an article faith, reinforced by sheer repetition from grade one in public schools, and devoid of objective factual support.
Why aren't you railing against it?

Whom would he be railing against it to?

To those who assert that there is liberty and justice for all who earn it, that racism is over and done, that poverty is caused by laziness, that black people are less intelligent than white people, or that CRT is being taught to grade-schoolers - you know - RACISTS?

Railing is for controversial matters. There's nobody here advocating the Pledge of Allegiance.

Yet nobody is opposing it, even though (that part of) it is a load of crap, being aggressively foisted upon youth, and widely believed among ignorant adults.
Exactly what people here ARE falsely railing against about CRT, employing the nouveau mis-definitions of CRT to condemn the original idea.
Re-defining CRT to refer to bullshit doesn't make it wrong to teach correct history and sociology, as well as the role racism has played and continues to play in getting this society to where it is today. And that is EXACTLY what opponents of CRT want to abolish.

 

[Bomb#20]

In its broadest applied sense even democracy is a religion,

Not sure what you mean by that. That democracy exists is observable -- whether elections are held and votes are counted and winners are put in charge of deciding what people go to jail for isn't a matter of faith. If you mean being for it is a religion, I would think that depends on one's reason. If you're for democracy because agreeing with the 49% confers on one a mystical geas of obedience to the will of the 51%, yes, that's a religion; but if you're for democracy because it's the worst of all forms of government except for the others, that doesn't seem religious to me.

so stating that CRT is religious in no way distinguishes it from other human undertakings. But is CRT being pursued as something of supreme importance? It obviously is not and therefore defining it as being religious fails.

Supreme is as supreme does. It boggles my mind that people will tell you with a straight face that Bible is the literal Word of God and that we're put here to do God's will and that that's our greatest duty and it's what gives meaning and real joy to life, and those same people won't take the trouble to learn Hebrew and Greek; but there you are. Heck, America is full of C&E Christians*, and Christians who work on the Sabbath -- and giving all they can to the poor? Forget about it! Christianity evidently isn't being pursued as something of supreme importance, but that doesn't make it not a religion.

The folks pushing CRT appear to think it's important enough to enforce a complete overhaul of economics and law on the rest of us over it. That's more supremely important than the average Christian treats his religion.

(* The ones who go to church twice a year, Christmas and Easter.)

 

[Politesse]

In its broadest applied sense even democracy is a religion,

Not sure what you mean by that. That democracy exists is observable -- whether elections are held and votes are counted and winners are put in charge of deciding what people go to jail for isn't a matter of faith. If you mean being for it is a religion, I would think that depends on one's reason. If you're for democracy because agreeing with the 49% confers on one a mystical geas of obedience to the will of the 51%, yes, that's a religion; but if you're for democracy because it's the worst of all forms of government except for the others, that doesn't seem religious to me.

so stating that CRT is religious in no way distinguishes it from other human undertakings. But is CRT being pursued as something of supreme importance? It obviously is not and therefore defining it as being religious fails.

Supreme is as supreme does. It boggles my mind that people will tell you with a straight face that Bible is the literal Word of God and that we're put here to do God's will and that that's our greatest duty and it's what gives meaning and real joy to life, and those same people won't take the trouble to learn Hebrew and Greek; but there you are. Heck, America is full of C&E Christians*, and Christians who work on the Sabbath -- and giving all they can to the poor? Forget about it! Christianity evidently isn't being pursued as something of supreme importance, but that doesn't make it not a religion.

The folks pushing CRT appear to think it's important enough to enforce a complete overhaul of economics and law on the rest of us over it. That's more supremely important than the average Christian treats his religion.

(* The ones who go to church twice a year, Christmas and Easter.)

Lives don't hang in the balance of whether or not one goes to Christmas Mass. For a legislator or social worker. the issues addressed by CRT have a critical and immediate bearing on public policy. It's a good thing that these issues are taken more seriously by more people than are customary religious rituals.

 

[Emily Lake]

CRT is basically a religion--it's core tenant that is taken on faith is that racism is the cause of the social differences we see.

I've pointed out several times that this directly contradicts the core CRT concept of intersectionality. Not only is this not a tenant, it's an anti-tenant.

You guys are killing my brain. Tenet. Not tenant. A Tenant is a person who rents or leases a residence. A Tenet is is a stated core belief of a religion or philosophy.

Anyway, my problem with CRT is that it defines tenets of it's philosophy which axiomatically assume that the majority of observed discrepancy in outcome on the basis of race are the direct result of invisible racism built into US society from day one, and continuously supported by all white residents of the US in a self-fulfilling fashion. It allows for no other explanation, because it ASSUMES that relationship as the foundational core of the entire framework.

Which is fine for an academic undertaking of exploration, but which is a horrible approach for actually addressing inequality in society.