Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
I'm afraid not. You wrote:
There are a couple problems here.
1) "Empirical evidence" does not mean "direct evidence" in the way you are apparently using the latter phrase. The shortest definition of "empirical evidence" would be that it's "evidence acquired through observation or experimentation", as opposed to the conclusion of a purely deductive argument. (cf. here, here, or here, or see also the definition of empiricism). The point is someone didn't start out with some set of premises and then reasoned deductively to some conclusion. They went out and made measurements. All of the studies cited are empirical studies with experimental methodologies. Your assertion that they are not is simply wrong.
2) Your use of the phrase "direct evidence" isn't particularly well defined, but obviously you're concerned about the relevance of the measurements made to the research question. That's a perfectly legitimate methodological question, and clearly we can imagine that some ways of attempting to measure discrimination are going to be better than others. For example, AppleCrumb mentioned raw data on racial disparities in employment as a relatively poor measure of discrimination. Experimental measures like those used in these studies are unequivocally better.
So, the premise that not all measures are equally useful is fine. Being concerned with the adequacy of methods is fine. But, your understanding of the relationship between "direct evidence" and "indirect inference" is wrong-headed, precisely because almost all scientific knowledge is based in drawing inferences (either inductive or abductive) that are -- to varying degrees -- "indirect". For example, if you want to know the age of the earth, it can be inferred from the level of radioactive isotopes in rock. I expect you will want to call that "direct" evidence, but the logical process of inference is actually pretty complex. The relationship between theory and actual observed data in physics is no less complex, as a general rule.
The idea of a spectrum from "direct" to "indirect" is fine as a rough metaphor for the relative value of differing ways of measuring things, but what makes empirical evidence strong is not a lack of logical inference. Rather, usually terms like "reliability" and "validity" are used. The experimental designs used in these studies have proven to be fairly reliable: results have been reproduced a number of times in a number of different ways, with some instructive differences in the results. Validity, which is essentially what you are challenging, is established by the ability of the experimenters to reasonably establish the connection between the methods used and the question being asked, and to eliminate competing explanations for the results. This leads into another problem. You wrote:
To be clear, you asked for empirical evidence and I provided some. I didn't make any claims about the psychology of people who are either ignorant of the evidence or reject it for whatever reasons. I have not claimed that the issue is "scientifically settled". I have claimed that there is strong empirical evidence for employment discrimination. If you had read the post I linked, you would have seen that I discussed some of the limitations I think apply to conclusions drawn from the research.
A couple of other things:
First, I'm not a scientist.
Second, to repeat, the evidence provided is empirical evidence, and because of the experimental design is probably as "direct" (meaning "valid") as you can ever expect to see. This is why I challenged you to think of what sort of evidence would satisfy you given your perspective.
Third, while it is not necessarily either stupid or racist to raise concerns about the methods used to study questions like this, it should be clear that not everyone who doubts the existence of racial discrimination is engaged in some informed and rational exercise in skepticism. In my experience, it's far more common to encounter complete ignorance of the available data, rather than any reasonable criticism of it. That is hardly "smart and scientific."
Again though, you are asking me to defend a claim I haven't actually made. Instead, I answered your request for evidence and since then have merely been trying to correct your misconceptions about empiricism and science.
Well, thanks for the lesson. As you can see now, and I assumed was fairly obvious from start, and throughout our conversation, I was never dismissing the studies you presented. I was taking issue with with the way one poster elected to use the term "empirical evidence" as the end of the discussion on this topic, and anyone who dared question the conclusions of the sorts of studies you presented is either racist or stupid.
It is of course the opposite. Everyone involved should be questioning the studies. That's how science works. When a theory manages to survive all the criticisms, all the empirical evidence, all the studies designed to test it, then it tends to be accepted within the scientific community. This is also how ideas work in society imo in a much less structured and scientific way, at least a society without too much censorship.
I'm concerned that this process is not being done rigorously within much of academia today with regard to many of the social sciences, particularly those focusing on social justice for reasons that I think you should be able to understand: besides the ****storm that follows here with the everyday douches anytime anyone ever questions anything that seems to support that agenda (which doesn't concern me too much because lol politics and lol internet posters), I was particularly concerned when I noticed you doing the exact same thing. This was when I thought you were a social scientist, a part of academia. Thanks for clearing that up.
If you're interested in why I'm alarmed with the state of the social sciences, look up things like "reproducibility problem in social science" "publishing bias" "statistical significance". These of course aren't just problems in social sciences, but they get hit the hardest I think because they are the most complex, and it is more difficult to hold down all the controls and less easy to collect direct empirical evidence. Also, wrt social justice topics, it appears criticism is frowned upon, and just about anything passes as science these days. Look up the "conceptual penis" for a good laugh.
