The Uncertainty Fallacy in Race Denialism

Louis Charles Moeller (1855-1930), A Heated Debate

1,159 words

The wellspring of most, if not all, forms of race denialism is ignorance. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the race denialist himself is ignorant. Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould certainly weren’t. It does mean, however, that you cannot promote race denialism without professing a certain level of ignorance about the mysterious black box we call the human brain.

If we knew everything there is to know about the brain, then we could say for certain that racial differences in intelligence and temperament truly exist in the biological realm. It’s a good thing for the race denialist that we don’t — at least not yet. It is from this shrinking domain of neuroscientific uncertainty that he manufactures doubt, which he then weaponizes against his greatest opponent: the race realist.

What follows will be a succinct strategy for dealing with race denialists whenever they employ the tactic described above, which I call the Uncertainty Fallacy.

The Uncertainty Fallacy appears when the race denialist — or really, any denialist — starts his rhetoric with the opposite of doubt — that is, with certainty — yet follows through only with those arguments professing uncertainty. Thus, he can effectively make two arguments for the price of one. An argument can remain coherent relying on either certainty or uncertainty, but not both. This is why, when arguing with a race denialist, one should goad him at the start into positively affirming that the races on average have equal intelligence and similar temperament. Thus, one forces the denialist into starting with a certainty which he will likely not be able to prove.

A clever denialist will equivocate. For example, he may solemnly attest, “We have seen no conclusive evidence that races on average are different in any meaningful way.” Such an assertion has uncertainty baked into its triple-layer cake. First, it assumes there is evidence the denialist hasn’t seen. Second, it leaves it up in the air as to what makes evidence conclusive or inconclusive. Third, it uses the qualitative term “meaningful,” which, ironically, is meaningless without objective criteria. The statement above never says anything definitive about race; it misdirects using uncertainty. This allows the race denialist to remain consistent when he carves up the race realist’s argument with his rapier of doubt.

For example:

There may be a black-white IQ gap, but how do we know the IQ tests aren’t culturally biased?

There may be a black-white crime rate gap, but how much of that is the result of the historical oppression of blacks?

There may be a black-white academic achievement gap, but how much of that is the result of poverty, drug addiction, and single-parent homes?

And my favorite:

There may seem to be racial differences, but how can we be sure these differences are real when the differences within races are even greater and make it almost impossible to determine what a race is to begin with?

With such intricate clouds of uncertainty obscuring the race realist’s rock-solid evidence, the observers of such an argument will gravitate toward the conclusion that they are most comfortable with. Nine times out of ten, that will be egalitarianism, because equality on its face is more pleasing than inequality. Few people would admit in public that they are superior to others, because that would be arrogant, just as few would admit in public that they are inferior to others, since that would reward arrogance — not to mention make one feel bad.

You can buy Spencer Quinn’s novel White Like You here.

One of the more endearing moments of Flannery O’Connor’s career was when she was asked at a ladies’ college why she wrote. She answered, “Because I’m good at it,” which garnered, as she described it, “considerable disapproval in the atmosphere.” This is pure, distilled anti-egalitarianism — the kind that the Uncertainty Fallacy seeks to address. Of course O’Connor’s remark would be unpopular with her audience. How do you know it wasn’t your upbringing or education that made you a good writer, Miss O’Connor?

The desire or need to believe in equality is unfortunately a common human foible — at least nowadays — so from the outset, the race denialist has a huge advantage against the race realist. Just a scintilla of seemingly reasonable doubt can cause the mountain of data assembled by the realist to crumble. This may seem counterintuitive to the realist, who thinks scientifically and has all the facts on his side. But it shouldn’t be. When speaking before an audience of people whose average IQ is much closer to 110 than it is to 140, it should be taken for granted. Whenever stepping into the ring, the race denialist has a permanent hometown advantage, plus all the judges as well as the referee in his back pocket. In such a carnival atmosphere, he can afford to make mistakes and be inaccurate; the race realist cannot.

Thus, the race realist should waste no time in stripping away the denialist’s most powerful weapon: uncertainty. After — and only after — the realist forces the denialist to positively aver racial equality can he then trap him in his own fallacy; he can use his opponent’s argument against him. One cannot proceed with uncertainty when starting from a premise of certainty. At any time when the denialist suggests the myriad of ways in which culture or circumstance may lead to racial differences, the realist must point out that in order for the denialist to be consistent, he must show how culture or circumstance must cause racial differences. The denialist will have to follow up his certainty with more certainty in the form of unimpeachable data. This, of course, he cannot do, because such data does not exist.

And if the denialist becomes obstinate and proceeds with uncertainty anyway, the realist can easily point out that in a world of uncertainty he, the realist, could very well be correct — which was what the denialist was denying in the first place! So which is it? Is the race realist correct or incorrect?

The most withering response a realist can muster in such a debate is, “I don’t know which position of yours I should argue against. You have so many of them.”

This forces the denialist to go on the defensive, and makes the argument more about him than about race. This may seem to be unfortunate, but it isn’t. Remember the adage about ordinary minds thinking about people, and great minds thinking about ideas? When in a room full of great minds, the debate should be restricted only to the data that supports or contradicts ideas. When in a room full of ordinary minds, it’s best to show how one’s married opponent is sleeping with several of his graduate students. In lieu of such a smoking gun, pointing out an opponent’s rank hypocrisy is next best thing.

When arguing against the facts, the race denialist’s biggest trick is to employ the Uncertainty Fallacy — starting with one argument and following up with another. The race realist should never let him get away with that.