The Scientific v. the Arbitrary

Some people dismiss scientific claims when these conflict with their instinctive views or their religious beliefs. But while instincts can be important and faith can be valuable, when it comes to reliability, what makes ‘scientific thinking’ distinctly dependable is that it is characterised by its approach to reason and evidence. In short, for any claim to be scientific, it must stand up to the on-going tests of rational analysis and evidential examination. To make any claim that fails or ignores such critical tests is to make an arbitrary assertion, which offers nothing to justify its believability.

It is important to remember that what validates a claim as scientific is not that some particular person – formally designated a scientist or not – has made that claim. What is crucial is the manner in which that claim has been tested and found to be provisionally sound. It does not have to be declared absolutely, eternally correct. Indeed, any such declaration would cast doubt on the claim being scientific at all. What we are looking for in the testing process is genuine attempts to demonstrate what the claim entails would happen does happen under conditions of objective observation, and that systematic searches for counter-examples or alternative explanations have not produced a case to undermine its credibility.

In medical research, forensic investigation, or electrical engineering, we can see how claims that are put forward from different quarters are subject to vigorous tests, and only upheld if confirmatory findings are obtained and replicable, while no contrary evidence is discovered. And the acceptance of such claims is open to revisions should further challenges and explorations lead us to reconsider what is being put forward.

By contrast, an arbitrary stance reveals itself when one insists on the correctness of a claim regardless of the evidence. This can be seen with people who would reject any questioning of their assertions even though they have no tangible basis for making them. For example, anti-vaxxers dismiss all vaccinations as unacceptably dangerous irrespective of extensive studies of different types of vaccine; climate change deniers maintain whatever substantial climate changes are detected have nothing to do with human activities in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary; cult followers would not rethink any of their leaders’ claims even when they are blatantly false according to every objective assessment; and xenophobic conspiracy theorists attribute blame to foreigners for things with which there are no detectable causal links.

Of course, makers of arbitrary claims can resort to the old ‘science hasn’t got all the answers’ proclamation. But it has no relevance. Science, or more accurately, the totality of scientifically validated claims at any given time, does not have all the answers to every conceivable question. Neither has any other source of information – be they preachers, self-styled clairvoyants, astrologers, or the rumour mill. The difference is that those who work on scientific claims know the limits of the available evidence and are prepared to suspend their judgement, or revise their views, in light of what actual investigation and experiment are able to find.

So long as we remember that ‘pseudo-science’ – the pretence that absolute knowledge is attained in the name of science when it rests on anything but scientific evaluation – is not science, we can safely say that we should let claims be put on a scale that has scientific at one end and arbitrary at the other, and where any individual claim sits would indicate to us what credence we should attach to it.

Skin-Tone Negativity Syndrome (STNS)

There are people who reacts to others’ skin tone, without any coherent justification, with one or more of the following tendencies:
• Fear
• Unease
• Distrust
• Hatred
• Anger
• Rudeness
• Condescension
• Stereotyping

Now we can argue about the extent to which each of these tendencies may qualify as racist, and perhaps different words should be used to differentiate mild/occasional manifestations from intense/frequent ones, but no one would dispute that such these tendencies, prompted purely by skin tone negativity, ought to be corrected. Anyone at the receiving end of any of these tendencies would understandably feel wronged and aggrieved. Why should anyone have to put up with being perceived and/or treated in an unfavourable manner just because of one’s skin tone, irrespective of one’s real character, abilities, and track record in life?

It is notable that many people who exhibit the Skin Tone Negativity Syndrome (STNS) and seek to defend it publicly, seek to focus debates on the meaning of words – should a particular act be called ‘racist’? should an organisation be classified as ‘institutionally racist’? was an expression merely ‘politically incorrect’? And since they prefer to use their own ‘definitions’ of terms which bear little resemblance to those of their critics, the debates can go on and on without any resolution in sight.

By contrast, if the focus is kept on what STNS does in specific cases, on what tendency is manifesting, and what impact it is having on affected people’s lives, then there is no hiding from public scrutiny. Defenders of STNS can, for example, keep spouting the mantra that the way they like to talk about ethnic minorities is not ‘racist’, but just ‘plain speaking’. But if the insulting and injurious behaviour they would not accept for themselves is discovered to have been perpetrated on others, then the case for intervention is made.

The need for intervention often brings up another question in connection with STNS – namely, what is THE cause of it? However, to understand STNS is to see that it does not have a single definitive cause. Some people become susceptible to xenophobic manipulation because they have suffered through socio-economic marginalisation. But deprivation is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for STNS. Some people inherit the casual prejudices from their parents and neighbours. Some people come from privileged families, and their wealth-based status leads them to succumb to a delusionary ‘superiority’ complex that encourages them to look down on others who are visibly different from them. Some may have had personal experiences that diminish their self-esteem to such a level that hating and intimidating others who could be branded as ‘alien’ might be their way of boosting their fragile ego.

Instead of looking for a one definitive cause, we should trace its manifestations to the different conditions that give rise to them, and formulate preventative and corrective measures as appropriate. These would include civic education to nurture moral awareness; public scrutiny and curtailment of egregious communication that is designed to deceive, incite, or hurt people; exposure and removal of symbolism that serves to normalise, or even glorify, wrongful deeds; child protection that ensures families are not left to abuse or corrupt their young; support for people whose personal circumstances render them vulnerable to the embrace of blind suspicion and arbitrary hate; and mechanisms for reporting incidents to be investigated at all levels of society for early intervention to commence whenever necessary.

STNS is harmful because it generates negative impact on people on the wholly arbitrary basis of their skin tone. We should not let those who revel in its spread deflect us with rhetorical sleight-of-hand. Wherever it is detected, it must counteracted with swift and effective action.