WARSAW UNIVERSITY

Short course on CRITICAL METHODOLOGY of the HUMAN SCIENCES delivered by Dr. Patrick OSULLIVAN Assessment

Political correctness is the enemy of the pursuit of truth and so has no place in real science. Discuss critically this assertion and illustrate with examples drawn from a human science with which you are familiar.

Essay written by Quentin DEFLANDRE

DEFLANDRE Quentin (ERASMUS Student)

As the language is the main expression medium of Human, it can be considered as a favourable or unfavourable thing. The language, because it reveals the beauty but the cruelty of the mankind as well, is a risky instrument that can serve all the causes. It mellows or weakens, speaks very highly or destroys. Sometimes an ally, sometimes an enemy, the language is now becoming the "political correctness". Under that new phenomenon the language is not only used for informing or communicating but for manipulating as well. By this essay we will try to analyse the truthfulness of the "politically correct" by defining some notions. What really is the "political correctness"? What is true or false and what can be the variants? How can we explain the science? Confronted by the "truth" and the "science", "political correctness" does not know which way to turn. We will attempt to find out the real value of the science by comparing it with a human science which is called the "inductivism". Finally we will attempt to fix some factors of answers in order to know whether the political correctness has its place or not in truth and real science. ------------We must first wonder what is political correctness, where does it come from, when did it start and what are the implications? The terms "political correctness" appeared in the 18th century in the United States. At this time, its meanings referred to the "correctness" in legal and political fields. The word "correct" and "correctness" meant "a grammatical correction" or "correct according to law rules". In the 80s, the terms acquired a new meaning that we know these days: a term which modifies language, ideas, policies, and behavior seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offense in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, and age-related contexts. In other words, it is showing an effort to make broad social and political changes to redress injustices caused by prejudice. It often involves changing or avoiding language that might offend anyone.

DEFLANDRE Quentin (ERASMUS Student)

And those two words "political correctness" generate a lot of implications. Thus, people can think that it is an attack on free speech, on clear thinking and discussion, a lack of objectivity, a lie, a hidden reality, a frustration, a lack of frankness, etc. Henceforth, it is uncalled for to speak about blind, deaf, disabled person, dwarf or obese. A blind is become a visually handicapped person, even though the word "handicapped" has to be banned. Language hides the cruel reality under other words but those realities do not change. A deaf is become a hearingimpaired, a dwarf is become a height short person or a vertically frustrated person, an obese is a "strong" man, an old person is a senior or a middle-age person, In "political correctness", we don't devaluate anymore, we adjust. We don't reduce anymore, we redevelop. We don't privatize anymore, we free the capital. "Political correctness" is the "stonewalling", "red herring" or "to beat about the bush". ------------Another term that must be defined is "truth" or the opposite of "falsehood" or "the pursuit of truth". What is true? What is false? What are the different types of truth? Truth can have a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality, or being in accord with the body of real things, real events or actualities. It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. The truth is what is true. In a common archaic usage it also meant constancy or sincerity in action or character. The direct opposite of truth is "falsehood", which is a perversion of truth originating in the dishonesty of one party, and culminating in the damage of another party. Falsehood may also mean simply an incorrect statement, independent of any intention to deceive. In order to illustrate those two definitions, a few examples are enough. Thus, "Rain wets" is true because it is a particular fact that we can notice and see with

DEFLANDRE Quentin (ERASMUS Student)

our own eyes. On the other hand, "1 + 1 = 3" is false because it actually equals 2 and that truth is irrefutable. But what happens when we say "Pink is a beautiful color". Some people would say yes. Others would say no. That is tantamount to say it could be true and it could be false. That is why we bring out two groups of truth: subjective truths against objective truths and relative truths against absolute truths. At first subjective truth is the one with which we are personally bound. That is what we can say about our own subjective experience. This kind of truth maintains that we don't have the real knowledge of the world without necessarily rejecting the realism. Thus, belongs to the subjective truth opinion, judgment, assumption, belief, rumor, suspicion, ... Henceforth, the sentence "Pink is a beautiful color" belongs to the subjective truth. We can say the same for "I like fast food", "I feel pain" or "I think that is true" as well. On the contrary objective truth is independent of our subjective beliefs. That truth doesn't exist in our mind but in the external environment. What can be able to be seen, counted, described, imitated and experienced. "1 + 1 = 2" is an objective truth because it is proved that is true. Then relative truth is the one that depends on some standard, conventions or point of view. When we say that the right hand is to the right, it depends on where we stand. That means that the relative truth maintains that what it is true depends on cultures, countries, religions, thoughts, patterns, ... In contrast absolute truth claims that the previous facts cited above are true for everybody wherever there are. For example, if we say that "the Earth is round" in contrast with "the Earth is a flat disk". We know today that the first sentence is the real truth. We can even say that it is absolutely true because everybody agree with that. As a result the truth can take various forms depending on whether that is "really true" or not, our points of view, where we stand or whether we believe in it or not. Those truths will be compared to different subjects. -------------

DEFLANDRE Quentin (ERASMUS Student)

Finally, in order to complete our knowledge, we must define the words "real science". What is "science"? The "science" means the "knowledge" and designates both a particular intellectual approach and an organized set of knowledge which result from it. The science is characterized by a full objectivity and is supposed to be a model of the real knowledge of the world. We can point out two aspects in the science: theories and experiences. On the one hand scientific theories are a universal wording that explain some behaviors (such as the knowledge of the world or the reality description) and forecast what it occurs. On the other hand scientific experiences prove facts and question methodically some phenomena in order to confirm hypotheses. In real science theories result from experience and experience result from some questions and those questions result from some observations. Therefore, we can say that theories result from some observations. If observations must reject any personal prejudice from the scientist, theories, and so science, must too. The ideal scientist must faithfully and loyally debrief what he sees, hears, in connection with what he observes and without prejudice. Those observations without prejudice result in the "induction". That concept will be analysed in details hereunder. ------------As I said, political correctness modifies language in order to redress injustices caused by prejudice. I also said that truth is the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality and also means having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. The question we are wondering now is: Can political correctness be heard as a truth? The answer depends on each individual.

DEFLANDRE Quentin (ERASMUS Student)

Actually, if you talk to a politician about political correctness, he will tell you that political correctness is one way of saying something real but correctly. Therefore for a politician, political correctness is nothing other than the truth. What he does not know is that in reality he uses a spin-off of political correctness which is called the "emotional conformity". Its characteristics are the same than political correctness but it easily spreads to worldwide. And that "emotional conformity" reaches both the politicians world and the families and organizations. For example, when a stinky employee of a company gets a promotion, others employees are supposed to be happy with this promotion because it is politically correct. If you talk to an outspoken person, he will tell you that political correctness is an attempt to hush up the truth within the society and it wants to take the ability from the human spirit to discern the mistake from the truth. In reality that kind of outspoken person can have a family to look after. For sure he has already been confronted by that situation where he was forced to be politically correct. And he was not realized that situation. However, his judgment about political correctness will not have changed: political correctness is not the truth. As a result, we can consider political correctness as an approximation of the truth depending on the individuals' perception. ------------We have seen that observations without prejudice result in the "Inductivist conception of science" which actually is a human science. In "Induction" or the "Inductivist conception of science", the scientist begins with large masses of empirical data. Then he attempts to make sense of these by organising them under general theories of which each of the observed data will be instances. According to the classical inductivist thinkers as Bacon, "when the general theories of science are tested empirically it would be possible on the basis of an accumulation of correct predictions from a theory in tests to conclude that the theory is proven true. They called that concept "inductive inference". We can explain that concept by the Chalmers diagram1:
1

Source : http://www.implications-philosophiques.org/implications-epistemologiques/popper/la-methode-

hypothetico-deductive-selon-popper/

DEFLANDRE Quentin (ERASMUS Student)

The first stage is the "observation" or the "induction". It consists in the collection, by experience, of all the facts and the generalization of the observed facts by induction. It leads to the formulation of the theory. The second stage is the "deduction". It consists in the explanation and forecasting by a scientist. It corresponds to the first stage but trough the theories and deduction. Let suppose the following example: "Look at this, that is terrible, the wind is driving the pram towards the cliffs". It seems to be a simple observation but actually it supposes some theories and knowledge: we know that the baby will crash if he falls from the cliffs, and that is the wind which drives the pram. The term "theory" is very important in this case because it constitutes the basis of an experience. But in the induction process the experience precedes the theory. Therefore do we have to rely on another model? The opposite of induction is deduction. Maybe the theories discovery is made by the "deductivism"? ------------Remember that in real science theories result from experience and experience result from some questions and those questions result from some observations. We have concluded that science must reject any personal prejudice from the scientist.

DEFLANDRE Quentin (ERASMUS Student)

In contrast, political corrected is based on judgment and perception. Is the science so real than supposed? Is science opposed to political correctness by the wayside? In a basic scientific research, the process is so called the "hypotheticodeductive model" and is made up of four stages2:

The first stage of that process is to pose the" theory", the "problem": it consists in finding the basic problem of a situation. The second stage is the "prediction": the purpose is to show hypotheses by using the theories of the previous stage in order to try solving the problem. The third stage is the "experimentation": hypotheses must be tested by designing an experiment. The scientific wonders whether there are direct observable behaviours that would occur if the hypothesis was true. If that is it, some events must happen and must be observable. The last stage is the "observation": it consists in deciding whether the experiment must be refuted or confirmed.

Source : http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/11/02/science-religion-3-scientific-search-for-truth/

DEFLANDRE Quentin (ERASMUS Student)

As an example, I will tell you one of Carl G. HEMPEL3 : First stage: the problem for the doctor Semmelweis was that he had a lot of

pregnant women who gave birth in his unit and who contracted the "puerperal fever". In the next service there was no problem. Second stage: in order to find out causes of that fever, Doctor Semmelweis did not collect observations but hypotheses. Indeed he began examining the different explanations it was happened before. Finally it was blood poisoning due to the fact that medical students did not wash their hands before the delivery. Third stage: His hypothesis was confirmed in putting his theory to the test. Fourth stage: later Doctor Semmelweis discovered that his hypothesis was

false. Actually another material could cause that fever. It means that even if numerous observations of a hypothesis have been confirmed by a meticulous test, hypothesis can be false. In the scientific process the theory precedes the experience. Hypotheses and scientific theories do not depend on observed facts, but previously invented to justify it. We could notice that the real science is effectively true when the model follows a scientific process. In contrast it false when the model is an "inductive inference" process. In this case, is political correctness really the enemy of real science? ------------In conclusion, we now know that "political correctness" is an idea which is true but which shows, by a manipulation process, a share of falsehood. Which is harder to verify is to know whether science can lead us to the truth and whether the truth is really true. We saw that truth can take various forms: objective, subjective, relative or absolute according to our experience, our point of
3

Source: http://www.philocours.com/cours/texte-cours-theorieexperience.html#Hempel

DEFLANDRE Quentin (ERASMUS Student)

view or our belief. Therefore we can wonder about the existence of truth and if it exists, are there proofs? If we think about that question, we realize that there are proofs: The first proof is the existence of truth in our mind. Our mind tells us that

the world would have to work "in this way" and that something can be "good" or "bad". And we believe it. The second proof is science. Science is the pursuit of knowledge. All the scientific researches are necessarily based on the fact that some realities exist in the world. A problem remains when science uses the "inductivism" as a process. In this case we saw that experiences precede theories while real science needs that theories precede experiences. I think that political correctness is a "dishonest truth" which has to be regularly used nowadays. Firstly I don't think that truth equal science because of its numerous meanings. From that point I believe that political correctness can equal truth according to the form that truth can take. However political correctness, even if it has something true, is a language which has no place in real science because this one requires an absolute rigour.

DEFLANDRE Quentin (ERASMUS Student)

Bibliography

http://www.implications-philosophiques.org/implicationsepistemologiques/popper/la-methode-hypothetico-deductive-selon-popper/ http://www.wheatandtares.org/2010/11/02/science-religion-3-scientific-search-fortruth/ http://www.philocours.com/cours/texte-cours-theorieexperience.html#Hempel