The comparison between ancient and medieval astronomers clinging to the Ptolemaic model and today’s proponents of “anti-racism” suggests that both groups exhibit a reluctance to reconsider their underlying theories in light of contradictory evidence. In ancient times, astronomers created complex systems of epicycles to explain the movements of celestial bodies within the Earth-centered universe paradigm, despite growing anomalies. This approach was more about preserving the existing theory than seeking a more accurate model, leading to a rigid adherence to a flawed system.
Similarly, the modern “anti-racism” movement is argued to exhibit a pre-Enlightenment mindset, marked by an aversion to challenging its core assumptions. Critical Race Theory (CRT) and related fields within the anti-racism framework, such as “Critical Whiteness Studies,” “Microaggressions,” and “Diversity Science,” are portrayed as engaging in pseudoscientific practices. The movement’s tendency to generate numerous subgenres and neologisms is seen as a way to account for anomalies without fundamentally questioning the central theory. This behavior aligns with what philosopher Imre Lakatos described as a “degenerating research program,” where efforts are focused more on protecting the theory from disconfirmation than on genuine scientific inquiry.
The proliferation of various forms of “racism,” each coined to explain away specific disconfirmations, mirrors the medieval use of epicycles. Terms like “laissez-faire racism,” “color-blind racism,” “symbolic racism,” and many others are presented as “rescue hypotheses,” auxiliary theories designed to shield the central anti-racism theory from falsification. These “rescue racisms” serve to reinterpret any inconvenient facts in a manner that supports the overarching narrative of pervasive racism, regardless of the empirical evidence.
The critique extends to the institutionalization of “anti-racism” on college campuses, where the movement is said to fuel bureaucratic expansion and control. The constant creation of new types of racism is viewed as a means to maintain the relevance and power of the anti-racist ideology. This approach is compared to the myth of the framework described by Karl Popper, where an ideology resists challenge and seeks confirmation within a closed system of thought.
In conclusion, the argument posits that the anti-racism movement, much like the Ptolemaic astronomers, is engaged in a degenerative practice that prioritizes theory preservation over empirical accuracy. By drawing parallels with pseudoscientific endeavors like alchemy and astrology, the text calls for a reevaluation of anti-racism’s intellectual validity and its impact on academic environments. This reassessment, it is suggested, could lead to a more robust and critical engagement with issues of race and inequality.
4o
