Hume and Racism
David Hume is a philosopher highly respected for his clarity of thought and constructive use of scepticism. His scepticism, however, did not extend to all the prejudices of his time:
I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever was a civilized nation of that complexion, nor even any individual, eminent either in action or speculation. No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences. On the other hand, the most rude and barbarous of the Whites, such as the ancient Germans, the present Tartars, have still something eminent about them, in their valour, form of government, or some other particular. Such a uniform and constant difference could not happen, in so many countries and ages, if nature had not made an original distinction between these breeds of men. Not to mention our colonies, there are Negro slaves dispersed all over Europe, of whom none ever discovered the symptoms of ingenuity; though low people, without education, will start up amongst us, and distinguish themselves in every profession. In Jamaica, indeed, they talk of one Negro as a man of parts and learning; but it is likely he is admired for slender accomplishments, like a parrot who speaks a few words plainly.1
The above quote comes from a footnote in Hume’s essay ‘Of National Character’. The footnote was not in the original 1748 version of the essay, but was added in 1753. The first two sentences were revised in 1777 by Hume in response to criticisms he received (this is the version above). The opening sentences of the original 1753 footnote read:
I am apt to suspect the negroes and in general all the other species of men (for there are four or five different kinds) to be naturally inferior to the whites. There never was a civilized nation of any other complexion than white, nor even any individual eminent either in action or speculation. On the other hand, …
Note that in this earlier version, Hume refers to other species, not other races. Non-whites were, it appears, not even human (or at least not the same kind of human). Although he was swayed to remove this claim, the passage of twenty-four years obviously did not changed his opinion of blacks.
To give some idea of context of the footnote(s), both versions come as a note attached to the end of this passage in the main text:
And indeed there is some reason to think, that all the nations which live beyond the polar circles or between the tropics, are inferior to the rest of the species, and are incapable of all the higher attainments of the human mind. The poverty and misery of the northern inhabitants of the globe, and the indolence of the southern, from their few necessities, may, perhaps, account for this remarkable difference, without having recourse to physical causes. This, however, is certain, that the characters of nations are very promiscuous in the temperate climates, and that almost all the general observations which have been formed of the more souther or more northern people in these climates, are found to be uncertain and fallacious.2
The discounting of ‘physical causes’ was part of Hume’s refutation of climate-based theories such as Montesquieu’s, which claimed that environmental factors had a large influence in determining intellectual abilities, with ‘temperate’ zones producing the optimal conditions for the development of superior peoples. Hume argued instead that sociological factors such as the form of government and character of the political body were more important. Note that although Hume didn’t accept Montesquieu’s reasoning, he did share the prejudice (that the inhabitants of temperate zones—such as Europeans—were in general more highly developed). Towards the end of the essay, the Scot speculates that the increased presence of strong liquors in southern lands contributes to their moral inferiority:
You may obtain anything of the Negroes by offering them strong drink, and may easily prevail with them to sell, not only their children, but their wives and mistresses, for a cask of brandy.3
Hume’s views were clearly a stark contrast to his empiricist philosophy, for 
there was plenty of empirical data contradict his ideas. There were, for instance, two black professors of philosophy in Europe at the time. And the Jamaican to whom Hume referred was Francis Williams, a well-educated schoolmaster who composed poetry in Latin. To Hume, however, he was merely a ‘parrot’—capable of mimicking the comments of others, but not of creating anything himself. An article on Francis Williams and contextualisation of Hume’s views [p.4] can be found here.
What relationship does Hume’s obvious racism have to his philosophy? For a worst-case scenario, consult Eric Morton’s article ‘Race and Racism in the works of David Hume’: “We may not dismiss Hume’s comments on black people as an aberrant instance of his shortsightedness that has nothing to do with his overall philosophy.” But surely Hume’s racism in a essay on national characteristics has very little to do with the theorising he is most remembered for—empiricism—and his enormous contribution to issues of pure philosophy, such as induction and causation? “Hume’s theory of knowledge is driven by Hume’s racism and the built-in racism in his philosophical and conceptual worldview.” Motion may show that Hume’s racism taints his own conceptual worldview (hardly a difficult task, given the evidence) but fails to justify philosophically how “the conceptual framework of empiricism itself may be racist.” Is it not possible to simply apply the abstract principles of Humes’s philosophy without the empirical prejudices the philosopher himself held?
CITATIONS:
1. David Hume, footnote to ‘Of National Character’ (1748), in The Philosophical Works of David Hume, Volume III, Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1996, p228.
2. ibid. p.228.
3. ibid. p.235.
Comments
29 Comments so far
It sickens me to read that Hume is considered a “racist” simply because he believed that there are FACTUAL differences between races.
Only an idiot or a hypocrite would deny that there are factual differences between races. For example, black people tend to have darker skin than white people. Oriental people tend to have straighter hair than black people, and so on. It is vanishingly unlikely that there are not similar differences between the BRAINS of people of different races, just as there are differences between almost all of the other organs of the human body.
A racist is not someone who merely BELIEVES that there are FACTUAL differences between races, but someone who ACTS without due consideration to the interests of members of other races.
Are we all supposed to PRETEND that racial differences could not possibly exist? That is a dangerous road of self-deception.
On the contrary:
1. That there are superficial phenotypic differences amongst the human population is clearly undeniable. That these group discretely into something that came to be called ‘races’ is entirely problematic and contrary to most if not all empirical analysis of the distribution of relevant markers.
2. The idea that there is a correlation between surface features of the phenotype such as melanocyte distribution or degree of disulphide linkage in the hair and heritable hard-wired structure or features of the human brain is pretty much the definition of racism. Whether in fact there is a distinction between racialism (the belief that humans are objectively grouped into classes called races) and racism is itself debatable. But in the case of the views that you have expressed this is not even an issue. Your views are both clearly and canonically racialist and racist by any measure.
Prof. Lenny Moss
Associate Professor of Philosophy & Senior Fellow ESRC Center for Genomics in Society, Department of Philosophy and Sociology
Jeremy,
Who are these ‘black’ people to whom you refer? If you can identify them, please do tell me who they are, for I should very much like to know. I wonder whether there are indeed factual differences between races. I, a British Caribbean man, have darker skin than many people in Britain, but lighter skin than most people in the Caribbean or on the continent of Africa. My sister has what I guess you would decribe as a “white” complexion, freckles and red hair. What is the fact about the races to which we belong, my sister and I?
That remark should be enough to lodge doubt in your mind as to the existence of racial facts such as you imagine. To test further the claim you made in your email, you may wish to consult APPIAH, K. A., ‘How to decide if races exist’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 2006: 106: 3. I look forward to hearing your reasoned argument for your claim about racial facts once you have considered the position of my sister and I, and the arguments of Prof. Appiah.
Cordially, Nat Coleman
post scriptum: You seem to think that racism is the coupling of a belief about factual differences between races with an act lacking in due consideration to the interests of members of other races. Surely racism does not require an act to qualify as racism? Surely racism is rather the belief about factual differences between races coupled with a belief in the natural inferiority of some particular race?
Lenny wrote:
Comments on both Lenny and Nat’s comments:
> The idea that
[...]
> is pretty much the definition of
[...]
This is exactly the sort of thing philosophers are expected to question, especially if the word in question is a term of opprobrium.
A “phenotype” covers much more than superficial appearance such as hair and skin — it applies to behavior, etc. as well.
I wonder if Professor Appiah recognizes different breeds of dog? There are clear — and clearly innate — differences between pit bull terriers and cocker spaniels. Cruelty to either is morally unjustified.
All the best — Jeremy Bowman (J.B.)
Hey guys : from a scientific point of view, races – or “factual differences between races” – do exist. According to Darwin, they’re the consequence of the geographical isolation of population. Actualy, it’s a fact that has been clearly demonstrated. See for example :
- A. W. F. Edwards. Human genetic diversity: Lewontin’s fallacy. BioEssays 25 2003), 798-801.
- Noah A Rosenberg et coll., Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298 (2002): 2981-2985.
- C. Darwin, The descent of man
Ian Hacking summerized it perfectly in his course at the college de france (in french) :
http://www.college-de-france.fr/media/phi_his/UPL5941_cours_6.pdf
Sorry, I dont speak english well enough to summarise the famous arguments of AWF Edwards about the validity of the concept of race as a taxonomic principle…. But there is an article on “Lewontin’s fallacy” on wikipedia, you can read it, its a good summary :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin's_Fallacy
Edwards famous article is available online too :
http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf
This text is a precise answer to the question asked by Nat Coleman about race and color. It shows that races do exist (from a biological point of view) even if they can’t be defined by a single fact (like skin color).
PS : Edwards is not racist, Neither am I…..
..And I don’t read French well enough to follow Ian Hacking’s article without quite a lot of pain. Is an English version available? I’d be very interested as I’m a big fan of Hacking.
I’m also interested in the question whether racial differences are primarily the result of natural selection or sexual selection. Any references?
Actually racial differences are “primarily” a geographical fact : isolation of populations by geographical barriers during a long time produced some superficials but systematics genetic differences among human beings. It’s a process which is quite similar to the speciation of the Darwin’s finches in the galapagos islands.
Factual differences between “races” tend to disappear when those geographicals barriers disappear. For example, people from portugal are very different from people from africa, but this genetic difference does not exist between white and black people from brazil. (see F. Parra, R. Amadoâ, J. Lambertucci, J.Rocha, C. Antunesâ , S. Pena, Color and genomic ancestry in Brazilians –
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/1/177.pdf)
While I believe it is plain as day that Hume held racist views, it seems to me that two black professors in Europe do not constitute significant empirical evidence against the revised version of Hume’s footnote. Two people are certainly “scarce” in comparison to the number of white professors in Europe. As for Francis Williams, how much did Hume know of him? While he had obviously heard of the man, Hume had a tendency to refer by name to those who he believed were well-known enough either by him or the public. Still, the dismissive hand-wave to his accomplishments is telling.
And how does Hume’s 1758 denunciation of slavery in “Of the Populousness of Ancient Nations” play into this? This looks like it would be an interesting matter to have some actual Hume scholars look into.
-James
I have come to this heated debate at a time when it looks to have distinctly cooled off.
It may seem strange to say, but with little doubt Hume was ignorant about people from other races or cultures. He may have been an esteemed philosopher in his age but, any person -empiricist or not, in any walk of life, can be short of the facts. I don’t want to make any excuses for his beliefs about inferiority as they speak to us in this age but, maybe from another area of Hume’s philosophy, we can gain some insight into how we are all products of our own ages.
Hume writes of moral and aesthetic judgment (specifically imagining an orator) and says,
“An orator addresses himself to a particular audience, and must have regard to their particular genius, interests, opinions, passions, and prejudices; otherwise he hopes in vain to govern their resolutions, and inflame their affections…..A critic of a different age or nation, who should pursue this discourse, must have all the circumstances in his eye, and must place himself in the same situation as the audience, in order to form a true judgment of the oration”
(Of the Standard of Taste -Hume)
Clearly, Hume did not have all the facts about other races (and possibly many from his own race) in his age or, the circumstances of liberal enlightened opinion that we feel we enjoy in this age ‘in his eye’.
At the risk of sounding flippant in such a weighty debate, I am reminded of the Woody Allen film, The Sleeper. There is one scene where, having recently woken at a time in the future, Allen’s character is informed that contrary to late 20th Century medical opinion, coffee, cigarettes and chocolate cake are now medically proven to be the staples of a healthy lifestyle.
No doubt we hold opinions and beliefs in this age that will be derided and overturned by future generations.
I don’t think it’s too late to be joining in here – this entry has garnered the most attention of any here by quite a long stretch. (I think the simple reason is that Hume is the most respected English-language philosopher and it disturbs people to find him expressing views of this nature, or even that it bothers some that someone is making negative comments about a philosopher as respected as Hume.)
I’m of the opinion that Hume’s racism doesn’t pose any problem for his philosophical views whatsoever. To say that we should jettison empiricism because of these comments appears to me a form of the fallacy of relevance—using an argument that doesn’t truly pertain to the matter at hand. There is nothing about empiricism or even the vast majority of Hume’s philosophy that is necessarily racist or supported by racist premises. There is just the simple fact that Hume held racist ideas (largely in line with others of his time, but nonetheless unsupported by fact), and thought (presumably) that empiricism was only valid for Europeans because of the lesser intellectual abilities of blacks and other races.
The answer seems, to me at least, straightforward: simply declare that Hume was wrong (in regard to his assumptions of drastic differences in racial cognitive ability) and that his philosophical views don’t rest on those assumptions in any way.
For Hume, the fact that repeated viewings of pool balls colliding and careening off in predictable directions should not lead to the conclusion that the event will repeat itself in the next instance. Thus one should not assume that a talented black (or white?) is an instance that will repeat itself given the same set of circumstances which produced the original observation. However, it appears that Hume separated one race from another by counterposing the idea of “original thought” a property of the white billard ball with the “parrot paradigm” a… property
Racism is about consequences. Hume knew this and by justifying the unsubstantiated view that black people were indeed inferior to white people he made the legal enslavement of black people acceptable to slavers. Hume and his European Enlightenment Gang knew the economic value of New World Chattel Slavery and felt he had to justify the evil actions of his “race”.Regarding consequences,the negative images embodied in Hume’s racist prejudgement are still with us today. Sinner or Saint, black or white, we all know the negative images of black people. Most of these images have their orgins in the New World enslavement of black people. Without this slavery these images would not have arisen. Like most racists, Hume’s science was very poor.He knew nothing about control-based experimentation. This is essential when objects are being compared.
Somehow, the albatross of the 300 year old evil of Chattel slavery still weighs heavily on the minds of some white people.Therefore, reputations can be made if it can be proved that black people are indeed inferior to white people…this would justify the terrible deed of New World Chattel Slavery and clear consciences. Watson of DNA fame and others, without fame, have tried to be the great saviour of the troubled consciences of many white people. However,like Hume, they also had no appropriate controls and now look even more rediculous than Hume who now sits, half-dressed in Greek robes, on a plinth on the chilly High Street of Edinburgh…such is the consequence of racial prejudice…
To an uneducated person like myself, the assessemnt of the validity of Hume’s racial views is simple…would you put a love-one to fly in a plane made from prejudice? If not, then accept Hume and those who prospered from New World Slavery for what they were…greedy,wicked and cynical human beings.
Black people should take great pride for having survived Hume’s opportunistic-racism and the cruel chattel slavery it tried to justify and sustain. If we can survive the racism of Hume’s reasoning and Watson’s genetics we can survive anything…
Yes, Hume was racist. For me the reply is “So what?”. Holding racist views is logical and moral. Slavery is immoral, racism is not. They are separate things. Just because a view may “lead to” slavery does not say anything about whether or not that view is legitimate. There is also the issue of the fear of the word “inferior”. Oh how it’s feared. Yet, factually, if one race has a tendency to be worst at something then another…they are indeed inferior in that respect. And the other is “superior”. Let’s not play linguistic games.
As far as evidence for distributive differences in races in terms of abilities, intelligence, and character the evidence continues to be overwhelming into the 21st century. To date, the Negro has yet to achieve industrial capability on his own. The Negro has yet to go through even an agricultural revolution. Hence the massive support needed to continually provide food to majority Negro countries. Look at what happened in Zimbabwe after white farmers where either murdered or the farms confiscated. Zimbabwe used to be a breadbasket, now it can’t even feed it’s own.
Human intelligences are distributed in bell curve form. The distribution accounts for “intelligent” blacks. There are “upper echelons” of intelligence in all races. The problem is in the ratio of distribution of the higher to the lower. And also the ceiling of the distribution.
How long will your analysis be tainted by fear of being racist, fear of calling a race superior or calling another inferior? How long will you avoid cold hard logic?
I dont like to call Hume, Kant or any other great philosopher a racist. I think all these philosophers knowledge is just limited by time. Blacks had developed civilizaitons, mathematics, sciences even philosophical thoughts. Pythagoras, one of the greatest mathematical minds, learned mathematics in Africa. And concerned with the argument related to difference between the races; there is no such things as race…the differences come from different climate regions. The only race there is the “Human Race.” People don’t want to believe it, but that’s just because they are being ignorant. There is a plethora of documents explaining this claim (the only reason why I state it). I don’t consider Hume a racist, just educated to his time. I’m sure if he was alive today his claims would be radically different.
@James: Your whole post ignores social and economic context and external factors. Zimbabwe gained it’s independence in 1980, making it a very young nation. Gaining it’s independence did not mean it was ripe for growth nor did it mean it was free from hegemony. When the large majority of the black population were not given access to education by the ruling white elite, it’s quite demanding of you to expect them to immediately revolutionise their society in less than three decades when it took centuries for most. It’s also a remarkable generalisation to say that the problems with modern Zimbabwe are a “Negro” problem. It ignores the class problems, which exist in all countries and exist — and have existed — at this level in most countries where the majority are oppressed.
I find it humorous that you say Zimbabwe used to be a breadbasket. A breadbasket for whom? Certainly not that black population who were treated as second class citizens.
You say there is overwhelming evidence superiority in intelligence, ability, etc. between races. I would like to see evidence of this in the form of people from different races with equal social and economic conditions. Simply looking at Africa for evidence of inferiority among African races does you no good because you ignore the centuries of colonial rule that set the African people at a large disadvantage, not due to innate qualities, but due to external and internal political factors. It’s a power structure that developed for centuries and was initially built on racism.
Thus far, you have shown no evidence for your racist conclusions.
As we approach the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s _On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection_, it’s a good time to remind ourselves of the rest of its title: _or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_.
Darwin’s theory is that species emerge when races diverge. People who deny the very existence of race are scientifically illiterate. Like Creationists, their “scientific” ideas are guided by their own understanding of morality. But morality is a poor indicator of truth, and anyway the idea that morality is a matter of blinkering ourselves is deeply suspect.
I would add the charge of philosophical illiteracy to scientific illiteracy, because the denial of the very existence of races is really a form of essentialism. It assumes that legitimate concepts have a single criterion of application, and that any concept for which there is no such criterion must therefore be illegitimate.
Therapy for essentialism is available free from Wittgenstein’s _Philosophical Investigations_, which introduces the idea of “family resemblance”.
I don’t know who exactly is denying that race exists. The question is whether or not the physical differences between what we call races are meaningful or not. The wealth of scientific literature is against that believe innate differences are indicative of much. I also wonder why people treat Darwin as the savior of modern science, he wasn’t a very good scientist, was definitely a misogynist and racist, and by most accounts wasn’t all that revolutionary in relation to his contemporaries. Is Darwin not important? Certainly one cannot make that claim – but you can’t just assert he was right then make racialized claims from that, that’s called Social Darwinism and was the basis for regimes of exploitation and scientific abuse during the 20th century.
It really amazes me that people can spout this drivel and still have the gall to say they aren’t racist – you are just playing semantic word games. And, even if these differences are significant, why is that so? No one is asking how these observable phenomena are constructed or interpreted – it is really no wonder to me that philosophy and science has been dominated by White Men since its inception. Which, by the way, why is Aristotle more of a foundational figure than Ibn Sina or Confucious? Probably because those that write history are those that have the power.
Anyhow, Hume was racist – most philosophers were. Hell, I think one would be safe in saying that practically everyone (read: white europeans) in Hume’s time was racist – that doesn’t seem very controversial to me. It is as always a question of whether or not racism bleeds into the thought itself, sometimes it does – sometimes it doesn’t.
If Hume spouted his theories at a time when nobody else recognized the fallacy of race and the barbarity of human bondage, he might be excused from knowing better, but he didn’t. There were many voices in England, the continent and America who had already moved beyond such views. Not the majority, for certain, but enough for Hume to have already taken in and assessed different views. His racism was of choice not ignorance or zeitgeist. These people could have and should have known better. Said had it straight on Europe’s construction of race through the colonial lens of power.
Darwin’s theory doesn’t require that there be different races, or differences amonst races of organisms in a species. In fact, that would make his theory quite non-explanatory, since that kind of thing (i.e., differences between groups of organisms) is what he wanted to try to explain in the first place. And it doesn’t help that races are “within” a species. Differences of races within a species are in just as much of need for explanation as differences between species. But Darwin only needs that there be differences between individuals (which I take it is uncontroversial) for his theory to remain explanatory.
However, there clearly are different races of people. Anyone who denies that must not be very observant. There are, e.g., black people, white people, asian people etc… Race, however, is not a robust natural kind. For instance, what do we call Obama? There are borderline cases. But there are also borderline cases of “vehicle”, and we don’t go around saying that there aren’t any vehicles. (Or sorites, whatever.) Moreover, just because race is pretty superficial–races are really only ethnic groups of people similar genetically in the way that members of a family are similar to eachother–doesn’t mean it’s not legitimate to talk, in an every day sense, about “black” people or “white” people etc…
Last point: the deeper philosophical point here is that one cannot get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’. In our scientific descrition of the world, we may or may not need to posit the existence of races. And we may or may not need to posit that there are mental differences between these races. However, this should not concern philosophers. (If these questions really concern you, become a professor or biology, not philosophy.) The philosophical concern is whether we can treat and/or judge individuals differently based on their race. To answer in the affirmative to THIS question, not the former, makes you a racist.
This article is a travesty. Hume was merely speculating on a general trend based on the emperical evidence availible to him (the state of the entire continent). You, on the other hand, are countering with specific cherry picked examples (a professor of philosophy here, a schoolmaster there). The value of empericism is in detecting the general trend, not finding anomalies and generalising from them. Today’s emperical evidence on IQ for instance backs Hume’s speculations. If you are familiar with this literature (such as the Bell Curve etc)(which you show no sign of being), you should mention and attempt to refute it (either with your own reason or the work of others such as James Flynn). Instead, you commit the sin (arguing the biased viewpoint of your time) philosophy is supposed to overcome, based on a few examples (the mistake empericim overcomes). Hume was philosophizing, you are merely in bondage to your prejudices, not vice versa.
In my eyes therefore this postis like a parody of your entire website, you are a laughing stock, and you should forsake your MD.
I’m not here to argue for or against any claims regarding the existence of “race” or the cognitive capacities of various “races” compared to one another. I repeat, I am not arguing for or against races, nor am I arguing for or against the thesis of the white man’s mental superiority.
My only objective is to clarify the status of the so-called empirical data and statistical support that has been given, to defend one view or the other. Thus, I’m giving a meta-analysis. (Actually, it’s more Stats 101 minus actually doing the math).
——————————————————–
Clarifications:
1) the Bell Curve for IQ doesn’t take into consideration factors responsible for the distribution.
As it happens, and this can be verified with ease, blacks are at a socio-economic disadvantage in most places around the world. (I don’t want to say all, but I can’t think of anyplace where blacks, by and large, enjoy the same opportunities afforded to the white “upper crust” (or even middle-class crust) of e.g., American society. SO, empirically speaking blacks are, on average, less educated. I didn’t say dumber, I said they receive less formal schooling. So, you take an entire demographic that has been systematically marginalized by so-called “advanced societies” for centuries, give them a test over the knowledge and reasoning abilities they have been denied (and in many places are still being denied) and then have the gaul to claim “See, we told you so.” Well DUH!! This would be like me giving you a test over Quantum Mechanics and then calling you stupid for failing it. You talk as if white people are just “born” with Aristotelian logic hard-wired into their cognitive processes. I dare say, if you, Mr. Whitey, were born and raised outside a culture where such “methods of thinking” pervaded, you too would not take such “methods of thought” to be second nature and may very well struggle on tests designed with them in the background.
Also, what passes for “education” is different according to different cultures. For many Southeast Asian countries, the entire educational system is more or less rote-learning. Hence, a test that tests “methods of thought” are going to be somewhat alien and difficult. Now, just because it happens to be the case that Asians learn by rote (which I freely admit is a bad way to learn…and I would even argue isn’t really learning at all…it’s much closer to the ‘parrot’) it doesn’t follow that this is out of some intrinsic inability to process information as opposed to merely storing it. In fact, there was once a time when the almighty Caucasian “taught” by rote as well. It also doesn’t follow that the continued use of rote is indicative of an inability to effectively utilize those “methods of thought” that the white man deems (for whatever reason) superior to all others. It may very well be the case (and probably is) that some cultures place different emphasis on various activities. That is, they find some things to be more important than others. So, perhaps, Asian cultures find respect for one’s elders to be more important than “getting it right.” As such, there would be no encouragement to question one’s teacher (as there is in a western way of thinking).
The Bell Curve takes none of this into consideration.
——————————————————-
2) The Bell Curve of the entire population doesn’t distinguish at all between “races.” That’s what “total population” means. Nowhere on that graph does it say (or can it say) “Black people go here.”
Now, perhaps there are comparative studies of IQ’s amongst various “races,” but such studies are not related to the curve for the “total population” or else they could be derived from the information given on it, namely IQ Score in conjunction with Population percentile. In fact, the opposite is true. The Big Bell Curve tells us that any randomly selected individual will most likely have an IQ between 90-110. Given that there are many more non-whites in the world than whites, it most likely that the random sample will be a non-white, and most likely that non white will have an IQ between 90-110, which is not inferior, it is average. That’s what the Big Bell Curve means. It gives the likelihood that a randomly selected individual will have a given IQ.
In fact, statistically speaking, it’d be quite implausible to say that whites, on average, have an IQ high enough to makes 100 the average despite the fact that they are severely outnumbered in terms of global population. That means whites would have to have, on average, Einstein level IQ’s in order to “bring up” the rest of the world’s mentally inferior populaces. Is it really your claim, Renwein, that whites, on average, are intelligent enough to “pull up” the rest of the world? That claim will need some serious backing (though in principle, it should be very easy to show…assuming you could control all the socio-economic factors).
———————————————–
3) The Bell Curve ASSUMES standard distribution. In fact, that exactly when it shows up, when a variable (IQ, in this case) is uniformly distributed across the sample population. If the thesis of white intellectual superiority is correct, then the variable would not be uniformly distributed. In fact, if whites really are smarter, then it’s reasonable to assume that there is a hierarchy of intellectual prowess (e.g., whites are the smartest, then Arabs, then Asians, then Blacks etc.) This would skew the distribution even more making the Bell Curve even LESS utilizable to model the distribution density of IQ’s).
—————————————————–
Conclusions:
First of all, you seem to think the Bell Curve is something unique to IQ’s or social science or something (your reference to “…literature (such as the Bell Curve etc)…”). This is false. The Bell Curve shows up in a lot of places. In fact, it was originally thought to be little more than an approximation for binomial coefficients (i.e., not at all related to statistics). As it happens, it also showed up in IQ distributions, but it could have been different. In fact, if things were as you say (with whites dominating the intellectual capacity scene), then statistically speaking we’d expect quite a different curve from the Bell Curve (see clarification #3). We’d expect the peak of the curve to be seriously shifted to the left and then a massive tapering off since there are so fewer whites than everyone else combined (assuming, of course, everyone is equally inferior to whites, if there is a hierarchy, then the tapering off will be less pronounced).
Second, you have some misconceptions about what the Bell Curve actually says. It’s not explanatory, it’s descriptive. Furthermore, it’s descriptive of the entire population. It cannot make a distinction between WHO actually has what IQ. In fact, this suggests that you don’t really have a good grasp on what GRAPHS in general do (sounds like someone skipped his middle school math classes). Graphs show relations between variables. Where, pray tell, on the graph of IQ distributions is the variable “non-white”? If it’s not on the graph (and it’s not) then the graph doesn’t talk about it (and it doesn’t). Graphs by themselves are meaningless. It is WE who interpret the graph into physical terms (e.g., a “straight line” can be interpreted as constant acceleration or supply wrt demand or temperature wrt to pressure or etc…).
Third, any statistician, with a modicum of competence, knows full well that there may be variables (and most likely are), unaccounted for, that underlie any given stochastic mechanism. In fact, there is an entire field dedicated to minimizing such errors as this that are inherent in any statistical endeavor. (See work done by Deborah Mayo and Aris Spanos, especially Mayo’s book E.R.R.O.R.). In this case, such variables include culture and socio-economic standing etc. Where, I ask, on an IQ test are these factors either mitigated or in some way accounted for? Where, in the extrapolation and compilation of information gained from the test is it taken into consideration? You’re failure to recognize the possible importance of such variables (or really, even recognizing that there are such variables) suggests that you aren’t all that competent in statistical gathering or analysis. Why should we make the assumption that IQ is conditioned upon physical structure (i.e., whites just have better built brains) as opposed t socio-economic differences. In fact, nothing you’ve said even rules out sock color on the day of the test as being statistically relevant (and it must be shown statistically that, in fact, it is NOT relevant…you can’t just assume that it isn’t). What’s worse, you don’t even seem to acknowledge your epistemic obligation to rule out various other correlated variables.
Long story short, Renwein, your “argument,” is not only ad hominem (i.e., fallacious), but clearly illustrates your blatant lack of knowledge regarding statistics (and, it appears, 8th grade math).
So, I can agree that arguing that a position is correct because it is the received view of the time is a sin (though, I don’t think that has happened as you accused). Further, given that it is the dominant view of the time it’s very difficult to detect when one does it. But, you’re right, it should be pointed out and stamped out whenever possible.
Of course, I also think that arguing when one is ignorant of the relevant factors pertaining to the argument (in this case, a freshman-level understanding of statistical methods and analysis), is a sin a well. Luckily, however, this sin is much more easily fixed…
“It is better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.”–Mark Twain
A few things:
First, we can separate Hume’s racial editorializing from most of his philosophy pretty neatly. Often we have to make such judgments about 18th century authors. That a writer has problematic comments does not make them not worth studying, nor does it delegitimize their views on other issues, for the study of philosophy (as in history or literature) is not moral approval or disapproval of specific authors. I think some people are worried when philosophers say racist things, but that comes from a deeply confused idea that everyone’s philosophy is a closed and mutually-reinforcing system. Hume’s important for the problem of induction, the is-ought problem and his theory of the passions, and maybe for some of his ideas on government. He’s not important for his ideas on race.
Second, I don’t think this line that Hume’s empiricist philosophy precludes his being racist is correct. One can certainly be an empiricist, and then not be aware of evidence that contradicts a prejudice one has, and not hold two contradictory views. Hume had unrefined beliefs about black people that maybe he was wrong in speculating about. Also–Hume has an easy response to anecdotal accounts of successful individuals of African dissent, even if you dismiss his overtly racist parrot comment: he would, quite in line with his empirical theory of beliefs, argue from explanation. The best explanation, he would incorrectly and prejudicially conclude, for different levels of apparent success is differences of aptitude. This is wrong, but we shouldn’t make inaccurate arguments for Hume to get him out of it.
Third, a better route for Hume apologetics, if that’s not already a distasteful enterprise, would be to consider how much his theory makes of the limits of reason, and our ability to refine our beliefs. Hume is determined not to advance theories dogmatically, so he’s probably not a dogmatic racist–just someone who’s speculating racistly in passing comment.
A good response to this would be to say that Hume’s account of inductive theories, that it’s just reasoning from constant association, lends itself to these kinds of problems in the first place, as that puts inductive hypotheses on the level of something like prejudice. He seems to discount the possibility in many places, for instance, of multiply-realizable phenomenon, which is what you would expect when you reduce causal statements (conditionals of some sort) with conjunctions (and statements). So a more refined inductive theory lets us say things like yes, we sometimes observe disproportionate poverty among African-Americans, but this is caused by x, y, and z factors, for here are some tests for figuring out which is which. If someone’s parents are poor and we have low social mobility, then they will have a lower chance of success in life. We don’t think that lower success causes low social mobility, or that widespread disparities in income cause low social mobility, but I’m not sure how Hume could warrant the arrow going backwards, or attributing it to one association (social mobility, parent’s socio-economic status) to another (race).
I do not believe it is a fair assessment to simply dismiss Hume as being a racist. This article fails to really talk about the social thinking that ruled the civilized world for hundreds and hundreds of years. Non-whites, for the most part, were considered inferior in practically everyday (whites did consider them to be the best at slave work however). This was just as true then as the the anti gay movements claims in the 80′s and 90′s-which is to say not true but most believed it. I am not comparing blacks and gays. I am comparing the prejudices they have both felt and even then they are not the
same.
It feels as though the people claiming Hume to be a racist expect the man to know what we consider to be right in the 21st century and then apply it to his life and his empirical style philosophy. They think he should have known better, that how could he not know what this racism would lead to? Give the dude a break, he lived hundreds of years ago.
Also, I don’t see how he bases his entire philosophy on empericle evidence yet bases his view on race solely on his prejudice views. I’m sure he wasn’t around educated and independent black people, therefore he was not able to see much upside in the African American community (I’d you can even call it that back then) and did not ever meet or know the two black proffesors in Europe. I find it kind of funny that one of your rebuttals was (and I am paraphrasing) that a whopping two black people were proffessors at the time I’m Europe.
If I use that logic, when someone tells me that disco is no longer popular and is not played in nightclubs I could say not true, there is a club In New York and a club in Europe that plays disco. I am technically correct but you know out of the thousands of clubs in the world there is only two that play disco. This would be considered more of an anomaly than a stAtistic and, without prior knowledge of whAt is to come in the 20th century or having a huge stake in that pArticular subject, would never consider the two proffessors as a statistic to put into play on a debate or argument.
I have to go to work so am in a rush. Sorry I used such a trivial subject as disco was used in comparison to racism but Had no time to come up with something better.
RE: On Hume’s Racism
“I am apt to suspect the Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites.”
Imagine if I said this to you:
“I am apt to suspect you are naturally inferior to me.”
That makes me AN ELITIST i.e. someone who believes in the inequality between men. A racist is someone who believes in the inequality between race and race. Hume was clearly a racist.
Common sense guys. Jesus.
Now, this is no reason to completely dismiss Hume. I do because his philosophy is laughably idiotic, but I wouldn’t dismiss him based off racism.
John “M”, and others of you who find it hard to wrap your minds around the possibly that David Hume could be racist, the fact that his thinking was popular at the time does not excuse the fact that he thought the way he did. The only thing that fact adds is that he wasn’t the only close-minded racist in his circle of friends. The fact of the matter is, Hume took his personal ideology of what a civilized nation looks like, compared it to a completely different culture, and dismissed it as barbarous. If you don’t want to call that racist, fine, don’t, but it is definitely ignorance in its purest form.
Secondly, his declaration that “Negroes” had “No ingenious manufactures amongst them, no arts, no sciences,” was a lie (or yet another display of his ignorance) because African Art dates back to (at the least)500 b.c. Is it even necessary to start on African Architecture? Because that could take all day, but I’ll spare you and only remind you of the Great Pyramids of Giza, Nubian pyramids at Meroe, the Nubian Architecture of the City of Kerma…Africa was steeped in culture until people like Hume, with their popular group thinking, desecrated it. As far as the sciences go, how about you Google Egypt.The Egyptians invented and used many basic machines, such as the ramp and the lever, to aid construction processes. They used rope trusses to stiffen the beam of ships. Egyptian paper, made from papyrus, and pottery was mass produced and exported throughout the Mediterranean basin. The Egyptians also played an important role in developing Mediterranean maritime technology including ships and lighthouses. Significant advances in ancient Egypt during the dynastic period include astronomy, mathematics, and medicine. Their geometry was a necessary outgrowth of surveying to preserve the layout and ownership of farmland, which was flooded annually by the Nile river. The 3,4,5 right triangle and other rules of thumb served to represent rectilinear structures, and the post and lintel architecture of Egypt. Egypt also was a center of alchemy research for much of the western world.
There are so many other things about Hume’s statements that I could address, but that would turn this already lengthy post into an essay, so I’ll end here, but what have we learned so far?
Well, so far it would seem that Hume wasn’t at all a racist, but simply an ignorant intellectual with an inability to think and discover for himself. A mere “victim” of his time, if you will. Poor thing.
This addition to my above post is for Jermey Bowman in response to his passionate and fact-less post:
“It sickens me to read that Hume is considered a “racist” simply because he believed that there are FACTUAL differences between races.
Only an idiot or a hypocrite would deny that there are factual differences between races. For example, black people tend to have darker skin than white people. Oriental people tend to have straighter hair than black people, and so on. It is vanishingly unlikely that there are not similar differences between the BRAINS of people of different races, just as there are differences between almost all of the other organs of the human body.
A racist is not someone who merely BELIEVES that there are FACTUAL differences between races, but someone who ACTS without due consideration to the interests of members of other races.
Are we all supposed to PRETEND that racial differences could not possibly exist? That is a dangerous road of self-deception.”
Oh, Jeremy…but by what criteria are we basing this overall superiority of race? If you agree with Hume, you have given me permission to deem blacks superior to whites because the better athletes are black. I can say that Asians are superior to whites because they (typically) are the better mathematicians and scientists. I can even, if I so choose, deem blacks superior because black music is filled with more soul and depth, or black literature with more meaning–but that is MY opinion. I can’t make that the standard for everyone.
Similarly, it would be unfair of me to deem all white people evil, deceptive, close-minded and heartless because the majority of white civilizations have a history of rape, murder, theft, desecration and destruction of culture and religion as it relates to societies that differ from their own.
The point, Jeremy, is that what one culture deems “better” is not always true for another. Thinking that there is only one way of doing things, and that that one way mirrors that of white people, is a close-minded and racist way of thinking.
Yes different “races” typically have features common to only that race, but even that can’t be used to group people into categories, as Nat Coleman (above) explained. Not all black people have tightly coiled hair or dark skin for that matter and not all white people have straight hair. Do you understand now, Jeremy? I know there was a lot of logic and unbiased thinking, but I did try to use examples. I hope they helped.
Jeremy,
I think you’ve misunderstood the article on Hume.
It shouldn’t be controversial to place people into groups based on mere physical differences. What becomes the problem is not the ‘mere placement’ of people into those groups; it’s how we make sense of such differences and the use into which such differences are put. Or as I see it, how differences are instrumentalized for a ‘gain.’
Saying physical differences amount to differences in mental capacities requires sound scientific back up. This, Hume fails. What Hume said is a prejudicial postulate, not a serious argument.
Hume is not racist because he said ‘black’ people are different from ‘white’ people, he’s presumably ‘racist’ because he said ‘black’ people are inferior to ‘white’ people and gave his wanting argument why he thought so.
As an African person, I can say that it maybe a logical possibility that ‘whites’ are superior to ‘blacks’ or ‘blacks’ are superior to ‘whites’ but the available science just doesn’t prove that.