5 ms·

But there's the rub: "We would not need affirmative action if [reality was different]." Ergo, we need affirmative action. That is not to say we shouldn't als

by jaaron 8y ago

But there's the rub: "We would not need affirmative action if [reality was different]." Ergo, we need affirmative action. That is not to say we shouldn't also put significant effort into eradicating institutional prejudices, eliminating poverty, and investing in all communities. However, that effort will take generations and may never fully succeed, which means affirmative action, in its various forms, is necessary to counter-balance failures elsewhere.

dunpeal 8y ago
> "We would not need affirmative action if [reality was different]." > Ergo, we need affirmative action. Logical fallacy. "I have a good immune system, so I would not need medicine if I got a cold." Doesn't mean I need medicine right now, when I'm not sick at all. EDIT: The example seems to be confusing people, so here's a more formal explanation: if (reality is different) then not (we need affirmative action) Does not imply: if not (reality is different) then (we need affirmative action) The original claim is P-> ~Q It doesn't follow that ~P -> Q
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- adarsh_p 8y ago
  The inverse of your example sentence would be something like - "I don't have a good immune system, so I would need medicine if I got a cold" - which makes sense, and is analogous to "Reality is not different, so we do need affirmative action."
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    The inverse of a proposition is not logically entailed by the proposition itself. You're looking for the contrapositive, but the contrapositive of his example is "I need medicine if I got a cold, so I do not have a good immune system."
  - adarsh_p 8y ago
    Got it, thanks for the explanations!
StreamBright 8y ago
Trying to force the outcome of something is never going to work. We need to fix the pipeline.
- Berobero 8y ago
  Honest question: are there actually any long-term longitudinal studies of affirmative action that reasonably demonstrate it does or doesn't work? You seem to take it as a truism, but I'm not convinced that concerted after-the-fact addressing of symptoms is necessarily doomed to failure, pragmatically or generally speaking.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Saying there is an issue with the pipeline is he same as saying “white applicants are just better candidates”. Now, you may be right. It’s a hypothesis. But the other hypothesis is “standard admissions criteria are not adequately measuring how good candidates are.” One way or the other, you have to make a presumption. My presumption is that non-white people, as a group, are just as good as white people. That’s why I support continuing to experiment with admissions criteria until we find ones that give us close to equal representation (i.e. affirmative action.) It sounds like you disagree, you think the tests are measuring reality accurately, and it’s the non-white applicants who need to be better. Why? This isn’t a scientific debate, it’s a philosophical one. It’s two ways of interpreting the same data.
adrr 8y ago
You could make it around parent's income level and the amount of funding per capita the graduating school district receives. It's probably a better determinant to help the people who are really in need and removes race from the equation.
WhyDoPeople 8y ago
Your "ergo" is only seeing in black and white (pun not intended). We do not need affirmative action in its current form, as it actually is not fair or an actual equalizing platform. We do need a form of it that looks at ability and opportunity the child and the family have, and makes sure everybody at least has the same baseline of opportunities and skills they can work from. Growing up as a 2nd generation child from immigrant parents, you hear about all of the opportunities your father sees you have that he did not. I think many times there are cases of people being blind to what's always around them ... ability to start a business, work for a better life, provide an even better future for your child than you had. Malnutrition is a staggering problem for children that many people do not understand the severity of. It is much cheaper and convenient for a poor family to buy unhealthy food than healthy food. If a developing child does not have a good foundation to grow from, then that impacts their entire life. I think better education is the key to a better society. But that requires actual education and understanding. In my college in the USA, I saw forms of affirmative action where certain students who belonged to groups (usually divided by race) were allowed to continue with lower grades. This is a terrible idea, as it only promotes under education of these students, and actually hinders their understanding of the topics, and limits their real world opportunities in the future. Building a carriage is not the solution to flying to the moon. And right now we have a very poor carriage.

by jaaron 8y ago

dunpeal 8y ago

> "We would not need affirmative action if [reality was different]." > Ergo, we need affirmative action. Logical fallacy. "I have a good immune system, so I would not need medicine if I got a cold." Doesn't mean I need medicine right now, when I'm not sick at all. EDIT: The example seems to be confusing people, so here's a more formal explanation: if (reality is different) then not (we need affirmative action) Does not imply: if not (reality is different) then (we need affirmative action) The original claim is P-> ~Q It doesn't follow that ~P -> Q

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
adarsh_p 8y ago
The inverse of your example sentence would be something like - "I don't have a good immune system, so I would need medicine if I got a cold" - which makes sense, and is analogous to "Reality is not different, so we do need affirmative action."
- nostrademons 8y ago
  The inverse of a proposition is not logically entailed by the proposition itself. You're looking for the contrapositive, but the contrapositive of his example is "I need medicine if I got a cold, so I do not have a good immune system."
- adarsh_p 8y ago
  Got it, thanks for the explanations!

StreamBright 8y ago

Trying to force the outcome of something is never going to work. We need to fix the pipeline.

Berobero 8y ago
Honest question: are there actually any long-term longitudinal studies of affirmative action that reasonably demonstrate it does or doesn't work? You seem to take it as a truism, but I'm not convinced that concerted after-the-fact addressing of symptoms is necessarily doomed to failure, pragmatically or generally speaking.
erikpukinskis 8y ago
Saying there is an issue with the pipeline is he same as saying “white applicants are just better candidates”. Now, you may be right. It’s a hypothesis. But the other hypothesis is “standard admissions criteria are not adequately measuring how good candidates are.” One way or the other, you have to make a presumption. My presumption is that non-white people, as a group, are just as good as white people. That’s why I support continuing to experiment with admissions criteria until we find ones that give us close to equal representation (i.e. affirmative action.) It sounds like you disagree, you think the tests are measuring reality accurately, and it’s the non-white applicants who need to be better. Why? This isn’t a scientific debate, it’s a philosophical one. It’s two ways of interpreting the same data.

adrr 8y ago

You could make it around parent's income level and the amount of funding per capita the graduating school district receives. It's probably a better determinant to help the people who are really in need and removes race from the equation.

WhyDoPeople 8y ago

Your "ergo" is only seeing in black and white (pun not intended). We do not need affirmative action in its current form, as it actually is not fair or an actual equalizing platform. We do need a form of it that looks at ability and opportunity the child and the family have, and makes sure everybody at least has the same baseline of opportunities and skills they can work from. Growing up as a 2nd generation child from immigrant parents, you hear about all of the opportunities your father sees you have that he did not. I think many times there are cases of people being blind to what's always around them ... ability to start a business, work for a better life, provide an even better future for your child than you had. Malnutrition is a staggering problem for children that many people do not understand the severity of. It is much cheaper and convenient for a poor family to buy unhealthy food than healthy food. If a developing child does not have a good foundation to grow from, then that impacts their entire life. I think better education is the key to a better society. But that requires actual education and understanding. In my college in the USA, I saw forms of affirmative action where certain students who belonged to groups (usually divided by race) were allowed to continue with lower grades. This is a terrible idea, as it only promotes under education of these students, and actually hinders their understanding of the topics, and limits their real world opportunities in the future. Building a carriage is not the solution to flying to the moon. And right now we have a very poor carriage.