Is it possible to falsify Privilege?

I am hoping that the members here know how science works:

• Observe the world.
• Come up with a hypothesis that can make a prediction.
• Test that hypothesis by experimentation that will either falsify that hypothesis, or provide significant evidence to support that hypothesis.
• See if that evidence allows for the hypothesis to make actual predictions (i.e. observe the world again).

So... What would falsify "Privilege?"

I read this articles about falsifiability several years ago.

Maggie Clark, Dec. 2009: The Falsifiability Talk. Here she discusses the problems of basing public policy and Social norms on something that cannot be falsified (and she has an excellent critique of another problem with "Privilege" that I have not yet mentioned).

It got brought up from reading the Privilege thread on the other forum, where several people were banned for asking for an Operationalization of the term "Privilege."

SCSSA+

They have/had basically the same problems with the word that I have.

So... I am asking here:

Is it possible to Operationalize and falsify the term "Privilege?"

What would it look like to Operationalize the term?

What would it looks like to show that Privilege did not exist?

Because... You know what that means if it cannot be falsified?

Matthew Bailey

I don't see why it couldn't be falsified. You are implying that it can't - can you explain why you think it can't be falsified?

Also, I don't know what you mean by "operationalized". Can you explain that?

It's sociology, so by it's very nature it's almost impossible prove empirically. Science creates a model, and then uses that model to test the hypothesis the model was created to test. It wouldn't matter what the data you placed inside a sociological model, the variables are so dependent on a variety of factors, the results would be different each time.

I don't see how you could test it without using statistics and personal experience. Both of which would never give you the same results, when tested over a period of time.

Matthew Bailey wrote:I am hoping that the members here know how science works:

• Observe the world.
• Come up with a hypothesis that can make a prediction.
• Test that hypothesis by experimentation that will either falsify that hypothesis, or provide significant evidence to support that hypothesis.
• See if that evidence allows for the hypothesis to make actual predictions (i.e. observe the world again).

So... What would falsify "Privilege?"

I read this articles about falsifiability several years ago.

Maggie Clark, Dec. 2009: The Falsifiability Talk. Here she discusses the problems of basing public policy and Social norms on something that cannot be falsified (and she has an excellent critique of another problem with "Privilege" that I have not yet mentioned).

It got brought up from reading the Privilege thread on the other forum, where several people were banned for asking for an Operationalization of the term "Privilege."

SCSSA+

They have/had basically the same problems with the word that I have.

So... I am asking here:

Is it possible to Operationalize and falsify the term "Privilege?"

What would it look like to Operationalize the term?

What would it looks like to show that Privilege did not exist?

Because... You know what that means if it cannot be falsified?

Matthew Bailey

You can't falsify a definition because that's the definition. You can falsify the application of the word or the application of the concept.

Also, of course privilege exists. Bolt is faster than me. He has that privilege. I am better at math than my students. I have that privilege. Etc. I can demonstrate that privilege does exist. For privilege to not exist, you would need to show that no one has any advantages or disadvantages relative to everyone else.

Eldin Alvere wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:...

So... I am asking here:

Is it possible to Operationalize and falsify the term "Privilege?"

What would it look like to Operationalize the term?

What would it looks like to show that Privilege did not exist?

Because... You know what that means if it cannot be falsified?

Matthew Bailey

You can't falsify a definition because that's the definition. You can falsify the application of the word or the application of the concept.

Also, of course privilege exists. Bolt is faster than me. He has that privilege. I am better at math than my students. I have that privilege. Etc. I can demonstrate that privilege does exist. For privilege to not exist, you would need to show that no one has any advantages or disadvantages relative to everyone else.

(Full disclosure: I haven't read the article by Maggie Clark yet.)

What is its definition? What are you using, or assuming, for its definition?

Because, based on your examples above, your understanding of the word seems to be quite different from mine. If you'll accept Wikipedia as a reference, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29 comes this:

Privilege is a way of framing issues surrounding social inequality, focusing as much on the advantages that one group accrues from society as on the disadvantages that another group experiences. ... Instead, theories of privilege suggest that the privileged group views its social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that must be maintained at the expense of others. This normative assumption implicitly constrains discussions of social inequality within the dominant discourse ...

It's about societal inequality between groups in which an advantage accrues to the privileged group.

Bolt being faster than you at running might be due to opportunities he had that you didn't (like a coach, time to spend running, really boss running shoes, and so on); it could also be due to his spending more time practicing (running) so he would become better at it; it could also be due his genetic makeup (fast fibers vs slow fibers in his muscles vs yours; higher VO2 max, etc). The difference between you isn't an inequality that society created (in the example you gave).

Of course privilege exists, I'm quite literally more privileged than billions of people on this planet of ours, so are you. On the other side of the argument, there are billions of people with more privilege than me. There is no empirical evidence to show this though. Privilege isn't set in stone, my privilege changes, as does yours.

What do you think is the ultimate privilege, a privilege that guarantees you a seat at the top table of life?

rEvolutionist wrote:I don't see why it couldn't be falsified. You are implying that it can't - can you explain why you think it can't be falsified?

Also, I don't know what you mean by "operationalized". Can you explain that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization

This is the term that is used in Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, for terms that are somewhat "fuzzy" and require defining for the purposes of measurement, quantification, or falsification.

It is required to experimentally test a concept.

The reason why I think Privilege cannot be falsified is that it cannot be operationalized.

Matthew Bailey

Eldin Alvere wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:I am hoping that the members here know how science works:

• Observe the world.
• Come up with a hypothesis that can make a prediction.
• Test that hypothesis by experimentation that will either falsify that hypothesis, or provide significant evidence to support that hypothesis.
• See if that evidence allows for the hypothesis to make actual predictions (i.e. observe the world again).

So... What would falsify "Privilege?"

I read this articles about falsifiability several years ago.

Maggie Clark, Dec. 2009: The Falsifiability Talk. Here she discusses the problems of basing public policy and Social norms on something that cannot be falsified (and she has an excellent critique of another problem with "Privilege" that I have not yet mentioned).

It got brought up from reading the Privilege thread on the other forum, where several people were banned for asking for an Operationalization of the term "Privilege."

SCSSA+

They have/had basically the same problems with the word that I have.

So... I am asking here:

Is it possible to Operationalize and falsify the term "Privilege?"

What would it look like to Operationalize the term?

What would it looks like to show that Privilege did not exist?

Because... You know what that means if it cannot be falsified?

Matthew Bailey

You can't falsify a definition because that's the definition. You can falsify the application of the word or the application of the concept.

Also, of course privilege exists. Bolt is faster than me. He has that privilege. I am better at math than my students. I have that privilege. Etc. I can demonstrate that privilege does exist. For privilege to not exist, you would need to show that no one has any advantages or disadvantages relative to everyone else.

That definition is different from the typical definition of Privilege, whereby one earns the privilege, where Privilege is something that one has gained due to something one has worked to attain.

What you are describing are advantages, or abilities. To call that privilege is the same thing as saying that someone who has Cancer is Privileged to have it.

Matthew Bailey

Skep tickle wrote:

Eldin Alvere wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:...

So... I am asking here:

Is it possible to Operationalize and falsify the term "Privilege?"

What would it look like to Operationalize the term?

What would it looks like to show that Privilege did not exist?

Because... You know what that means if it cannot be falsified?

Matthew Bailey

You can't falsify a definition because that's the definition. You can falsify the application of the word or the application of the concept.

Also, of course privilege exists. Bolt is faster than me. He has that privilege. I am better at math than my students. I have that privilege. Etc. I can demonstrate that privilege does exist. For privilege to not exist, you would need to show that no one has any advantages or disadvantages relative to everyone else.

(Full disclosure: I haven't read the article by Maggie Clark yet.)

What is its definition? What are you using, or assuming, for its definition?

Because, based on your examples above, your understanding of the word seems to be quite different from mine. If you'll accept Wikipedia as a reference, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_%28social_inequality%29 comes this:

Privilege is a way of framing issues surrounding social inequality, focusing as much on the advantages that one group accrues from society as on the disadvantages that another group experiences. ... Instead, theories of privilege suggest that the privileged group views its social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that must be maintained at the expense of others. This normative assumption implicitly constrains discussions of social inequality within the dominant discourse ...

It's about societal inequality between groups in which an advantage accrues to the privileged group.

Bolt being faster than you at running might be due to opportunities he had that you didn't (like a coach, time to spend running, really boss running shoes, and so on); it could also be due to his spending more time practicing (running) so he would become better at it; it could also be due his genetic makeup (fast fibers vs slow fibers in his muscles vs yours; higher VO2 max, etc). The difference between you isn't an inequality that society created (in the example you gave).

The Wikipedia page on Privilege is woefully inadequate, and looks exactly like something written by someone with a rather one-sided view of the issue.

Opportunities, advantages, genetic makeup... These words already are perfectly suited to describing differences.

And some of them describe things that both cannot be changed, nor should they be used as a metric for social measurement. This creates a situation where you are giving more social worth to those with a "better genetic makeup" simply because they can run faster, or do differential equations in their head. Now, if this is a consequence you are prepared to accept, then fine... But to call that "Privilege" is to carry with it implications that are rather bizarre. Such as saying that people are privileged to both have and not have cancer. And that is just a weird way to say that particular thing.


Saying that difference is due to "Privilege" is applying something systematic. It is changing the definition of Privilege (something that one has earned, and thus is entitled to).

I understand the social construct that Privilege is trying to challenge. That some people have advantaged that others don't. That is why many Social Scientists (such as my boss at UCLA) use the words "Advantaged/Disadvantaged" instead of "Privileged."

I just don't think that it is either a well-defined term, nor do I think it is applicable for what it is trying to describe.

It lacks the ability to be described in a way that allows the term to be Operationalized (put to the test, so to speak; falsified; etc.).

So I repeat:

How would you falsify the term (this requires speaking about privilege without appealing to terms which already have definitions for the specific thing being measured - i.e. you can't falsify advantage and call that privilege, otherwise, you have just tested "advantage" and not "Privilege")?

Matthew Bailey

The Patrician wrote:Of course privilege exists, I'm quite literally more privileged than billions of people on this planet of ours, so are you. On the other side of the argument, there are billions of people with more privilege than me. There is no empirical evidence to show this though. Privilege isn't set in stone, my privilege changes, as does yours.

What do you think is the ultimate privilege, a privilege that guarantees you a seat at the top table of life?

If you and they have earned those privileges, then you are talking about something that is not a problem.

But if you are talking about simple advantages that you are born with, or came into via luck, then how is that "Privilege" and not simply "advantaged."

You are using a word in a way that it is not defined. You are creating a new definition...

I don't have any "Privileges" in the way you are describing (well, maybe the Privilege to Drive a car, or a motorcycle, and other things I have earned, such as the scholarship to UCLA - I earned that). I have some advantages over others (the country into which I was born, having been able to understand advanced mathematics and science).

Why are you describing what is an advantage as a privilege?

Matthew Bailey

And I would read that Maggie Clark article.

MB

Matthew Bailey wrote:I understand the social construct that Privilege is trying to challenge. That some people have advantaged that others don't. That is why many Social Scientists (such as my boss at UCLA) use the words "Advantaged/Disadvantaged" instead of "Privileged."

So, in this paragraph (above), advantage and privilege are different possible labels for the same concept . . .

Matthew Bailey wrote:How would you falsify the term (this requires speaking about privilege without appealing to terms which already have definitions for the specific thing being measured - i.e. you can't falsify advantage and call that privilege, otherwise, you have just tested "advantage" and not "Privilege")?

But, in this paragraph (above), advantage and privilege are not the same. Which is it?

It seems like, in your mind, privilege is just like advantage when we you want to quibble over semantics, but totally different when to comes to talking about evidence.

Also, while you seem to want to object to the concept of privilege, you seem really hung up on the word. For example you argue:

Matthew Bailey wrote:That definition is different from the typical definition of Privilege, whereby one earns the privilege, where Privilege is something that one has gained due to something one has worked to attain.

The only appropriate response to which is, who cares? Words sometimes have different meanings in different contexts. Deal with it.

Eldin is correct. You cannot "falsify" a definition.

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:I understand the social construct that Privilege is trying to challenge. That some people have advantaged that others don't. That is why many Social Scientists (such as my boss at UCLA) use the words "Advantaged/Disadvantaged" instead of "Privileged."

So, in this paragraph (above), advantage and privilege are different possible labels for the same concept . . .

No... In that paragraph they are not the same, which is why the professors do not use the word "Privilege."

Because it would be calling something the wrong thing.

Yet many people would use the word "Privilege," incorrectly, in the same place.

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:How would you falsify the term (this requires speaking about privilege without appealing to terms which already have definitions for the specific thing being measured - i.e. you can't falsify advantage and call that privilege, otherwise, you have just tested "advantage" and not "Privilege")?

But, in this paragraph (above), advantage and privilege are not the same. Which is it?

It seems like, in your mind, privilege is just like advantage when we you want to quibble over semantics, but totally different when to comes to talking about evidence.

Also, while you seem to want to object to the concept of privilege, you seem really hung up on the word. For example you argue:

Matthew Bailey wrote:That definition is different from the typical definition of Privilege, whereby one earns the privilege, where Privilege is something that one has gained due to something one has worked to attain.

The only appropriate response to which is, who cares? Words sometimes have different meanings in different contexts. Deal with it.

Eldin is correct. You cannot "falsify" a definition.

The term refers to a real world thing.

It is claiming a causal role in the world.

That requires operationalization. Which is defining the word in such a way that it can be falsified.

That is what science does when it wants to find out if a hypothesis can be used to create a theory that does work: Defines the hypothesis in a way that can be falsified; that something can show that it is definitively (notice the root of that word "definite" - having to do with "definition") not the case.

The problem goes far beyond just a semantic objection.

Matthew Bailey

Matthew Bailey wrote:No... In that paragraph they are not the same, which is why the professors do not use the word "Privilege."

Because it would be calling something the wrong thing.

Wow, you just pulled the same trick, using only two sentences this time.

It doesn't matter that you don't like using the word "privilege" to refer to this concept. If you want to object to the concept, critique the concept, not its label.

Matthew Bailey wrote:The term refers to a real world thing.

It is claiming a causal role in the world.

Is it? Privilege describes a relation between groups. Male privilege does not cause discrimination against women. Male privilege means that there is discrimination against women. What exactly is privilege supposed to be causing?

Matthew Bailey wrote:The problem goes far beyond just a semantic objection.

Then make an argument that goes beyond semantics. No one's stopping you.

Yeah, I'm with Kurt H on this. I'm finding MB's arguments on this topic around the forum to be a bit muddled. I'd welcome a bit of clarity to this debate.

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:No... In that paragraph they are not the same, which is why the professors do not use the word "Privilege."

Because it would be calling something the wrong thing.

Wow, you just pulled the same trick, using only two sentences this time.

It doesn't matter that you don't like using the word "privilege" to refer to this concept. If you want to object to the concept, critique the concept, not its label.

Matthew Bailey wrote:The term refers to a real world thing.

It is claiming a causal role in the world.

Is it? Privilege describes a relation between groups. Male privilege does not cause discrimination against women. Male privilege means that there is discrimination against women. What exactly is privilege supposed to be causing?

I am criticizing both the concept and the label.

You just said "Male Privilege means that there is discrimination against women."

Two things then.

1) What did men do to earn that privilege?

2) Why are you calling it privilege if you are talking about discrimination?

I am not the one who is claiming a causal relationship. Everyone else is.

This is why I am criticizing both the concept and the label.

Above, you just said "Male Privilege = Discrimination against women."

Yet that isn't what most people mean when they say "Privilege."

Again, if that is all Privilege is, then it is just causing confusion to create whole new words (words that already have a definition) for things that already have perfectly good explanations.

And, if Privilege isn't causal, then it is just semantic rhetoric to begin with.

It is semantics that should be undone, because it is just muddying the waters.

This has to do with operationalizing the concept.

No one can operationalize it without appealing to something else that already has a perfectly good operational definition.

Matthew Bailey

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:The problem goes far beyond just a semantic objection.

Then make an argument that goes beyond semantics. No one's stopping you.

Matthew Bailey wrote:I am hoping that the members here know how science works:

• Observe the world.
• Come up with a hypothesis that can make a prediction.
• Test that hypothesis by experimentation that will either falsify that hypothesis, or provide significant evidence to support that hypothesis.
• See if that evidence allows for the hypothesis to make actual predictions (i.e. observe the world again).

So... What would falsify "Privilege?"

I read this articles about falsifiability several years ago.

Maggie Clark, Dec. 2009: The Falsifiability Talk. Here she discusses the problems of basing public policy and Social norms on something that cannot be falsified (and she has an excellent critique of another problem with "Privilege" that I have not yet mentioned).

It got brought up from reading the Privilege thread on the other forum, where several people were banned for asking for an Operationalization of the term "Privilege."

SCSSA+

They have/had basically the same problems with the word that I have.

So... I am asking here:

Is it possible to Operationalize and falsify the term "Privilege?"

What would it look like to Operationalize the term?

What would it looks like to show that Privilege did not exist?

Because... You know what that means if it cannot be falsified?

Matthew Bailey

Science is wonderful and all, but logic evaluates propositions and statements.
I don't know what "Privilege" is, so without a definition...

none wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:I am hoping that the members here know how science works:

• Observe the world.
• Come up with a hypothesis that can make a prediction.
• Test that hypothesis by experimentation that will either falsify that hypothesis, or provide significant evidence to support that hypothesis.
• See if that evidence allows for the hypothesis to make actual predictions (i.e. observe the world again).

So... What would falsify "Privilege?"

I read this articles about falsifiability several years ago.

Maggie Clark, Dec. 2009: The Falsifiability Talk. Here she discusses the problems of basing public policy and Social norms on something that cannot be falsified (and she has an excellent critique of another problem with "Privilege" that I have not yet mentioned).

It got brought up from reading the Privilege thread on the other forum, where several people were banned for asking for an Operationalization of the term "Privilege."

SCSSA+

They have/had basically the same problems with the word that I have.

So... I am asking here:

Is it possible to Operationalize and falsify the term "Privilege?"

What would it look like to Operationalize the term?

What would it looks like to show that Privilege did not exist?

Because... You know what that means if it cannot be falsified?

Matthew Bailey

Science is wonderful and all, but logic evaluates propositions and statements.
I don't know what "Privilege" is, so without a definition...

That is my whole point. I teach Logic. So I understand the relationship with Logic.

That's why I'm asking people:

Please define this term in a way that doesn't lead to a tautology or contradiction.

Then, can that definition be Operationalized.

Because if it can't be operationalized, then it is not worth a whole lot.

Matthew Bailey

Matthew Bailey wrote:
That is my whole point. I teach Logic. So I understand the relationship with Logic.

That's why I'm asking people:

Please define this term in a way that doesn't lead to a tautology or contradiction.

Then, can that definition be Operationalized.

Because if it can't be operationalized, then it is not worth a whole lot.

Matthew Bailey

I'll go with atheist, Matthew Bailey.

none wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:
That is my whole point. I teach Logic. So I understand the relationship with Logic.

That's why I'm asking people:

Please define this term in a way that doesn't lead to a tautology or contradiction.

Then, can that definition be Operationalized.

Because if it can't be operationalized, then it is not worth a whole lot.

Matthew Bailey

I'll go with atheist, Matthew Bailey.

And what does that mean?

MB

Matthew Bailey wrote:

none wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:
That is my whole point. I teach Logic. So I understand the relationship with Logic.

That's why I'm asking people:

Please define this term in a way that doesn't lead to a tautology or contradiction.

Then, can that definition be Operationalized.

Because if it can't be operationalized, then it is not worth a whole lot.

Matthew Bailey

I'll go with atheist, Matthew Bailey.

And what does that mean?

MB

That means that believing in anything that is imaginary makes me an atheist.
i.e. "Privilege"

none wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:

none wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:
That is my whole point. I teach Logic. So I understand the relationship with Logic.

That's why I'm asking people:

Please define this term in a way that doesn't lead to a tautology or contradiction.

Then, can that definition be Operationalized.

Because if it can't be operationalized, then it is not worth a whole lot.

Matthew Bailey

I'll go with atheist, Matthew Bailey.

And what does that mean?

MB

That means that believing in anything that is imaginary makes me an atheist.
i.e. "Privilege"

Yes, "Privilege" (as defined by Identity Theory) is imaginary.

There are differences that affect social position and advantage/disadvantage, race, sex/gender, etc.

But Privilege is not the word to use to describe those differences. That sort of privilege does not exist.

Matthew bailey

Matthew Bailey wrote:
There are differences that affect social position and advantage/disadvantage, race, sex/gender, etc.

But Privilege is not the word to use to describe those differences. That sort of privilege does not exist.

Matthew bailey

I am now Operational atheist.

Matthew Bailey wrote:

Kurt H wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:No... In that paragraph they are not the same, which is why the professors do not use the word "Privilege."

Because it would be calling something the wrong thing.

Wow, you just pulled the same trick, using only two sentences this time.

It doesn't matter that you don't like using the word "privilege" to refer to this concept. If you want to object to the concept, critique the concept, not its label.

Matthew Bailey wrote:The term refers to a real world thing.

It is claiming a causal role in the world.

Is it? Privilege describes a relation between groups. Male privilege does not cause discrimination against women. Male privilege means that there is discrimination against women. What exactly is privilege supposed to be causing?

I am criticizing both the concept and the label.

You just said "Male Privilege means that there is discrimination against women."

Two things then.

1) What did men do to earn that privilege?

they didn't have to do anything. You are using the wrong definition of "privilege". Privileges can be unearned as described to you by Nicko and Oliver at Ratskep.

2) Why are you calling it privilege if you are talking about discrimination?

I can't answer for Kurt, but Privilege is a description of the system. Discrimination is a symptom or an output, if you like, of the system.

Again, if that is all Privilege is, then it is just causing confusion to create whole new words (words that already have a definition) for things that already have perfectly good explanations.

I haven't seen anyone else who is confused on this issue of semantics. It's only been you. We have multiple words for many phenomena. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes the differ slightly. I'd suggest that privilege differs enough from the other words to be a valid label.

none wrote:

Matthew Bailey wrote:
There are differences that affect social position and advantage/disadvantage, race, sex/gender, etc.

But Privilege is not the word to use to describe those differences. That sort of privilege does not exist.

Matthew bailey

I am now Operational atheist.

looks like I had a melt down.