In this October 2019 lecture at the conference ‘Speaking Truth to Social Justice’ in London, James Lindsay presented a compelling critique of critical social justice and its ideological foundation in critical theory. He argued that this worldview fundamentally rejects objective truth, reason, and evidence-based methods, which are essential for genuine progress. According to Lindsay, critical theorists prioritize “strategic” theories over true or false ones, seeking to advance political agendas rather than to understand reality.
Drawing on examples from feminist and social justice literature, Lindsay illustrated how critical theory undermines fields like engineering, climate science, and education by prioritizing social power over truth. He contended that while these disciplines traditionally rely on rigorous methods to solve problems, critical theory disregards such rigor, treating knowledge as a mere tool for enforcing power dynamics. For Lindsay, this ideological shift threatens progress, as it ignores that “reality is the thing you run into when your beliefs are false.”
Ultimately, Lindsay called for a return to evidence-based inquiry and the liberal systems that have historically driven human advancement. By defending reason, scientific method, and open discourse, he argued, society can continue to make meaningful progress rather than regress into a cynicism that treats truth as a mere strategy for political ends.
Viewers will find this talk interesting not just for its contents but also for the glimpse back in time by five years, which allows them to see how the views expressed have matured and developed over the intervening time.
Watch additional presentations from this conference here.
The audio version of this presentation is available on SoundCloud, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Pandora, or by RSS.
5 comments
A rabbit hole is silly place to go down. They pay a dear price. In the end not embracing the truth is a waste of ones life.
The problem with Critical Theory is that it must have a grain of truth in it, or it wouldn’t “stick” the way it does.
As a follower of “mixed” theories of reality, I know that an individual’s truth is “pliable,” while the truths of a community or society must enjoy wide agreement, or that society will fall apart.
Objective truths are obvious and should be respected. But what many call “magic” is also a real part of human life. The “queers” of this world think that society should accept their own magical truths as generally agreed-on truths, but that boils down to a version of madness.
hola, larry.
i’m not sure that your argument is 100% correct.
one of the great appeals i seen in ‘critical theory’ is that it provides and easy solution by reducing complexity. it appeals to an aspect of humanity that cg jung has described as humanity’s most powerful and omnipresent characteristic: laziness. (he saw it as being ‘torpid’.) the simple answer has elegance in science, oftentimes — although quantum entanglement even disrupts that! in the social realm, simple answers are often problematic because, as thomas sowell has described it well, there are no final solutions, only trade offs. (i’ve not concluded that that is necessarily true for every human situation: is valuing individuals a ‘trade off’, a ‘solution’, or the epitome of the singular ‘problem’?
in a similar fashion, cynicism has been described as the functioning of a lazy mind because it precludes both thinking and feeling. various people have said it in various ways. i like this quotation from charlie chaplin: ‘Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.’ from The Great Dictator (1940).
so the truth that may appeal is that it proposes simplicity in the answer and thus aligns itselve with intellectual and emotional laziness.
Quote ”The problem with Critical Theory is that it must have a grain of truth in it’ UQ
That is true & James Lindsay conflates the machinations of consensus theory with critical social justice. James has CSJ as the core driver, when actually algorithmic & ideological ‘Post Truth’ where the statism in force gives itself all degrees of freedom to dictate a non fixed reality @ its convenience I.E. where ‘Truth is no longer a hinderance. It is that free radicalism thats the real engine, & the like of CSJ & even DEI are a substrate. In any case – critical theories were just as often formerly the thorn in the side of the establishment as people power based pressures on the state. . Alas with all disruptive idea against established orders, the critical theories were appropriated by the ruling classes, who then re-wrote critical theory to suit their agenda.
The versions they put back out on the rebound are neatly re-modeled, but are NOT critical theories when we look closely. Take ‘White Fragility’ an idea that looks just like a widget of the social justice. Good poser, but when it comes to the crunch its design is a re-write of domestic violence style methodology. WF has been written as an exploit of conformation biases and double bind psychology. The reason they performed this rewrite could be linked how a performative coercive control is the ideal way to emulate never being wrong // victims always being wrong. Right away we see that the racial social justice version in force is fake, and is there to cause bondage. Suddenly the’ racial’ bit is seen as nothing but a sociological transportation system for bringing about restrictions in freedom.
Busy chopping veggies for my famous cornbread stuffing while listening to your lecture. Happy Thanksgiving James. God bless you and your family. Ciao ✝️🍁❤️🙋🏻♀️