The Scientific Method Is Not Racist: Choosing Between SPSP's Two Faces

A Transcript of Luke's 2026 SPSP Speech

Lucian (Luke) Gideon Conway, III is Professor of Psychology at Grove City College. Luke was one of the first academics to break through social psychology's denial of the existence of left-wing authoritarianism. His most recent book is Liberal Bullies, and you can follow him on his Substack The Apologetic Professor, where this first appeared, not counting the actual talk.

SPSP refers to the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, perhaps the largest society for personality and social psychologists in the world. You can find a video of this talk (without the Epilogue) here, where you can also find a video of my talk (Lee here); you can find the text/transcript/slides of my talk here.

---

Luke’s Talk

[This is a transcript of my 2026 SPSP speech. It deviates slightly from the posted video only because I added a bit of nuance after I watched the video. But the two are almost the same, and this speech transcript more accurately captures what I said at the live performance. I have selectively included slide screenshots below when I thought they added something].

In a 2024 American Psychologist article, Rogers and colleagues essentially argued that the scientific method is an arbitrary cultural construction rooted in white supremacy. Interestingly, in that same article, they singled us – this organization – out for praise as people especially likely to attack the scientific method as racist. In this talk, I’m going to first argue that I don’t think that’s praiseworthy, because I think the scientific method is fundamentally good. Then I’m going to ask the question: Are they right about us? Is this really who we are now? Are we really the people who don’t believe in the scientific method anymore? Then I’m going to draw some conclusions based on this analysis.

Let’s start here. Is the scientific method an arbitrary cultural construction? No. It is not.

Francis Bacon, in his famous treatise Novum Organum, laid the foundational logic of the scientific method that we still use today. In that treatise, he argued that if you want to say A causes C, you have to first slowly, methodically, empirically rule out the possibility that other things related to A instead caused C, a process he called “true” or “eliminative” induction, and we call “ruling out confounds.” It doesn’t matter whether the idea of eliminative induction was first articulated by the Chinese, the Japanese, the ancient Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Ethiopians, the Incans, the Mayans, or some white guy in England. In all those times, in all those places, if you want to say that A causes C, and you know that B is related to A and a temporal precursor of C, the presence of B – all over the globe – reduces the likelihood that A is the cause of C. That is not an arbitrary cultural construction. That represents a pan-cultural truth.

Now is that truth racist? No.

It has certainly been used for racist purposes. But then so has a guitar. That doesn’t mean the guitar is the source of the evil. No, music is good, the guitar is good. So too with the scientific method.

In fact, there’s an irony here. Francis Bacon said we needed a new method to begin with because human beings have deeply embedded biases, which he called idols of the mind. One of his idols, the idol of the cavern, translated into our modern language, essentially says that people have very narrow sociocultural experiences that serve as obstacles for our ability to perceive larger truths. Bacon believed that one of the best ways to overcome these cultural biases was the scientific method, and I think he had a point. So no, I don’t think the scientific method is racist. If anything, it’s one of the best methods we have of overcoming racism. Probably not coincidentally, markers of the adoption of the scientific method around the world are associated, not with racism, but with positive outcomes for disenfranchised minorities:

So no, I don’t think the scientific method is racist.

Now what about the originator of the idea? Was he a fountain of white supremacy? Was Francis Bacon a racist? I don’t know. Pretty sure he was a corrupt public official. But I’m not suggesting that SPSP become the “pro-political corruption” organization:

You see, we’re just not obligated to say and do every single thing that Francis Bacon – or any other scientist – said and did. Frankly, I’m not fit to judge Francis Bacon’s soul from a distance of lo, these 400 years, but I am fit to judge the method that he produced. And I judge it to be not an “arbitrary cultural construction rooted in white supremacy,” but a pan-cultural truth.

Is that what this organization believes? I suspect there will be 3 different kinds of pushback to what I’ve said so far. Box 1 will say “how dare you suggest that we don’t believe in the scientific method?” Box 2 will say “how dare you suggest that we should believe in the scientific method?” And Box 3 will say both of those utterly incompatible beliefs at the same time. If we could represent the collective psyche of SPSP, we’re that third box. We have a pro-science face and an anti-science face, and we’re not talking about the fact that those two faces are utterly incompatible with each other. Let’s start with the pro science face.

SPSP has science, science, science all over its materials. I don’t think that this is just posturing. For example, I’ve been an associate editor at PSPB, our flagship empirical journal, for over 6 years. In that time, I’ve worked with three separate editor-in-chief teams. As I’ve written about extensively on my Apologetic Professor Substack, I’ve got nothing but positive things to say about my experiences there. All of my EICs were great scientists and great mentors who were focused on scientific rigor, and I never experienced any of the biases I’m going to talk about in a minute in that context. I’ve also worked with hundreds of reviewers. That represents a sizable chunk of the SPSP establishment. Overwhelmingly those reviewers leaned progressive, but also overwhelmingly they tried to set aside those potential biases to make judgments based on scientific criteria. This suggests to me there’s a will at this organization – a will in this room – to do good science.

And then there’s this face. This is a map of the conservative states that would have been excluded from hosting this conference based on SPSP’s stated criteria last year:

I wrote a Substack piece complaining about the obvious bias in this policy. And SPSP changed the policy…they made it worse. Now these are the places in red that would be excluded from hosting the conference under our current policy.

That’s most of the country geographically. Now look at that map. SPSP, that is our organization. That is a crude pictorial parable of who we are. Because that’s not about science, that’s about politics.

When you introduce a political standard into the heart of the organization, inevitably the scientific method has competition and it gets demoted. And that’s happening. Here’s the title of our current governing editorial of our primary flagship journal, PSPB.

Notice anything? Scientific rigor is in there…it’s just last. Now, I have deep respect for the people who wrote this editorial and there are a lot of good things in there. I don’t have time for nuance. But the title is a fair representation of its hierarchy of values. In the editorial, they cite as authoritative (“embraced” is their word) the ACEMAP report from 2024 that Lee mentioned earlier. So let’s take a quick look under the hood, shall we, at this ACEMAP report that is “embraced” in our current governing editorial of our primary flagship journal. What’s the report like?

That report throws the scientific method under the bus. It barely talks about science at all. What does it talk about? Politics. And they leave no ambiguity that their primary guiding principle is not scientific, but political.

Now this has disastrous downstream subjective consequences for all of us. And that can be illustrated with three if-then statements. If these are measurements of a pathological, irrational fear of Muslims, then these should be measurements of a pathological, irrational fear of Christians:

But they’re not.

If these are microaggressions when white people say them, then they should also be microaggressions when other people say them to white people:

But they’re not.

If these are measurements of white supremacy, then these should be measurements of black supremacy:

But they’re not.

Now, these are not scientifically controversial statements. They’re debatable, but not controversial. We don’t talk about them, we don’t ask these hard questions, not because of science, but because of political taboos. And that, my dear SPSP, is not a marker of a healthy organization.

Now what are we going to do about this? I know what I’m going to do about it. I’m going to give you a patronizing pep talk.

I don’t think Lee Jussim likes this organization a whole lot. Is that fair, Lee? If the number of words he throws in your direction that I would have been uncomfortable with my daughter using in Sunday school are a metric, he’s not a big fan. I, on the other hand, quite like this organization. It’s fair to say that I like it more than Lee. I have warm feelings towards the organization and many deep ties within it. I’ve probably gotten more pushback from Lee for defending this organization and its research than I have gotten from the organization for attacking it. Though clearly the night is young on that last score! Nevertheless, I like you.

My next words are going to be harsh. They are going to sound more arrogant than I intend. But I respectfully submit these words – words from someone who likes you – for your thoughtful consideration. (You know when someone puts that on a slide, it’s about to get rough).

If you think the proper response to a poster you find offensive is to whine to senior leadership to have them rip it off the wall…

If you don’t want MAGA people in this room because they make you uncomfortable…

If you run from a vigorous scientific debate on Twitter to a Bluesky echo chamber…

I have words for you. Two words primarily. Words from a candid friend who likes you.

Grow up.

This organization does not exist for your comfort – or mine.

This organization does not exist to validate your political opinions – or mine.

This organization does not exist to soothe your fragile self-esteem – or mine.

This organization properly exists for one reason and one reason only: To pursue the objective truth of social psychology via the scientific method.

Now I’m a freedom loving, live-and-let-live American. I have no desire to stop any of us from finding a political group therapy session, and there are millions of places we can go for that purpose. But this? This cannot be that.

Now what’s going to happen if you ignore us? Me, Lee, Nate, and the many sensible people trying to tell you that you’re going off your moorings. That’s the easy part. This is going to happen:

This organization is currently on a long, slow slide to cultural irrelevance. It’s already happening. Remember this guy?

He probably has more cultural influence right now in his pinky finger than all of the scientists at this conference combined. Lee Jussim has written about how his career has taken off since he’s broken with you. And quite frankly, I sell more books the farther I get from you.

Your temptation is going to be to say it’s those darn rich conservatives. No. No, this isn’t about them. SPSP, this is about you. It’s about the fact that people don’t trust organizations that are not supposed to be political when they turn political; and you’ve turned political. That’s true, by the way, even when people agree with your politics. So you’re not just losing conservatives; you’re losing liberals.

SPSP, you cannot have this both ways. You have to choose between these two faces. This is a crossroads moment. You have to decide what you really believe. You can either put the scientific method back in its proper place as the central guiding principle by which we make judgments in this organization, or you can prepare to be irrelevant.

What’s it going to be, SPSP?

It’s your call. The End.

---

Epilogue

Lee here, temporarily. After the SPSP panel, I shared my recommendations for depoliticizing SPSP with the other panel members, including Luke. You can find mine here. This inspired Luke to come up with his own list, which partially corresponds to mine, partially revises some of the same ideas, and also expands on the list. Those are presented next.

Luke’s Recommendations for De-Politicizing SPSP

1. Have a fully bi-partisan committee of SPSP members audit its website, journals, and conference for political demonization rhetoric, progressive value statements, and progressive policies that are essentially pre-scientific. Any policy that promotes a pre-scientific political agenda should be removed.

• 1a. Things that almost certainly will have to be removed include anything about “white supremacy,” “colonialism,” “anti-racism,” any use of the political word “equity,” positionality statements at journals, and DEI requirements for conference and journal submissions.

2. An immediate rescinding of the criteria for conference selection that explicitly exclude conservative locales, and a formal acknowledgment of the bias of the current policy.

3. Formally remove the ACEMAP report as an officially-sanctioned policy of the organization.

4. Develop a serious plan for creating an environment for welcoming non-progressive scholars. This would include, but not be restricted to, conservatives and Christians. None of these recommendations should promote a pro-conservative or pro-Trump organization, nor should any of them discourage progressive scientists. Rather, they should signal a welcoming big tent to excellent scientists of all persuasions, regardless of politics (or lack thereof), religion (or lack thereof), race, creed, LGBTQ+ status, or any other variable.

• 4a. This plan should include, at a minimum, a formal public acknowledgment that the organization has become too overtly anti-conservative, anti-Christian, anti-Western, and anti-Trump – and that it has intentions to change course and welcome non-progressive scholars who want to pursue good science (in addition to maintaining a welcoming attitude to progressive, and all other, scholars).

• 4b. This plan should also include, at a minimum, statements on SPSP’s materials that formally welcome political persons of all ideologies (including, but not limited to, conservatives and Christians), in addition to maintaining welcoming statements to progressive and all other scholars across the board.

5. Efforts should be made across the board, at every level on every committee, to ensure better ideological representation from non-progressive members.

• 5a. That is especially true for any committee designated to discuss “Diversity and Inclusion,” where it is vital that such a committee would purposefully (and formally) include a range of balanced ideological perspectives.

6. A public commitment that the conference “themes” will always be centered around basic science themes, and never around political activism.

7. Create a committee whose sole purpose is to actively promote the scientific method within the organization, to explore ways to create a vigorous, objective science, and have that committee author a formal report/statement that is to be included in the organization’s policy.

8. Commit to a policy of selection for the Presidential Plenaries that focuses more on science and/or is more ideologically balanced. Specifically, I recommend that a standing bi-partisan selection committee be formed to judge the political status of the proposed plenary speakers. That committee should focus on the following criteria (not just for the immediate future, but forever):

• 8a. Only one of the two speakers each year at the Plenary should be selected to give a speech that has a progressive activism theme. The other speaker should either be a neutral science-first speaker or a conservative.

• 8b. To ensure better balance, at least every other year – so one out of every four Presidential Plenary speakers – the speaker should be explicitly conservative. This serves to ensure that SPSP is giving a voice to the currently most proportionally underrepresented group at the organization: Conservatives.

---

Commenting

Before commenting, please review my commenting guidelines. They will prevent your comments from being deleted. Here are the core ideas:

1. Don’t attack or insult the author or other commenters.

2. Stay relevant to the post.

3. Keep it short.

4. Do not dominate a comment thread.

5. Do not mindread, its a loser’s game.

6. Don’t tell me how to run Unsafe Science or what to post. (Guest essays are welcome and inquiries about doing one should be submitted by email).