• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Race is a human/social construct.

Here is a good paper on the biological fact of the existence of race in the human species.

http://www.goodrumj.com/Mayr.html

The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality
Ernst Mayr, 2002

[snip]
You need to put other people's work in quotes so we can tell which are your words and which aren't.


The piece is very much a sociological point of view of race.


Welcome to the forum, BTW. :)
 
Race doesn’t categorize meaningful biological groups it categorizes cultural/social groups.

Are you using "Race doesn’t categorize meaningful biological groups it categorizes cultural/social groups" as an argument to support the idea that race is a social construct? If so, that's just circular reasoning. If not, then I must be misunderstanding you.

On the contrary, plate tectonics are fairly clear on the matter. Geopolitics has need of other definitions and uses them

Can you prove that there is an objective scientific standard for what is and is not a continent based on plate tectonics?
 
You need to put other people's work in quotes so we can tell which are your words and which aren't.


The piece is very much a sociological point of view of race.


Welcome to the forum, BTW. :)

Thanks.

Can you prove that it is a sociological point of view on race? Ernst Mayr was an evolutionary biologist, and the paper is in support of the existence of races in the human species as an objective scientific fact, based in biology.
 
Last edited:
here's just one paragraph from the chapter...
 

Attachments

  • t.jpg
    t.jpg
    43.9 KB · Views: 7
Assuming this when you haven't even read it sounds ironically like confirmation bias....
Skipping all the points you've been challenged on suggests confirmation bias.

You said you don't know enough about genetics to answer why it is not arbitrary to use skin color and not blood groups to identify 'race'.

Your answer is, you read something convincing. But if you don't know enough about it, how can you argue you do?

So which is it, you get it and Wade is right? Or Wade sounds right to you and we don't, but you don't really have the background knowledge to be sure?
 
BTW you seem to have ignored the posts above debunking you equation of race with species or sub species (you equated it to both). Race is not a synonym for either of these, nor are there any such divisions in humans, we are all one sub-species.

I will edit my post to reflect the fact that what you are arguing against was not my words, but the words of world-renowned taxonomist and evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr.
 
I must appeal to expertise and ask you debunk the Wade chapter on race.

The methodology being used is essentially worthless from a scientific perspective. The number of degrees of freedom available in human genetics should allow you to carve out a near infinite number of groups. When you have this many degrees of freedom the significance of finding a match with something basically drops to zero.
 
here's just one paragraph from the chapter...
Yep, that's exactly what I thought the argument was and I'm very familiar with this argument. I even referred to it earlier but you missed it because you are so sure if we only knew what you knew we'd agree with your argument.

It's not that we don't understand or know about the argument you are making. We do, or at least I do.

Here's where I referred to the argument:
... I have a very good handle on the race debate. I've also been in more than one of these discussions and watched the controversy evolve from, there are no race divisions (See the Mary-Claire King lecture I linked to above), to someone discovered there are clusters of genetic identifiers which can predict race. Yeah, we can do the same with blood type or blondes vs brunettes, that doesn't mean biologic 'race' was identified.....



I had actually addressed the point earlier:
...That there are diverging and emerging genetic lines is not in question. The question is when do these genetic lines diverge enough to truly represent a subspecies. And if you have continual remixing, how many races are you going to divide the human population into?

Let me give you a hypothetical. Suppose it's determined that someone with a certain cluster of genetic identifiers successfully predicts the person will appear as a Negro and someone with another cluster of genetic identifiers will predictably appear to be of Asian descent. You then determine the amount of genetic differences between the two groups.

Now you take two people of European descent and find they have the same % of genetic differences between them, but they are traditionally considered to be from the same race.

Why are the 4 of them not 4 different races?
You've chosen outward appearance. Genetically within the human population, you've simply chosen to arbitrarily single out certain unimportant genetic differences.

Socially, those differences have been important. But they are not important genetic divisions. Blood groups, for example, are much more significant genetic differences when it comes to reproductive compatibility, an important biologic distinction when considering species and sub-species.

You are stuck in neutral. Try to hear what is being said.

No one is denying one can find that cluster of genetic markers that predict previous race categories. It is possible to do the same for blood groups. It is possible to do the same for hair color/type alone. It is possible to do the same for height.

Those distinct groups only occur when you chose arbitrary criteria to group. That makes race a social grouping. There are not scientifically logical reasons to group the biological features of blacks because the genetic basis for the outward appearance is no more important biologically than the genetic basis for hundreds of other inheritable things.
 
The methodology being used is essentially worthless from a scientific perspective. The number of degrees of freedom available in human genetics should allow you to carve out a near infinite number of groups. When you have this many degrees of freedom the significance of finding a match with something basically drops to zero.

Off for a bit. This sounds like extreme fluff. What do you even mean here?
 
SG

So then what evidence do you need to conclude that race is more than social?
 
The challenge is this: It seems this "race does not exist" idea only applies to humans. I've never seen it applied to another species, which makes me suspicious and unconvinced. So I challenge those arguing for it to find another species which once fooled scientists into thinking that it was sub-divided into various races due to discernible morphological differences, but eventually genetic research revealed that these races did not exist.

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...r&ei=BskOULeZOMm80QWiw4HAAg&ved=0CEoQgAMoAjAA

The Taxonomic Sub-Committee of British Ornithologists Union Records Committee makes the follow recommendation:

Red-throated Diver Gavia stellata
The greyish edges to mantle feathers that are said to
be characteristic of G. s. squamata from Spitzbergen
and Franz Josef Land are variable within the species
(De Korte 1972. Beaufortia 19: 113–150). It is recommended
that Red-throated Diver be treated as
monotypic.

I'm not sure if the "genetic" nature of the research was important to your argument as I haven't put any effort into following it. Hope this helps. :)
 
SG

So then what evidence do you need to conclude that race is more than social?
A biological reason why dividing groups by race isn't arbitrary.

Haplogroups are not arbitrary. In genetic mapping such a grouping makes sense. You would build an accurate family tree using haplogroups.

Using outward appearance you would have a family tree with multiple errors.
 
A biological reason why dividing groups by race isn't arbitrary.

How would you define "arbitrary"?

Are the objective biological differences between a Sami and an Australian aborigine more arbitrary than those between a Bengal tiger and a Siberian tiger? Why, or why not?
 
It may be that our conventional understandings of race, such as "black" groups and "white" groups are somewhat flawed. This does not invalidate the concept of race itself.

You seem to be trying to create a new meaning of "race".

When evolutionary biologists first attempted to ditch the word in the 1930s and 40s (Julian Huxley, the Dawkins of his age, proposed that "race" should be replaced with "ethnic group" in the 1930s) it was against a backdrop of outdated Victorian-style thinking and Nazi racism. "Race" meant "superior" white people and "racially inferior" other people.

Even today many of the people who talk about "race" are doing so because they want there to be a "them" and "us" situation. It is being used in a negative, anti-factual, way.

I don't see the value of using the word. I don't see how it helps to explain or understand anything. Especially if you are going to try to come up with new meanings.
 
You seem to be trying to create a new meaning of "race".

When evolutionary biologists first attempted to ditch the word in the 1930s and 40s (Julian Huxley, the Dawkins of his age, proposed that "race" should be replaced with "ethnic group" in the 1930s) it was against a backdrop of outdated Victorian-style thinking and Nazi racism. "Race" meant "superior" white people and "racially inferior" other people.

Even today many of the people who talk about "race" are doing so because they want there to be a "them" and "us" situation. It is being used in a negative, anti-factual, way.

I don't see the value of using the word. I don't see how it helps to explain or understand anything. Especially if you are going to try to come up with new meanings.

I am not trying to create a new meaning of race. I subscribe to the definition of the word as used by the biologist Ernst Mayr and other evolutionary biologists. To associate the use of the word "race" with Nazis or other racist people is merely an example of the guilt by association fallacy. I suppose the Nazis rarely actually used the word "race", in fact, because they spoke German for the most part.

The concept exists as a biological reality. Whether you call it "race" or whether you call it "schmagoogie" is immaterial.
 
Last edited:
Also, I get the feeling that not everyone in this thread is even having the same argument.

For those who say there are no races in the human species, is there any way you could be proved wrong? That is, is this a falsifiable position?

Edit: I could also ask the same of others who do believe there are races in the human species.

A good question.

It comes down to semantics. What do you mean by race? Many Victorian biologists meant that the "white race" was superior to the "black race" who were superior to apes. They saw a sliding scale onto which they put humans, mainly according to skin colour and nothing else. White man at the top, Chimp at the bottom.

In the way in which Nazi scientists used the word "race" there are no separate races. In the way in which the apartheid South African Govt used the word "race" there are no separate races.

There could theoretically be a separate human race or sub-species, but there isn't one alive today. Unless you want to use a different definition of "race" to that used by so many other people?
 
Are you using "Race doesn’t categorize meaningful biological groups it categorizes cultural/social groups" as an argument to support the idea that race is a social construct? If so, that's just circular reasoning?
Race is a social/cultural categorization therefore races are social/cultural constructs. How is that circular?
Can you prove that there is an objective scientific standard for what is and is not a continent based on plate tectonics?
Pre-plate tectonic definitions don’t hold much meaning in modern geology, their understanding has moved on. They don’t care about older definitions of continents nor do they see any need to reconstruct those definitions so they can hold onto them. The real question is why some people can’t do the same with race and biology.

I will edit my post to reflect the fact that what you are arguing against was not my words, but the words of world-renowned taxonomist and evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr.
No, I’m arguing against your words and even edited they have the same issues. There are no other sub-species if humans so even if you incorrectly use race as a synonym for subspecies separate “races” don’t exist.

BTW argument from authority is only valid as a form of argument if the authority is saying so thing most similar experts will say. In this case we know what biologists and geneticists say, they say humans are all part of one sub-species. Any appeal to an “expert” who says otherwise is a fallacy of an appeal to illegitimate authority.
 
I am not trying to create a new meaning of race. I subscribe to the definition of the word as used by the biologist Ernst Mayr and other evolutionary biologists. To associate the use of the word "race" with Nazis or other racist people is merely an example of the guilt by association fallacy. I suppose the Nazis rarely actually used the word "race", in fact, because they spoke German for the most part.

The concept exists as a biological reality. Whether you call it "race" or whether you call it "schmagoogie" is immaterial.

Then why did the majority of evolutionary biologists stop using the word in the 1940s? What is Ernst Mayr arguing against in his insistence that there are races? One (credible) scientist arguing against the majority position on an issue is not evidence that wins the agument. It simply shows that, as with most scientific issues, there is debate and minority opinion. Mayr was wrong about the gene not being a significant factor in evolution, so he is not infalible.

Whether the idea is proposed by Mayr or you, I still don't see the point of using "race". What value is it? What do you think we gain by saying that there are races? Especially if you want to ditch the association with skin colour that has been central to all previous race claims.
 
A good question.

It comes down to semantics. What do you mean by race?

http://www.goodrumj.com/Mayr.html

"...What is race? In particular, adherence to different political and moral philosophies, as we shall see, permits rather different answers. But I believe it is useful at the outset to bracket the cultural factors and explore some of the implications of a strictly biological approach.

The evolutionary literature explains why there are geographic races. Every local population of a species has its own gene pool with its own mutations and errors of sampling. And every population is subject to selection by the local environment. There is now a large literature on the environmental factors that may influence the geographic variation of a species. For example, populations of warm-blooded vertebrates (mammals and birds) in the colder part of their geographical range tend to larger size (Bergmann's rule). Darwin wondered whether these climatic factors were sufficient to account for the differences between geographic races in the human species. He finally concluded that sexual selection, the preference of women for certain types of men, might be another factor leading to differences between geographic races.

This kind of biological analysis is necessary but not sufficient. By itself, biology cannot explain the vehemence of the modern controversy over race. Historically, the word "race" has had very different meanings for different people holding different political philosophies. Furthermore, in the last two hundred years there has been a change in the dominant philosophy of race.

In the eighteenth century, when America's Constitution was written, all our concepts were dominated by the thinking of the physical sciences. Classes of entities were conceived in terms of Platonic essentialism. Each class (eidos) corresponded to a definite type that was constant and invariant. Variation never entered into discussions because it was considered to be "accidental" and hence irrelevant. A different race was considered a different type. A white European was a different type from a black African. This went so far that certain authors considered the human races to be different species.

It was the great, and far too little appreciated, achievement of Charles Darwin to have replaced this typological approach by what we now call population thinking. In this new thinking, the biological uniqueness of every individual is recognized, and the inhabitants of a certain geographic region are considered a biopopulation. In such a biopopulation, no two individuals are the same, and this is true even for the six billion humans now on Earth. And, most important, each biopopulation is highly variable, and its individuals greatly differ from each other, thanks to the unique genetic combinations that result from this variability.

Let me illustrate the implications of individual differences by analyzing the outcome of the 2001 Boston marathon. Kenyans are a population famous for producing long-distance runners. Three Kenyans had entered the race, and it was predicted that they would end the race as numbers one, two, and three. However, to everybody's great surprise, the winner was a Korean, and, even more surprisingly, number two was an Ecuadorian from a population that had never been credited with long-distance running abilities. It was a clear refutation of a typological - or essentialist - approach to thinking about race.

...

When dealing with human races we must think of them as the inhabitants of the geographic region in which they had originated. Presumably each human race consists of individuals who, on average and in certain ways, are demonstrably superior to the average individual of another race. Eskimos, for instance, are superior in their adaptedness to cold. In the last four or five Olympics there were always six to eight contenders of African descent among the ten finalists in the sprinting races, surely not an accidental percentage.

These considerations should teach us how we should think about human races. A human race consists of the descendants of a once-isolated geographical population primarily adapted for the environmental conditions of their original home country. But, as is illustrated by the success of Europeans and Africans and Asians in all parts of the world, any race is capable of living anywhere. Most importantly, a race is always highly variable: any human race will include a wide variety of extraordinary individuals who excel in very different human abilities."
 
Last edited:
Off for a bit. This sounds like extreme fluff. What do you even mean here?

I’m saying when you have many degrees of freedom you can find almost any correlation you want so the existence of correlation is meaningless.
 

Back
Top Bottom